"If the major players involved at the coalface of conflict resolution don't sing from the same hymn-sheet, the window of opportunity afforded at this point in time will have to be put on the back-burner. At grassroots level, the bottom line is that the hearts and minds of the silent majority yearn to see peace copper-fastened as the number one priority to ensure that a level playing field becomes a reality and the North can step on the gas to climb the totem pole to the cutting edge of economic opportunity," reports a high-powered committee composed of people with a bird's-eye view of the situation.
The think-tank, which regularly burned the midnight oil, was convened by President Gush, the leader of the free world. With no axes to grind, its mission statement is, at the end of the day, "to build a bridge over the troubled waters of sectarian division". In order to ring the changes, the members knew they couldn't simply pull a rabbit out of the hat so they set out to cover all the bases. "We believed it was mission-critical to explore every avenue and to engage in dialogue with all sides," said a spokesperson, Mr Charlie Cliche, "otherwise, we wouldn't be at the races".
The committee said it was mining a rich vein of hope for a better future. Donning the mantle of chairman, Mr Mick Metaphor advised all warring parties to "chill".
"If violence is not to raise its ugly head again, the acid test for politicians is to bite the bullet, grasp the nettle and bring home the bacon. Nobody's being asked to show the white feather or to abandon their sacred cows. We know that all sides have Achilles' heels but we believe that if the red herrings are eliminated, we can switch on the green light and power full steam ahead for peace. The ball is now in the politicians' court and to get over the hump, they should wipe the slate clean," he added.
"If not, we will keep up this guff until it becomes the final nail in the coffin of sanity. It's grist to our mill and we have much more in our state-of-the-art pipeline which can come onstream pronto," he explained. "Our report may not have the answers to all our prayers but it is our strongly held belief that it can impact on the log-jam, get behind the eight ball and progress the situation. Even though the goalposts haven't moved, as a result of our efforts, there is now light at the end of the tunnel on the menu and we believe we are on the right track. To avoid queering the pitch, we all need to swallow bitter pills, trim our sails, avoid upsetting the apple cart and feel the hand of history on our shoulders."
Right. Thank you, Mr Cliche and Mr Metaphor. You have hammered home your point.
And so it goes - and has for decades. George Orwell - who described the disease as "phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen house" - tried to take up the cudgels against people of the ilk of Charlie and Mick. But, as the man said, time has ridden roughshod over his crusade. It seems to be a losing battle because once you get caught in the net, it's hard to find an escape hatch. Trying to blow the whistle on language that is as dead as a dodo means that the order of the day is we must take the bull by the horns. The guff has a life of its own. Once you start, it's difficult to know where to draw the line in the sand. (Sorry, but it is addictive.) Orwell wrote his essay, Politics and the English Language, in 1946. Since then, it has become an almost sacred text for generations of journalists and writers. His target wasn't merely lazy, prefab ("off the peg") English but the thinking - or, more precisely, lack of thinking - which causes it. Ever political, he believed that thought corrupts language and language corrupts thought. To reform language is also to reform politics.
He was right in maintaining that the state of the language is a political question. However, he is often misunderstood and misappropriated. It is unfortunate that pedantic grammarians, generally conservative in outlook, cite him to support their arguments. It is equally unfortunate that some left-leaning people argue that even basic grammar and punctuation is a "construct" of a tyrannical power-elite and should be treated with contempt.
While there is nobody in the current Dail who clacks in cliches or mixes metaphors with the gusto shown above by Charlie and Mick, neither is there anybody who makes memorable speeches. The exchanges are mostly humdrum and the cliches tepid. That said, bellowing voices, oratorical flourishes and theatrical gesticulations in the cause of emphasis are - despite notable exceptions - embarrassingly pompous. But between the bland and the blunderbuss styles, it ought to be possible to be engaging on even mundane topics. Is there anybody in politics that you'd listen to just for the joy of it? Then again, given the shift in power since Orwell's time, from governments to the private sector, perhaps the most vile hogwash nowadays is spoken and written by management consultants. Consider "downsizing" and "de-layering" and even the abuse of a simple word such as "efficiency", to mean sackings. It used to imply competence and good work.
Prefab language and deceitful euphemism are not the only games in town, of course.
Many academics are as offside as politicians, media people and business managers and they too merit the red card. (It strikes me at this point in time that if I use enough cliches, you can't be sure what's parody and what are blind spots, so my trump card now is to play the game for all it's worth and blame you for missing the joke. This is the Postmodernist Irony Escape - or PIE, for short - trick.) Anyway, academics. Now we're sucking diesel.
Try this: "If such a sublime cyborg would insinuate the future as post-Fordist subject, his palpably masochistic locations as ecstatic agent of the sublime superstate need to be decoded as the `now-all-but-unreadable' DNA of a fast deindustrialising Detroit, just as his Robocop-like strategy of carceral negotiation and street control remains the tirelessly American one of inflicting regeneration through violence upon the racially heteroglossic wilds and others of the inner city." Talk about stating the obvious, eh? The writer is a Prof Rob Wilson, an American, but Ireland is now a fertile breeding ground for similar blather. Prof Wilson's contribution appeared in The Administra- tion of Aesthetics (University of Minnesota Press). It won him a prize in the annual Badwriting Contest, run by Johns Hopkins University, but it's just one of many (sorry, a plethora of) equally ridiculous efforts which can be read, albeit with great difficulty, at www.ionet.netcbb/ badwrite.htm Not all academics write with Prof Wilson's "style". Most do not - but too many do. In fairness, different areas of study, like different genres of writing, require different forms of expression, which inevitably result in jargon. Some abstract ideas require complicated language. But impenetrability often appears to be regarded as a virtue by people who ought to know better. Even acknowledging that all groups have their verbal Masonry, it's hard not to suspect that a determination to exclude the uninitiated is a prime motive behind excessive jargon. For centuries, lawyers have proved the argument.
Anyway, between the journalese, the jargon, the hogwash and the geek-speak of the computer nerds, what's to be done? The language has to evolve, so lobbying for a return to some version of Heritage English is not only silly but sure to fail (or even, doomed to failure). It's clear too, that contemporary speaking and writing styles cannot be divorced from contemporary technology, but this is now so widespread that the guff swamps us in tidal waves. "You're sad - get a life, wake up and smell the coffee," said a Dublin accent to a radio phone-in show I heard shortly before Christmas. Guff goes global.
Language is a difficult topic to write about without appearing prissy and condescending. Criticising people for the way they use words can be as insensitive as criticising people for their looks. Occasional cliches are fine and can work as a laxative against verbal constipation but too many, like too many laxatives, are dangerous and the inevitable gush is . . . well, you know.
Orwell's pursuit of dangerously bad language led him to look to where power and influence reside. Though much of his celebrated essay has dated, this aspect of it remains as wise as ever. Parts of advertising, business, politics, media, academia, religion, law and notoriously, of course, the military, mangle language for their own agendas. It's a good idea to listen carefully when power speaks. Then again, there's little new in power seeking thought control. If you're old enough, you will remember the Green Catechism with its questions and answers. Try these:
Q244. How do we love and serve our country?
A. We love and serve our country principally by observing its laws, defending its rights, voting honestly and paying just taxes.
Q245. Why should we respect and obey the lawful government?
A. We should respect and obey the lawful government because its authority comes from God.
Have a nice day.
Most of this piece has been assembled from a DIY columns (junior compendium) kit which I got for Christmas. It's great. It saves time thinking and means that when it comes to the crunch, everybody can get a fair crack of the whip to try their hands at this game. So, add another string to your bow, jump on the bandwagon and meet your deadlines (sorry, meet "with" your deadlines) in no time.