The World of Books

The World of Books by the books editor

What we look for in reading a book of any kind are new ways of seeing the world, or expressing a vision of it. This is what gives every new book its excitement.

Not all writers live up to our expectations, and prove dull and self-satisfied. The same is also true of many figures in public life, either in commerce or politics.

The other day, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, one of the world’s largest companies, Ben van Buerden (pictured), was speaking about the company’s results and its future prospects. The decline in oil prices meant that there would have to be cut backs on production and development. But these measures would not, so he said, involve just “slash and burn”. By this he meant there would be no wholesale destruction of assets. But the phrase he used does not convey that meaning at all. What he meant to say was the actions would not constitute “a scorched earth” policy.

Scorched earth

When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 the Russian army retreated, burning towns, villages, crops and supplies behind it. Napoleon’s lines of communications were extended so long that, in the end, “General Winter” destroyed the French army and the remnant had to retreat. That was a “scorched earth policy”.

“Slash and burn” is something quite different. It is a technique used by many indigenous tribes in South America. They cut down trees to make a clearing in the forest large enough for a ring of huts and a series of fields to grow manioc and other crops, burning off the under growth to clear the remaining brush wood.

They are thus able to plant on virgin soil rich with the ashes from the burning off. Here they can grow the tribe’s crops for a number of years. But when the soil is exhausted, they abandon the clearing, and move off to create another village and fields elsewhere. The jungle quickly reclaims old space.

Thus “slash and burn” is in fact an ecologically sound technique. It is not destructive but conservationist. It preserves the total environment in a way that modern developments by cattle ranchers in the Amazon cannot do.

It is certainly strange to hear one of the world’s most powerful men misusing a term which he has simply not thought about the meaning of. He has let a cliché do his talking for him.

This is a common thing, however. At the end of the Gary Glitter trial, the British police officer in charge of the investigation praised the women who had come forward to give evidence. He thanked them for their “testimonials” against Gadd – Glitter’s real name. Of course, he really meant testimonies, or evidence. But wishing to sound serious and reflective he reached for a word he confused the meaning of.

Silly slip

Are these just silly slips of the moment? I think not, similar things can be found in all kinds of books and publications these days, and in many speeches and interviews. Perhaps I am merely being a dull pedant to ask that words be used properly.

This resort to clichés is dismaying. But what is a cliché? Originally, it was a printer’s term. It meant to insert into the make-up of a page, when printing was done by hand, a readymade illustration block. These were slipped in as a convenience to avoid having to make a new illustration, with all the work involved.

The term came to be applied to pieces of speech that could, so to speak, be slipped into an essay or talk so as to avoid having to have a new thought.

People adopt these ready-made terms rather than put what they are trying to express in a new way. They are letting the clichés do their thinking for them, rather than go to the trouble of making a new phrase. But then thinking for ourselves is hard work at times.