page_0004

4.

form divine"? Why are we so shadowed by words like "adumbrate"? Why
are we so obsessed with the word "obsess"? Why must we say any novel
incident "gives us furiously to think"? Why, instead of 'saying "no",
must we say "the answer is in the negative"? Why must we declare that
"the psychological moment" has come, when we merely mean that there is
a good chance? Some time about the end of the War Mr. Lloyd George
talked about "exploring avenues", and somebody else talked about "making
gestures". Ever since then we have gone on exploring avenues and
making gestures until the words have ceased to mean anything at all.
You remember Pinkerton, in Stevenson's novel The Wrecker, was very fond
of what he called "boss" words. His chief "boss" word was "hebdomadary".
Well, we are all apt to fall into the habit of "boss" words and use
them too often. I do not know how often I have read in recent months
that some particular scene in which I participated was "colourful".
Heaven knows I am not colourful!

The second danger afflicts us especially today because of
our popularising of science. Some of us have got into the habit of
using semi-scientific phrases, especially the terms of psycho-analysis,
so habitually that we are ceasing to be able to express any clear meaning.
The worst of these abstract phrases is that they are ineffective
and obscure, for they are incapable of a precise definition, and their
use by writers and speakers is merely a cloak for confusion of thought
and intellectual laziness. Take that awful word "reaction", which is
particularly rampant among our friends in the United States. I do not
know how many letters I have received from America asking what my
"reaction" was to something or other. I suppose what the writers
meant was what I thought about it. Why could not they say that? I