The Weekly Wit: Why Words Matter
The Weekly Wit: Why Words Matter
On Orwell and the English Language; Reality makes a comeback, and Catfluencers.
Welcome to the second edition of The Weekly Wit, a satirical review of news and culture.
Why Words Matter
In his essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell lamented the decline in the standards of his mother tongue.
For Orwell, the evidence of decay was all around him. Orwell argued that sloppy language came from and led to sloppy thinking.
“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language,” he said. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
Orwell wrote that back in 1946. I wonder what the author of Animal Farm and 1984 would make of today’s standards.
With his typical knack for saying in plain language the resonant and enduring, Orwell’s claim that sloppy thinking produces sloppy writing which produces sloppy thinking is one of those unspoken truths obvious as soon as uttered.
This brings me to The Guardian. Last week, a Guardian columnist got a kicking for claiming the recent Finnish election, in which prime minister Sanna Marin lost, was infected with ‘misogyny’ and of course ‘fascism.’
As an aside, in that very essay from which I quote, Orwell said: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’” The same applies to ‘misogyny’ and ‘misandry’ and ‘narcissism’ and ‘falafel.’
In that column, the author claimed that Sanna Marin lost her re-election bid because of the forces of misogyny and fascism. This, reader, in a country which doesn’t have separate words for he and she.
Perhaps distinction is not the strongest suit of those who employ lame, and diseased buzzwords in lieu of real language and reasoned thought.
The author claimed that Sanna Marin’s recent viral video in which she had a few drinks and enjoyed herself at the death-flouting age of, erm, 36, beguiled misogynistic prudes to boot her from office. Mercifully, Finnish readers who actually know a bit about Finnish politics streamed letters into The Guardian. How they asked, was this due to misogyny?
In this election poisoned by misogyny, Sanna Marin, the now-former PM, won more seats in parliament than in her 2019 bid. The three candidates with the most votes— Riikka Purra, Sanna Marin and Elina Valtonen—were all women. Seven of the nine parties returned to parliament—including the ‘far-right’ Finns Party—are led by women.
Readers all said the same thing: Sanna Marin lost because of the ballooning government debt and their resultant Finnish discomfort.
As Orwell pointed out, sloppy language breeds sloppy thinking. Misogyny means, or used to mean, a severe and often pathological hatred of women.
Perhaps our Very Online, clickbait culture opts for the strongest, most lurid, and most potent definitions of words to attract attention in the undulating morass of the internet.
Indeed. ‘For a myriad of indiscernible, complex, often irrational and utterly human reasons, someone was somewhat unfavourable toward someone else today,’ doesn’t quite light up the sky as ‘Misogynist fascists ruin everything in total defeat for everyone and everything everywhere.’
Let’s stop saying what is the crazy cousin to what we think. You never know, reader, it might just catch on.
The Business of Reality
When I was a kid, I’d often clamber into the attic to hunt for an artefact with which to cause mischief, only to be side-tracked by old newspapers.
‘Wow, these people are like aliens,’ was the usual conclusion. I often wonder what those in the future will make of our current one-legged waltz with reality.
Once an art form, British small talk has taken a rather exotic and excitable turn.
In the news these days, all we talk about is whether women have penises or ‘What is a woman?’
This week, British prime minister Rishi Sunak claimed women did not have penises. Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition, reckons some do. Ask others and they um and ah and dissemble and deflect.
The British government is mooting changes to the law that would allow only women to access some same-sex spaces and sporting arenas. Plans to define sex in biological terms would provide ‘greater legal clarity’ to a host of fraught issues, said Politico.
In the relative idyll of 2014, saying a man had a penis wasn’t controversial nor did anyone invite ire for saying so.
Back then if one said ‘a man has a penis’ one would have invited puzzled and concerned looks. Uttering something so obvious may have indicated the utterer was obviously a sandwich short of a picnic.
Now, in some quarters, saying what is beyond your own nose might get you into a spot of Twitter-brained bother.
At least this age of performative theatre will keep future historians busy, and their students submerged in a constant state of bewilderment and mirth.
Catfluencers
We moderns still don’t know how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Some of the nuttier amongst us claim that aliens built the pyramids. Some of us currently on magic mushrooms claim the pyramids are like, spaceships, man.
The Egyptians knew something which we do not. Perhaps it has something to do with the Egyptian reverence of cats. The Egyptians thought cats were divine. Obviously, they built grand monuments in justified fealty toward them.
The Egyptians were right. Perhaps our failing civilisation should imbibe some Egyptian wisdom and elevate our feline demi-gods to at least above that of social-media influencers.
Better yet, deify cats themselves to be influencers.
Some already have. These Catfluencers print serious wonga just for being cats. Reader, this is just the first step. Once our feline superiors sever their dependence upon our wallets, there’s no stopping them.
I welcome our new feline overlords. As long as they allow me to smoke a cigarette in peace.
Witticism of the Week
“Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.”
— Gore Vidal
What I’m Reading
New York Times: The Liberal Maverick Fighting Race-based Affirmative Action by Anemona Hortocollis
Wall Street Journal: America is Back in the Factory Business by John Keilman
The New Yorker: Trump on Trial by Amy Davidson Sorkin
The Critic: The Performance of a Lifetime by Jean Hachet
Book: Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
YouTube: After Skool: Words That Hide the Truth
If you missed it…
A personal note…
Thank you for reading Oxford Sour. Feel free to send this column on to like-minds. And of course, please subscribe.
You’ll never take me alive,
Christopher
Oxford Sour
Why is gender appropriation not proscribed?
Mr. Gage, your satire approaches the level of Joseph Heller’s artistry! If you are just now reading Catch 22, which I have probably read 20 times, I expect a successful apprenticeship, surpassing the master...
Regarding Orwell, your audience may appreciate my earlier novel Proles - a Novel about 2084.