Orwellian analysis of adverts

I am unable to get my hands on a camera to do a video blog, so I will have to do the Orwellian advert analysis with the written word, rather than speech. Looking at adverts with the specific intention of criticising the way in which they use the English language was quite interesting, with it being a common occurrence for things that Orwell disapproved of to appear.



The first line for this Fifa 10 advert: "10 thousand hundred heartbeats skipping..." wastes no time in using too many words. Why not just say "1 million heartbeats skipping"? This pattern continues throughout, with "10 hundred thousand scarves need knitting" being the next line. The whole advert seems intent on opposing Orwell. The use of similes and metaphors is also common. Stating that the game has "more wall than China" and "more battles than Genghis"....really? I don't think so. The slogan of both the advert and EA sports itself both come into criticism, when analysed: "How big can football get?" - a total ambiguous question. It wouldn't make me any more likely to buy the game and seems like a total waste at the chance of including a decent slogan. EA Sports' famous line "Its in the game" also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Whats in the game?

I will also analyse a couple of other adverts briefly. Firstly a visually clever advert from Barclaycard, that features a grand total of 2 spoken lines; both of them making next to no sense.



Firstly, "contactless technology from Barclaycard". Contactless technology, a phrase that wouldn't be out of place in 'Horries Bullshit Generator' it needs that much explaining to fully understand what they are talking about. Secondly; "Making payment simpler". Whats not simple about payment? I give my money, for which I receive goods or a service. This advert really does need to be explained further to make any sense to a normal person, otherwise the average viewer will simply remember it as "the advert with the water slide".

Finally, Iggy Pop tries to tell us why we should use Swiftcover, well sort of.



The first point I will raise is not necessarily about the use of language, more the idea that having everything done online saves a huge amount of time. You still have to trawl through different insurers finding the best quotes, it simply seems to be the case that rather giving someone your details over the phone, you type them in yourself, hardly a massive difference in time taken. The final slogan "Get a life. Get Swiftcovered" also brings up questions. By saying "Get Swiftcovered", I assume he means "Use Swiftcover". Secondly, by suggesting that without Swiftcover you don't have a life can be seen as simply mocking the viewer with "you re not good enough unless you use us". Obviously, the phrase probably is intended to illustrate the tedious point that with Swiftcover you have more time to yourself, but why leave it open to somewhere to read the advert in the opposing way?

These are just a few examples of adverts showing disinterest in the way that Orwell suggested the English language be used. But in practice, adverts are primarily used to sell products and if using tacky slogans and open ended questions are the best way of making money, companies are not going to give too much of a thought into the way they use language.

Orwellian views on English language

According to George Orwell;

"Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

It is this political language that Orwell blames for the failings of the English Language. Combining "Politics and the English Language" and the lecture last Thursday, we can see how the use of this bad English is having a huge effect on the way that we speak and write. It is from political speeches and the unwillingness to state plainly what we mean that people are taking new ways of speaking and writing and employing them on the English language.

Orwell described major issues in the way language is used, describing three common faults:

1. Dying Metaphors - The use of metaphors that are either no longer relevant in the context in which they are used, or where the meaning of such metaphors is lost or not fully understood by the writer.
2. Verbal False Limbs - Using verbs in phrase, rather than using single verbs that could be used just as easily. Orwell uses the example of using the phrase "render inoperative" instead of simply saying "break".
3. Pretentious Diction - The use of words used purely to dress up simple statements and to give the writer a sense of self importance.

In my opinion, it is the use of pretentious diction that is easiest to spot being used in speech or writing. Sometimes, if not all time, you get a sense that the use of such words and phrases is merely an ego boosting opportunity, and that using this language gives the writer a sense of self worth and cultural importance.

Back at school we were always told to describe things in detail, but surely as Orwells work implies, we should get to the point as quickly as we can. Being on a journalism degree, this is even more important. Get the facts; who, when, where, what, and eventually why. There is simply no need to mess about describing something in ridiculous amounts of detail.

Orwell describes how the decline of good English has spread and become the convenient norm. He talks how effects can become a cause and a vicious circle can begin. He uses the analogy of a man turning to drink;

“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. 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.”

Despite being written over 60 years ago, Orwells article is still relevant today. As a reader we accept all these little inaccuracies and sloppy language, but it is only when you contrast this unnecessary language with plain, straight to the point speech that you can really see how improper the English language has become.