The decline of the French language

I asked the reader who has been providing us with translations from the French:

Does it seem to you that the clarity of the French language, in the way French people use it, has declined? When I look at French literature from the 17th century for example, it seems wonderfully clear. But the way the French write today, the meaning seems much more vague and inexact. Do you think there’s anything to this?

For example, in this Malraux passage you sent me, he spends 300 words on what he calls a very serious Muslim threat, without saying at all what this threat consists of. While it’s well written, he mainly seems to be talking around the subject. If the threat is that serious, shouldn’t he tell us in what it consists? I can’t imagine an English speaker using that many words and saying so little.

Est-ce que je suis trop exigeant? :-) [Am I being too exacting?]

The reader replied:

I am flattered that you ask me these questions—how I wish I could answer them specifically! As for the French language, of course it was richer, clearer and more full-bodied (if I may compare it to wine) in the centuries of the monarchy and into the nineteenth century. Learning to read French literature was one of the joys of my life, and I was so impressed precisely by that “clarté” you speak of. The language has declined terribly in the latter half of the 20th century. Reading these French websites is often an agony. The slang, the acronyms, the horrible spelling, and the tendency to get entangled in specious “raisonnements” are all indicators of the collapse of their culture. French literature today does not exist, nor does poetry. And those who do attempt to write well are under the spell of political correctness, so they speak without saying anything. French magazines and newspapers are boring and often written in short elliptical phrases for those who can’t stand long sentences.

I believe the rise of totalitarian ideologies in the 19th century had something to do with all this. French writers and philosophers were suddenly dealing with terrifying ideas that had dreadful consequences and they could not cope. They tried to be more intelligent, more piercing than they were capable of and the result is boring and contradictory garbage that young people loved and quoted as if it were Gospel. I tried to read Sartre and couldn’t follow it. But he’s clear compared to others. The mutation of their culture meant the end of their language as well. Without great writers, you won’t have a great language.

Also, they are in such fierce competition with us that they twist whatever they say to ensure it does not sound too much like what an American would say. Recently on CNN Dominique de Villepin said that the riots were not real riots because nobody was killed, unlike American riots where people were killed (in 1992). He said the rioters were between the ages of 12 and 20, so it was a completely different type of event. What he was saying was that France’s riots are superior to America’s riots. When you think like this, how can you speak clearly?

But Malraux was writing in 1956 and I found his words clear, but possibly incomplete. If I can I will try to read more of him and try to locate the source of this quote—maybe it’s from a longer work. I seem to recall now some people complaining about his style of writing.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 03, 2005 01:23 PM | Send