Orwell for all (again)
Robert McCrum’s article in the Observer yesterday getting stuck into blogging was so poorly written and seemingly based on deeply entrenched ignorance, I almost took it for some ironic post-modern joke, guilty as it was of many of the crimes it levelled at blogging.
Blogs are ‘ignorant, bilious, semi-literate and depressing’, said McCrum, in his ignorant, bilious, semi-literate and depressing way. Basing his argument on George Orwell’s essential essay ‘Politics and the English Language‘, McCrum says that the English language is once again under attack; this time, not from politicians attempting to defend the indefensible, but from ‘the violence the internet does’ to our Mother Tongue.
The biggest drawback of Orwell’s rich and varied canon is that he can be all things to everyone. McCrum says blogging comes out badly when compared to the standards laid down in ‘Politics and the English Language’. I can refute his argument using a passage from the very same essay:
The defense of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.
To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a “standard English” which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one’s meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a “good prose style.”
My emphasis. McCrum betrays his ignorance of blogging by warning that the internet ‘is in danger of becoming a cacophonous nightmare’. Had he any real understanding of the medium, he would know that blogging is a peer-reviewed medium and (except for one or two very notable exceptions) the dross is discarded and the quality will almost always out.
McCrum also betrays his snobbery; from his lofty eyrie, he looks down on blogging. But as I’ve said before, there is a larger aspect of the medium that gets overlooked by the mainstream media and even bloggers themselves.
In Britain today, we have seven million people writing for pleasure. Many may write only for their immediate social circle and have readerships in the dozens but for all that, they are thinking, learning and ordering their thoughts. And as Jamie Kenny says:
What’s good about this is that it creates the general feeling that anyone can join in, that anyone can have a go. It’s tolerant of difference. It enjoys someone with something new to offer.
Blogging is inclusive. A blogger, if he or she is to become successful must reach out to other bloggers. There is, in some corners of Blogland, a very real sense of community. Many people, me included, have made lasting ‘real world’ friendships with people whose blogs they link to.
It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one’s meaning clear.
Posted on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:56pm under Blog, bloggers and blogging
Hi,
couldn’t have said it better justin, the more I have “debated” with other people on the net whether on cif or any other comment site the more my use of the english language is used as a tool to deflect from the points being raised.
Keep up the work,I look forward to your emails in my inbox and hopefully will have more time to reply to them
Joe
Jonny’s Law:
“The insight of a non-blogger writing about blogging is in inverse proportion to the level of recognition amongst non-bloggers of the particular blogs (s)he cites as examples.”
Basically, if you haven’t got past the ones wot the Guardian have featured and/or the top of Iain Dale’s list thing then the chances are that you haven’t delved too deeply. It works every time. I had always wanted to be someone who invented a Law, although frankly I was originally hoping for maths, chemistry etc.
“Something like fire, or the wheel.”
I thought that was an utterly bizarre piece. He spends most of it arguing (quite coherently & reasonably) against Orwell’s why-oh-why pessimism, then suddenly remembers he was supposed to write a why-oh-why piece himself & bolts on a couple of rather unconvincing paragraphs about how bloggers are nasty to each other, write too quickly and (worst of all) don’t get paid. I mean, I’m kind of with him on that last one being a bad thing – perhaps Chris could start a Blogger’s Basic Income campaign – but the idea that paid hacks reliably write better prose is absurd.
There is one huge difference between McCrum’s writings and that of 99.999% of bloggers – someone PAYS him to produce it – it’s his JOB.
His time would be better spent analysing the works of fellow professional ‘writers’ where he will find plenty to huff and puff about. A stroll through any branch of W H Smith’s will provide him with enough material to keep going for years without ever having to go near a computer.
I missed Phil’s comment about payment. I don’t agree with McCrum on this. You may as well complain that letter writers to newspapers don’t get paid (with more justification as well) but bloggers?
Bloggers no more deserve payment than stamp-collectors or steam-train restorers. If a blogger feels his/her work is worth hard cash there is a very simple answer – CHARGE. Then see how many visitors you get
McCrum edits one of the most tedious and uninventive literary sections in the known world. The Observer books pages have none of the vitality of the Guardian, or The Times – or even the bloody Mail On Sunday. His own books barely have an audience. He represents “old” publishing at its least creative…
I’d have some reservations, if only on the grounds that a lot of people who do not care about grammar and syntax do not make their meaning clear – and fail to do so partly because they don’t think grammar and syntax matter. As ever, it’s a case of it being a good idea to know the rules before you proceed to break them.
The existence of intelligible written English depends on there being certain agreed standards to which, in general – with all sorts of particular exceptions – we try to adhere.
Incidentally this is particularly necessary if we want anybody who is not a native English speaker to be able to understand our language.
Well, I hate to piss on everyone’s chips and disagree, but while I see blogging as both entertaining and rewarding, I believe that it has great potential to be very damaging indeed.
Before I started blogging, I spent years reading some of the worst wingnuts online, and I’m something of an expert in the misuses of information.
It’s a question of scale – at the moment, even the biggest sites are taking relatively low traffic, but as the internet comes to dominate our lives more and more the opportunities for mischief are going to grow proportionately.
We’ve seen how the news media have been scrambling to keep up, and that means less care paid to accuracy. And here’s the problem – while you say that blogging is peer-reviewed, that’s only true of sites that give a damn about accuracy.
Many, many bloggers don’t, and neither do their readers – they’re more interested in the comforting narrative that exists only inside their heads.
Cast an eye over the pond, and you’ll see the biggest sites – the Instapundits and Malkins – cranking out deceitful nonsense and almost never correcting themselves.
Peer review only works if we assume a basic regard for truth – we now have millions of people worldwide getting almost all their news from liars and bullshitters. Half the “fact-checking” I see over there is really just a cloud of bullshit intended to obscure the truth.
See also, the Israel-Lebanon war – a lot of people believe that the lessons of that conflict are not Military power doesn’t guarantee victory or Bombs make civilians dead, but The media deliberately distorts the news because it hates Jews and loves terrorists.
We’re heading into an era of pure informational mayhem, and that will create a perfect world for fraudsters, liars and conmen.
Well, like I say, sorry to bring everyone down.
To my mind Orwell is the patron saint of the good political bloggers and the clear writing you get on those blogs has evidently been influenced by Politics and the English Language. I like to think of some students learning cultural theory and its jargon trying it out on a comments thread and getting stamped on. You can’t get away with writing statements that are illogical or unclear or without evidence to back them up.
I don’t agree with you about grammar and syntax though – those that write well to my mind are writing grammatically as well.
Flying Rodent will no doubt find the above hopelessly idealistic. But I think his lousy bloggers are of the same kind of being as lousy tabloid editors, lousy saloon bar ranters, lousy leaflet producers, lousy rabble rousers of all stripes. No one ever read The Sun to be intellectually challenged and to have all the nuances of a subject debated. Those who have an appetite for lies and bullshit will always find someone ready to feed them.
the clear writing you get on those blogs has evidently been influenced by Politics and the English Language
I’ve spent years praising that essay. Incidentally, I’ve never come across a pop music writer who liked it.
“I’ve spent years praising that essay. Incidentally, I’ve never come across a pop music writer who liked it.”
What writers do they like? I think it’s hard to write about pop or rock music. You tend to be overly technical about equipment, chord progressions and the like or else produce breathless expressionism. Politics seems to lend itself to be described by language where with music you’re using one medium to describe another.
Well they mostly like themselves.
And Paul Morley, who Orwell would have nailed to the floor.
Mike, my point about payment was meant ironically – I agree with McCrum inasmuch as I’m all in favour of bloggers (e.g. self) being on a word rate (i.e. getting paid for something we already do for fun). Which wasn’t actually what he was arguing, clearly.
There – much funnier now.
Good piece.
The Rodent’s dislike of blogs with which he disagrees is something Orwell might have recognised, if not approved of.
In fact, the manner in which people have always bought the newspapers they agreed with has merely been translated into feed reader subscriptions. But with an important difference. Coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum, and having long been unable to overcome my distaste in order to buy the Guardian or Independent, blogs written by people on the left who are also functioning human beings have exposed me to more, not less, of an opposing viewpoint than before. So I subscribe to Norm and Harry’s Place, but not Lenin. And I only get reminded that there really are people who support movements that murdered 150 million people last century if I read the comments of the latter.
“Blogs With which (I) disagree” is certainly one way of putting it, although “Blogs which deliberately disseminate crude propaganda for partisan gain, with no respect for truth” might be more accurate.
Let’s not blur the line between honest mistakes and deliberate falsehoods.
The consensus seems to be that blogs are peer-reviewed and self-correcting. That is most certainly not the case with many of the biggest American bloggers – there are examples in Britain, too.
The old adage that a lie can be half-way around the world before the truth has got its boots on holds good here.
Spot on. I think it’s fantastic that so many people have discovered writing. I’ve always enjoyed writing the odd essay and the like, but since I’ve started blogging I spent hours and hours every week writing and I love it. I don’t have a big readership (though I did get cited in the Telegraph!) and although I do love knowing that at least somebody reads what I write and greatly appreciate the feedback, but ultimately I do it because I love writing.