I have been reading Harry Blamires's Plain English of late.

No pressure, then.

It has been an interesting read so far. I don't think I make too many mistakes in my writing that have been highlighted by the book (at least, not in my academic work. Blemires would have a field day with this blog, probably. Not that he included 'have a field day' in his list of overused expressions. I wonder what he'd make of this lengthy bit enclosed as it is in parentheses/is? Who knows? At the end of the day, given a ballpark figure he'd probably hit the provervial roof).

Ah-ha, did you fall into my clever and by all means deliberate trap, Blemires (and his followers)? Yes, by writing some rubbish prose just now I have hilariously highlighted the fact that a blog is meant to be a 'stream of consciousness' piece of writing; conversational in tone, and not subject to thorough correction. It is a dumping ground for thoughts, it serves the author more than its readers to the point of blatent and utter disregard of its audience (if you're reading this, I hate you).

I am not taking issue with 'plain English', nor with the book of the same name. In fact, I strongly agree with pretty much everything it said. Blemires himself often made the distinction between written spoken (or conversational) english, saying the latter didn't need to be as clear and precise as the former. But I do believe blogs belong in the realm of conversation, not in that of 'writing' (even though they are textual and last as long as the servers do).

The real problem is that by being in the public sphere, and therefore in some sense 'published', writing on the internet has an undeserved influence. If people are growing up reading things online at the expense of books, then it is going to have a negative effect on their writing... 'Proper' writing needs to be as clear as possible, and should avoid getting in the way of communicating meaning (I am reminded here of Foucault and his discussion of the pure language of the classification of plants).

The book takes issue with the language used by institutions in the public and private sector, in particular, the cloying, clumsy, generally rubbish use of the English language. They would be better off sticking to plain English, he argues. I wonder if much has been written about the development of this type of language as a manifestation of power and as an effort to exclude those without access to the latest shifts and trends in the vocabulary?

Overuse of acronyms and arbitrary use of 'corporate-speak' serves a purpose; namely, it excludes from the discussion those who have not picked up on the terms. it may also serve as a sort of code, possibly to mask intellectual deficiency in other areas? Probably lots of people have tackled this subject and dealt with it in a much less speculative and accursitory manner, but it is interesting nonetheless.

It reminds me of the use of language and the restriction of meanings as a manifestation of political power in Nineteen Eighty-Four. In fact, Blemires mentioned Orwell within the opening section, and I'm sure he was aware of this element of Orwell's work. Orwell's discussion of the power of language as regards thought processes is much more important than, yet neglected so much in favour of, his discussion of being 'watched by Big Brother'. As the story shows, you can escape Big Brother's watchful eye, but it is much more difficult to break out of the cognitive shackles imposed by language and its limitations.