The writers who became adjectives — and what that says about us

We don’t merely read Orwell; we live in his shadow. We invoke Kafka while navigating the labyrinth of a government website, Machiavelli during political briefings, Dickens in reports about child poverty, and Shakespeare when reflecting on emotional chaos. These names, once simply signatures beneath manuscripts, have become intellectual shorthand—distillations of complex emotional and political landscapes into single, charged adjectives.

But when a writer becomes an adjective, what does that say about our culture? More importantly, what does it reveal about the way language not only describes reality but frames it? To call something Orwellian is not just to evoke surveillance, but to summon a moral reckoning. To describe a situation as Kafkaesque is to suggest the futility of logic in a world stripped of reason. These terms do more than illuminate—they embed themselves in how we think.

Orwellian: from warning to wallpaper

There was a time when describing something as “Orwellian” was a pointed act, a deliberate invocation of dystopian alarm. Today, it’s often a reflex applied to everything from government surveillance to corporate data collection and even school policies. But Orwell’s original insight went deeper than technology or bureaucracy; it lay in how language, through repetition and manipulation, could be weaponised to limit thought itself.

Newspeak, the fictional language in 1984, was designed to reduce the range of thought. Orwell feared that when words are twisted or eliminated, dissent becomes not just dangerous, but impossible. It wasn’t the camera that mattered most in Orwell’s world, but the vocabulary it stole from those being watched. To invoke Orwell, then, is to be reminded of how freedom depends on clarity of thought—and how both can be eroded without our noticing.

Kafkaesque: bureaucracy as horror

A Kafkaesque situation is not just frustrating—it is existentially absurd. It’s the email chain that leads nowhere, the immigration form that demands proof you cannot provide without already having it, the voice on hold that says “your call is important to us” while offering no human help. Kafka captured not just the bureaucratic nightmare, but the psychological disorientation that comes with it.

In The Trial, Josef K. is arrested without ever being told the crime, and each attempt at clarity only pulls him deeper into a murky web. Kafka’s genius lies in showing how systems built to serve can become ends in themselves, existing primarily to perpetuate their own logic. In today’s algorithmic labyrinths and digital echo chambers, Kafka feels less like a literary ancestor and more like a contemporary chronicler.

Machiavellian: strategy without scruple

We often reach for “Machiavellian” as a shorthand for deceit and manipulation, but the label does a disservice to Machiavelli’s nuance. In The Prince, he is less an advocate of tyranny than an anatomist of power. His insights were not prescriptions, but descriptions—observations about what rulers do, rather than what they ought to do.

Machiavelli’s central claim was not that leaders should be ruthless, but that morality must sometimes give way to necessity. A leader who wishes to survive must be willing to be feared, if love cannot be assured. In a media landscape defined by optics, spin, and image management, Machiavelli’s realism feels less cynical than clarifying. The Machiavellian instinct, at its core, is not malice but adaptation.

Think better. Get the FREE guide.
Join Veridaze and get 10 Mental Tools for Clearer Thinking — a free guide to cutting through noise, confusion, and nonsense.

Subscribe now

Dickensian: sentimentality with teeth

To describe something as Dickensian is to conjure a world of soot-covered children, foggy alleyways, and social cruelty softened by sentiment. But Dickens was more than a sentimentalist—he was a sharp social critic wrapped in a storyteller’s cloak. His fiction did not just reflect injustice, it exposed it, giving voice to those the Victorian establishment preferred to ignore.

In Oliver Twist and Bleak House, we find vivid portraits of institutional neglect and economic inequality. Dickens's genius lay in combining caricature with compassion, theatricality with reformist purpose. When we call a housing estate Dickensian, we’re invoking more than poverty—we’re gesturing toward systemic failure, often with an uneasy sense that not much has changed.

Borgesian: the infinite within reach

Describing something as Borgesian is to acknowledge a kind of metaphysical vertigo—the disorientation that comes from confronting infinite systems within finite space. Borges’s stories, from The Library of Babel to The Aleph, were not narratives so much as philosophical puzzles, constructed to make us question the nature of knowledge and the boundaries of reality itself.

Borges imagined worlds where maps overtook territories, where mirrors reflected not light but logic, where the act of reading became indistinguishable from the act of dreaming. In an age defined by recursive information loops, Borges feels more contemporary than prophetic. His genius was to suggest that what we think of as ‘real’ may be nothing more than the most persistent story.

Shakespearean: humanity, amplified

“Shakespearean” is the most elastic of these terms, and perhaps the most forgiving. To be Shakespearean is to embody emotional scale—jealousy that corrodes, ambition that consumes, love that redeems and destroys. It is to be recognisably human in ways that transcend time.

His characters were not symbols, but contradictions: Hamlet, paralyzed by thought; Lady Macbeth, undone by desire; Lear, broken by pride. These figures remain so potent not because we study them, but because we recognise ourselves in them. The world has changed, but the architecture of our souls, it seems, has not.

Conclusion: living language, living thought

These literary adjectives have become embedded in our cultural lexicon. They offer shorthand for emotional truth and political insight, allowing us to frame what might otherwise feel inexpressible. But they also carry the risk of flattening complexity into cliché.

To call something Orwellian may feel like critique, but often functions as resignation. To label a moment Kafkaesque is to acknowledge its absurdity without necessarily resisting it. These words, like the authors who inspired them, were meant to provoke thought—not replace it.

If we want to honour their legacy, we must do more than reach for their names. We must read them carefully, think with them rigorously, and apply their insights with the precision they deserve. Language shapes thought, but thought, if we’re not careful, can become language on autopilot.

The question is not whether these authors are still relevant. The question is whether we are still capable of using their words as springboards for understanding, rather than shortcuts for certainty.