I subjected my readers to a whine concerning the widespread & improper usage of the word deserves a few days ago. I was, perhaps inordinately so, pleased when reading George Orwell’s essay “POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE” to see his take on the subject is the same as mine:
[After giving five examples of bad political writing]
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose-construction is habitually dodged.
Apparently, bad political prose is nothing new. This is unsurprising as the use of certain words will subconsciously predispose readers to certain attitudes, even when their political response to a more accurate and neutral depiction of the issue at hand is otherwise. (Is this paragraph itself an example of bad writing? Yeah, probably.)
Thus, with deserves, the reader’s sense of self-importance is inflated, and their response to a societal policy which they deserve is more likely to be positive. It’s cheap, it’s skanky, and it’s more common than cockroaches.
And it’s a pity that such a dishonest approach is considered necessary, because, if it is uncovered, then the issue may be tainted for the comprehending individual; and if it had been framed properly, or honestly, it may prove to be a stepping stone to better arguments. Or, as Orwell puts it:
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.
Orwell’s essay is worth a read.
