Dickens and Orwell were on the same page

I'm reading David Copperfield for an English class and Dickens makes a comment about using verbose, ridiculous language. He says about the same thing that Orwell. I couldn't believe it when I read it this evening. What excellent timing! Dickens doesn't analyze this in an anthropological way. He instead makes a comment on how this use of language can get people into trouble, is meaningless and is generally silly. Throughout the book, Dickens uses a somewhat ridiculous character, Mr. Micawber, who likes to use over-the-top language (meaningless words, dying metaphors, extremely pretentious diction, and a lot of verbal false limbs) to show that this type of language is silly. In this passage, Mr. Micawber has just read a letter aloud that is in this language and the narrator, David Copperfield, comments on it. My comments are in brackets and in caps. Here's what Dickens has to say:

"Again, Mr. Micawber had a relish in this formal piling up of words, which, however ludicrously displayed in his case, was, I must say, not at all peculiar to him. I have observed it in the course of my life, in numerous men. It seems to me to be a general rule. In the taking of legal oaths, for instance, deponents seem to enjoy themselves mightily when they come to several good words in succession, for the expression of one idea;[VERBAL FALSE LIMBS] as, that they utterly detest, abominate, and abjure or so forth [PRETENTIOUS DICTION]; and the old anathemas were made relishing on the same principle. We talk about he tyranny of words, but we like to tyrannize over them too; we are fond of having superfluous establishment of words to wait upon us on great occasions; we think it looks important, and sounds well. As we are not particular about the meaning of our liveries on state occasions, [MEANINGLESS WORDS] if they be but fine and numerous enough, so, the meaning or necessity of our words is a secondary consideration, if there be but a great parade of them. And as individuals get inot trouble by amking too great a show of liveries, or as slaves whenthey are too numerous rise agaisnt their master, so I think I could mention a nation that has got into many great difficulties, and will get inot many greater, for maintaining too large a retinue of words." (David Copperfield, Dickens, ch. 52. p 758-9 in the Penguin edition.)

It is interesting that Dickens comments on how people in legal and political professions use this over-the-top language. We discussed the use of vague rhetoric in politics. Dickens also seems to think that this type of language gets people into to trouble and will continue to get the country into trouble.

As an English major and a fan of Dickens, I have to defend one of my favorite authors from Orwell's accusations. I know some people have a grudge against Dickens because they think that just because he got paid by the word he added extra, superfluous words. I would like to refute this. Dickens was paid to fill up certain amount of space in a monthly magazine. He wrote his novels in installments and planned out the novels to be at certain points at the end each installment. Therefore, there are places were he had to add passages to meet his length requirements. I don't think that Orwell would have accused Dickens of this degraded type of language. Dickens uses very original metaphors and descriptions, and, though his sentences are complex, they don't use a lot of passive voice, pretentious diction, or verbal false limbs.

It is interesting that this type of "degraded" language has been around for quite a long time. David Copperfield was written in 1849-50, nearly 100 years before Orwell wrote about the degradation of language. I think linguistic anthropology has made us aware of a type of rhetoric that has been around for a long time.