Most writers come from a middle to upper middle class suburban background. They have experienced no hardship. Even to have gone through National Service someone has to be at least 75 years old. Undertaking a job where mistakes can kill one,such as mining, fishing , construction, armed forces, forestry, farming, oil industry etc, etc forces an individual to face reality, namely death or injury. Most people in the UK can now live a life where a mistake does not cause death or injury; consequently they can live an existence cocooned from reality. If one looks at the toughest life a person can lead in Britain, it is probably in the Special Forces. These people have spent years training their minds and body to endure hardship, and survive when the slightest mistake will lead to death. Consequently, they can overcome extreme challenges. The less human trains their body and mind to endure hardship and overcome extreme challenges, the less they are capable of doing so. These writers are just a manifestation of much of western society, one that is incapable of enduring hardship and overcoming challenges, so it creates a reality with which it can cope.

Solipsism may be defined as the philosophical doctrine that my percepts alone exist. Peter Oborne and Anne Williams’s claim (March) that it lies at the heart of contemporary prose and political discourse reminded me of one of Bertrand Russell’s jokes. In his book Human Knowledge, Russell recounts how he received a letter from a logician who said she was a solipsist and that she was surprised that there were no others. No, solipsism is not at the heart of our political discourse – if only because that discourse presumes other people to exist. Subjective introspection, dippy self-indulgent thinking, egoism, narcissism and personal emotion have largely displaced reasoning in the practice of political speech-making and journalism. But an explanation of that trend needs to consider the influence of other philosophical doctrines. It might start with the doctrine of individualism: that the only thing that matters is the freedom of the individual to gratify their desire. And it might proceed to consider the doctrine that the rationality of our knowledge resides not in our willingness to argue over it, but in our commitment to our beliefs, or to our personal experiences and inherited traditions. For if we think that these give our knowledge an infallible pedigree that is ultimately beyond question, then what is to be gained from arguing over its content? If we subscribe to these kinds of doctrines then our political discourse will necessarily resemble a series of personal declarations, or even worse, it will be characterised by hysteric outbursts and the exchange of personal insults between those who simply disagree with one another.

We've been waiting over a month now for a source for the alleged GCSE revision guide. I'm tempted now to say that Mr Oborne "made it up".... "to make his argument more convincing"... If that is the case, the soft whirring you hear in the background is probably Orwell spinning in his grave...

I notice someone else has mentioned this above also but I have to add too and say the GCSE questions look made up "Present Opinions as Facts . . . to make your writing persuasive." I can't find a source for that outside this article. Has anyone a source?

@Dave Weeden You're quoting A E Houseman's "A Shropshire Lad", published in *1896* and using it to back up an article describing modern-day writing, as if it suffered from the same modernist faults? Not sure I follow you

A similar notion was expressed, from the American perspective, in Philip Roth's novel The Human Stain. The story, involving themes of race and identity, was a tool used to convey the prevailing message; the media, politics, and citizenry of the United States collectively went mad during the Clinton/Lewinsky controversy (1998), and it's a rabbit hole from which we have never managed to climb out.

Can we have a source for that GSCE revision guide? (so we can all point at it and laugh/cry)

Having a hard time believing the following: "The new narcissism is taught as an examination technique. Here are some tips from a GCSE revision guide for the English Writing examination: Use Emotive Language to get through to your reader . . . You could tell them some shocking or disturbing facts. Use Facts and Statistics . . . You can make these up if you like, but make sure they sound realistic. They'll make your argument more convincing. Add Generalisations . . . They're a good way to sound forceful and convincing. Include Personal Anecdotes to add interest. Present Opinions as Facts . . . to make your writing persuasive." We were always taught the value of facts and opinion and not to obscure them in writing. Has it changed that much in nine years? Evidence?

"Into my heart an air that kills/From you far country blows./What are those blue-remembered hills?/What shires, what farms are those?" As the authors rightly point out, self-centered ("my heart") claptrap like this may convey emotion quickly, even economically, but only to youth already dead of soul through exposure to advertising and television and, above all, the lack of a good classical education.

It's a bit of a shame that Bernard Levin fitted the description of a celebrity columnist so well, and him writing in the 60s. Ditto Clive James in the 70s.