Please respond to the essay below (or respond to the responses to the essay).
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
George Orwell on Language
More specifically, an essay called "Politics and the English Language". Orwell considers how people manipulate language in order to manipulate you. And he has some advice for you in case you want to speak clearly and honestly and truthfully.
Please respond to the essay below (or respond to the responses to the essay).
Please respond to the essay below (or respond to the responses to the essay).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Even though Orwell’s intent on writing “Politics and the English Language” was to bring to light some of the ways speakers use language to manipulate others, I took the article to be more of a should and should not list of how to write/speak. In “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell touches on several problems with the English language; problems which, I agree, need both recognition and help. I have, on several occasions, fallen into the word-meaning trap. I can definitely relate to Orwell when he says, “Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact” and “the person who uses [these words] has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” I can’t count the number of times I’ve said a word or phrase, meaning for it to mean one thing, but having the person that I’m talking to take it to mean something completely different. Worst of all is when I say something to my parents or younger brother who (due to the age differences) misunderstand what I’m saying because of the “new meaning” of the phrase I’ve used. For instance, while telling a story at dinner, I used the phrase “out the wazoo” to show that something was bizarre or extremely “out there”/unexpected. Sadly, my mother took it as an inappropriate reference and my brother thought it meant “out of my body”. Needless to say, the story took on three different plot twists with just a single phrase. Another subject Orwell explains that annoys me to no end is the use of foreign words or scientific terms in everyday language/”universally understood” speeches. I read books and listen to speeches to learn from them. If can’t understand them or break the literature down in the first place, how am I supposed to get anything from the book/speech or figure out what the author/speaker is trying to teach me. If I want to look at words like “weltanschauung” and “subaqueous”, I will read my chemistry or foreign language text books instead of listening to a public speaker or reading my pleasure reading book. With this in mind, I whole-heartedly agree with Orwell when he says, “there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases …or Latin or Greek words…now current in the English language.” The final argument that Orwell presents that makes me want to say, “Finally, someone else agrees” is when he says, “By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself.” There are hundreds of words in the English language that can be used to describe virtually anything to any level of description. Why, then, do we insist of using the same metaphors over and over? To make a point, when considering the overuse of these certain phrases/words, these horses are dead so stop beating them! (Ha Ha.) Overall, I sincerely wish that everyone (authors and politicians alike) would follow Orwell’s rules for writing. I personally think that following these simple rules would make almost all literary words much more entertaining, less “ugly”, and easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that this can be read as one of the most pretentious pieces of writing anyone can be forced to read. I don’t believe it was meant to come out that way, seeing as it is incredibly easy to come out as pretentious when attempting to discuss the ‘correct’ way to write and use language writing in your favor, but that’s how it can be perceived. I’m also not quite sure what he believed gave him the right to create six rules that all writers should follow, but I guess I have to respect him just because he had the gall to write them.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Orwell on a few of his points. In his essay, he spoke about how “the decline of a language” can be rooted to politics. This I can find some truth in. Politicians have learned the art of bastardizing language to the point of where no information can be gleaned from their speeches. In an effort to seem respectable, they have forgotten their audience. In order to disguise their very reasons for writing what they have, they ‘decorate’ their words with extra syllables and Latin roots. When a very simple (and not to mention, understandable) phrase can be used, they substitute a string of uncommon and often unrecognizable words. This is what, I believe, is a key reason that politics is a topic that outright puts people off. Nobody (under the category of the ‘common man’) can understand what the politicians are trying to defend or describe. I believe Orwell was correct when he wrote, that this new, overstated style is a sort of euphemism. Where a few simple words could describe something ethically horrible, a group of large, complicated ones could make it sound acceptable. In this respect, when looking at the list of six rules that he put at the end of his essay, I can see the purpose of 2, 3, 5, and 6. There is no point to using a long word when a short one can cause the same damage, or using a word at all when the statement can stand without it, or use a foreign term when a ‘simple man’s’ term will read the same. Why waste breath, time, or ink? Another point can be earned in favor of this essay where it discusses the use of double negatives (or, like in the example, the use of five negatives) to disguise a point. The writer is, whether intentionally or not, just confusing his reader and hiding the intention of his or her writing.
While I agree with him in that respect, I have to disagree when he speaks of over-used, ‘worn out’ phrases that are common in the English language. While this essay was mainly to show how they’ve been destroyed via political writings, I couldn’t help but think that some, not all, of these phrases (namely Achille’s heel and swan song) do more help than harm. Especially in the cases of political writings, a bit of familiar, ‘common’ language might actually help the reader understand exactly what they’re supposed to be reading, as long as these phrases aren’t distorted by over embellished words around them. In complete contrast to Orwell’s first rule, I believe that the use of a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech would actually help the reader and the language instead of harm it. Maybe these tools can’t be correctly used in political writings and I am putting too much stock into what I myself value in language, but I cant’ see the harm in using an ‘overused’ phrase once and a while. Why make new shoes when the old still fit? Why tear old language apart to create a new phrase that you aren’t ‘used to seeing in print’ when an old one will get your point across and maybe (possibly) give your reader a bit of satisfaction when they realize they can actually understand the point you’re trying to make? Don’t fix what isn’t broken.
-Veronica Spadaro
The question would be whether or not these metaphors could now be considered dead. If we know what a swan song is, but have no idea why we use that expression, then it's dead -- and Orwell would say that's okay. When you see Achilles' heel -- do you think of the Greek warrior?
DeleteI think that “Politics and the English Language" was a very eye-opening article to read, although I do think it was a bit long. Orwell makes many important points throughout his essay. I feel like he stated many problems with the English language that are really very obvious, but no one else has taken the time to actually write about in detail and fully explain why these problems exist.
ReplyDeleteI agree with alot of Orwell's rules, especially 2, 3 and 5. Rule 2 states, "Never use a long word where a short one will do". Honestly, I don't like when writers or speakers use long, extravagent words that are basically meaningless (at least to me) just to sound impressive or intelligent. This somehow is natural for people to do (I even catch myself doing this sometimes), however I'd much rather they use basic, simple vocabulary that we use in our everyday lives (and actually understand the meaning of) to get their point across. Writers and speakers who do that are more likely to interest me, because I can actually understand the concepts they are talking about instead of guessing or having to look up the meaning of every other word they write. Rule 3 states, "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out". Why would one use an excessive amount of words when they could use fewer? Extra words can only cause confusing and distract from the true meaning one is trying to convey. Lastly, rule 5 states, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent". I coulnd't agree more with this statement. As I mentioned earlier, I'd much rather a writer or speaker use everday words that I actually understand than long, extravagent ones. The same applies for foreign words. Most people don't know Greek, Latin, French, etc and have a hard time understanding English words derives from these languages. Chances are, there is already an English word for any of the derived foreign words writers use, so why not use the English word when your audience is English people?
In general, I think Orwell is saying that people use bad English because they don't try to use good English, not because they can't use good English. I agree with this conclusion. All writers seem to worry about is sounding impressive and intelligent, so they don't focus on the meaning of the words they use, thus creating bad English. If writers actually focused on only the meaning of what they are trying to say, and thought about their choice of words and the meaning of those words, using good English wouldn't be such a huge problem. Orwell also makes a point about extended metaphors. I agree that metaphors are often used where they don't belong. Alot of common metaphors are used in writing just because they sounds impressive or they seem to fit, when they really make no sense whatsoever. People tend to use these metaphors alot however, simply because they seem familiar and they don't want to take time to actually think of something that fits exactly with what they are trying to say. Orwell is saying that the result of a writers lack of effort is a bunch or "ugly", foriegn, excessive words and metaphors that no one really understands
Kristen Machuga
But sometimes that long word is just the right word. "Le mot juste". one might say. (oops!) You don't use long words to show off, but you do use them to be precise. And then, we don't where jeans everyday. Sometimes you want to dress up, be a little showy -- and the same goes for language.
DeleteHe's dead on about "if you can cut a word out, cut it out."
I have to say that Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" was very informative. It was long and kind of hard to keep up with but he did a very good job getting his point across. I believe that a couple of his rules will really stick with me.- 2, 3, and 5. 2 says that you should never use a long word where a short one will do. I think that in writing people believe that long extravagant words will make them sounds more intelligent, but in all honesty most people would rather the author cut to the chase. This also kind of goes along with rule number 5 which says never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. I'd personally read something that I can comprehend than have to try and decipher another language or even some scientific word that most people wouldn't know. If there is a way to make it so the general public can understand, then why not just use the everyday English?
ReplyDeleteRule 3 says if possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. This rule I think applies to me the most because whenever I write something, creatively or persuasively I am always very wordy and it tends to ruin the point I am trying to get across.
When it comes to Orwells opinion of English affecting politics, I don't really think that is particularly true. I do agree that people do not use proper English like they used to, but it does not mean that they do not know how. They just choose not to.
Overall, I think that Orwell is saying that people use bad English and it is affecting everyday life more than people think.
Allison Nadeau
When we call children who have their legs blown off by a bomb dropped during a "surgical strike" "collateral damage", that's political, and it obscures the truth, and it's dangerous.
DeleteI think Orwell would hate my writing because I break those rules all the time. Part of the reason I do that is so that it makes what I’m writing seem more complex, but really I just phrase simple things in really complex ways. Apparently that’s not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, that’s kind of how a lot of language arts teachers, especially in middle school, taught us to write. They always discouraged us from using simple words and always emphasized the need to elaborate, elaborate, elaborate. This kind of technique makes it very easy to lose the point of what you’re actually trying to say. Precision is key. I think the “pretentious diction” thing Orwell was talking about is used a lot in formal letters to make everything sound fancy and scientific. Nobody JUST GETS TO THE POINT anymore.
I completely agree with Orwell on the “Dying Metaphors” section. People skip right over the clever visual phrases and just comprehend the bland meaning. Or they completely misinterpret the meaning. If you want a reader to really pay attention to a point you’re trying to get across in a very certain way, you shouldn’t use dying metaphors.
A lot of Orwell’s rules I agree with or at least understand where he is coming from. However, I didn’t really follow what he was trying to see in the “meaningless words” section. He says words like “DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, FREEDOM, PATRIOTIC, REALISTIC, JUSTICE” are meaningless because they have more than one meaning, not one particular meaning. I don’t think that qualifies as meaningless. Words like that are often used when it is not important to be specific or precise; it’s perfectly okay and even necessary to be general sometimes.
Well, "elaborate" means to add more detail, more depth, rather than just add more words. But I think you're right in thinking that the educational system plays a part in encouraging over-writing.
DeleteAs to his last point: There are many people who don't like President Obama because he's a "socialist". These people have no idea what a socialist is. If you want to dislike Obama, fine -- but at least you should know yourself what it is that you actually don't like. "The terrorists hate our freedom." Really? What does that mean, exactly? Which freedoms?
Overall I think “Politic and English Language” was long and hard to understand at some points, but it was also very informative. It pointed many things that I had noticed before but never put any sense to, such as misused phrases or political
ReplyDeletemanipulations.
Orwell points out that we continue to use metaphors or similes that we tend to not understand. These similes have become so olden that we don’t even know the true meaning behind them. In addition, we seem to overuse certain phrases. Because of our lack of knowledge of these phrases and our overuse of them, they become meaningless. They don’t convey to the reader what we want them to anymore. For example, he points out the use of “ducks and drakes” in the second sentence and shows how it’s improperly used. I’ve noticed this myself when reading these phrases in books. When my eyes recognize these phrases I tend to skip right over them. I don’t know if this is just a poor habit when reading or if I am so used to reading these phrases that I don’t feel the need to think about them anymore or try and relate them to the passage I’m reading.
In the political sense, I see where Orwell is coming from. You hear some of these politicians speak and they don’t see to know what it is they are saying. He points out that a speaker using these extravagant phrases is “turning himself into a machine.” Also he shows that these politicians use these phrases in a way to alter what they are trying to say. They may have selfish reasons for invading a country, but then tell the public that they are doing it for some other reason that sounds much sweeter to our ears.
In regards to his rules, I believe they are all basically saying the same thing. He just wants everyone’s writing to be short and right to the point. “Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” He is just calling on writers to be simpler in their writing and more understandable. While I don’t believe that these rules will influence the entire English language as he hoped in the beginning of the essay; I do believe they should be followed. I think these rules will allow for people to understand literature and politics better.
Ashley Caron
You needn't take his rules as gospel. Even he says he breaks them all the time. But there's a lot of good writing advice there. The essay hasn't solved the problem -- it was written 65 or 70 years ago and thinks have gotten worse -- but they can help us improve individually.
DeleteI found George Orwell's essay to be overly ornate and slightly pompous, yet full of interesting insight that could perhaps be helpful for our generation to learn. Throughout this article, Orwell debates over whether our language has been affected by the politics and happenings of our world or vice versa. I think, however, that the real question is, do the imperfections in a language contribute to the imperfections in the thought processes of those who speak it? Is our writing becoming more frivolous nowadays because of our hectic lifestyles and our growing desire for perfection or is our writing affecting the way our world works?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that it isn't truly of much importance as to which came first, the bad writing or the politics, as long as the issue can ultimately be resolved. Regardless of how this all came to be, we need to learn how to change back our writing so that we are both precise and clear with our word choice without spicing up our writing with insignificant nonsense. I definitely agree with Orwell that the evolution of our language and culture has created sloppiness and inconsistency in the way we speak. By meddling with something so pure, we have almost destroyed what beauty language has provided us with, and it may be necessary for the world to go back to the basics and relearn what English was meant to be. But who knows? Maybe a change in our language could create yet another change in society, which is why I think that Orwell's theory could perhaps be quite beneficial. After all, change can be the most important part of creating a stronger, more stable society.
Katie Gorsky
Ironically, I’ve recently been getting this same critique on my writing that Orwell discusses in his passage. I can honestly say that I’m guilty of over elaborating when I write. This is my attempt to try and make my writing seem complex and intellectual. Now that I see this has been proven wrong, I’m determined to try and make my writing more concise. It’s interesting when Orwell complains how writers these days are focused on the fastest and easiest ways to get a piece done. “The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier — even quicker, once you have the habit — to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious”(Orwell). I think that this is a result from our generation. Everyone wants things instantly and we don’t really think twice about what we say or do because we just want to get our message out there. What most people are writing and putting out there are more like first drafts and just need to be edited to show the writers more filtered thoughts. Analyzing what we say does seem a little extreme to me, but I think that if someone wants to have effective writing they so need to do this to be successful. Orwell made this passage almost as of the do’s and don’ts of writing. Not just for political writing, but also for the general people. By the tone he created in this passage it was as if you either did it his way or you’re wrong. This kind of made me a little mad because everyone has their own writing style (not that their necessarily good) and that’s what gives them their each unique stamp when they write.
ReplyDelete-Kristina Fusco
The great trick is to have complex thoughts, and to relay them as simply as possible. That's why parables and koans and even poems can be so useful.
DeleteI have to say this essay by George Orwell was very hard to understand and keep up about his thoughts on our decaying English language. However, I believe his statements on our English are very accurate. While I was reading Orwell’s essay the phrase economy of words came to mind. Mrs. Morrison taught this phrase to me last year. I never thought this through enough last year but after I read this essay I was enlightened and I thought about this phrase a lot more. I also went to my college essay and tried to use fewer words while portraying my thoughts in a clear image. I also found myself completely agreeing with Orwell when he stated, “ It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.” In our society we already have templates to speeches, thesis, and oral reports. We already have these words that automatically come together and it becomes presentable by literally doing nothing but using someone else’s words. We end up not having to think about what we really want to portray to our audience and end up going into autopilot. As I read the essay more I saw his rules that would bring life to our language once again. As I was reading his rules I also came to the conclusion that the English language will always decay and never be brought to life again. Humans by nature will always want to take the easiest course in life so students, Politians will always use metaphors, similes, or other figure of speech which they are used to seeing in print. By our pure narcissism humans will also always want to appear more intelligent and so we will always use longer more complicated and foreign words when shorter and simpler words will suffice. Already three of his words are broken. I have concluded like Orwell that people manipulate the English language in order to manipulate humans. It already has manipulated us in a significant way.
ReplyDeleteBut there will always be people who love words and believe in honest communication. Don't give up hope!
DeleteP.S. I forwarded part of your response to Mrs. Morrison. She'll be tickled.
I really like how Orwell was brutally honest in this essay. I know for a fact that I do some of the things that he mentions in his essay. One vice that I have really been working hard on is over-complicating my writing, and I wasn't too surprised seeing that topic come up in Orwell's essay because it is one that I think is fairly common. I do understand that Orwell was sort of critiquing writing, but in reading his essay, he came off a little bit arrogant and conceited to me. I was wondering what gives him the right to criticize the writing of a lot of other people, even if he is correct? Has he really proven himself in his writing to be above everybody else? I was a semi-expecting to find in his writing something that he criticized himself just because the essay had a sort of hypocritical feel to me.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how Orwell sounded to me in this essay, it was definitely informative. I will be able to notice his topics in the future, both in things I read and write.
Dallon Asnes
He has earned the right. He's a well-respected author, certainly. And he admits that he breaks his own rules, And don't forget Rule #6 -- "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."
DeleteI agree with everyone else that Orwell's essay certainly made some interesting points, but wasn't exactly worded in an easy manner. I feel like that definitely says something about the validity of his opinion on the "decay" of the English language. If his preferred method of writing is generally found to be quite difficult to swallow, then how trusted can his preached language rules be?
ReplyDeleteEither way, I think some of Orwell's rules were valid, and others not so much. I agree with Melissa on the Dying Metaphors section. That grey area Orwell mentions between universal phrases and new, cutting edge comparisons is very important to recognize, in my opinion. Some phrases are classic for a reason: they get a point across in the concise, comprehendible way Orwell is so fond of. Outside of these phrases, a new and thought-provoking creation is frequently just as effective. Becoming lazy and picking any old phrase, no matter the effectiveness, is the danger.
On the other hand, I would not say I agree with Orwell's rule on always cutting out a word if possible. This is mainly because of the "if possible" condition-- how is one to judge whether the word is essential or the piece could go on (and benefit) with its elimination? Furthermore, even if the statement could technically be effective without the word, does that necessarily mean it must be stripped down to bare bones just for technical simplicity? In my experience, the writing that grabs my attention and makes me become invested no matter the topic is frequently not the most simple. Sometimes extravagant word choice is surprising and interesting. Some of my favorite poetry is the rambling type, and more appealing to me because of it.
As with any essay of strong opinion, there are a few pieces of wisdom and some doubtful rules here. I generally like Orwell's approach, challenging common language and embracing unpretentiousness. I just disagree with his rigid rules on keeping sentences so pared down.
Poetry can be a little different. There's place for filigree.
DeleteAnd then there's the difference between "simple" and "simplistic". Simple is good. Simplistic is not.
Overall, I think that George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language" was very true in the way that the English language is now in present day. The two main points that I especially agreed with was "staleness of imagery" and that's difficult for writers to express what they are actually trying to say and that their imagery really doesn't mean anything once they're done explaining it. I think that's due to incompetence, like Orwell mentioned, but I also feel it has to do with society as a whole. In this day in age, I feel that a lot of people over think things, not due to their own incompetence, but due to societies view on how everyone tries to hard to too out shine one another and thus over compensating with "meaningless words". I also agree with Orwell that most people are either very vague or too abstract with their writing. I think this comes down to how the person writes as a whole, but it also has to do with how people feel the need to keep to "Occam's razor" for fear of being called pretentious and then going to abstract for fear of not being looked at as "special". The real struggle of the English language is to find a balance between the two elements in everything we write.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Cromack
I'd have to say there's way more underthinking than overthinking. That's Orwell's point when it comes to prefabricated language.
DeleteI had to read this a couple times to really grasp what George Orwell was saying, but I definitely agree with a lot of it. However I also agree with Dallon and Veronica and I think that he came off as very arrogant and pretentious. But I definitely have never thought about phrases that are pretty much meaningless because they are so overused and it was pretty eye opening. I really think that if George Orwell read some of my writing that he would hate me though. I know that I do some of this and I absolutely have become more aware of it now and need to fix it. I also really agree with Danielle because I think society has such a big effect on the english language. Especially with all of the new slang that people use. A lot of the slang that gets used completely changes the meanings of words or gives them a double meaning. This makes it hard to always understand what someone is trying to say or the image that they are trying to create.
ReplyDeleteKayla Singleton
But slang can be alive and vibrant and fun. It has its place, but it should be kept there. (Se Megan entry.)
DeleteAnd Orwell wouldn't hate you. He might pity you, but he wouldn't hate you.
"Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes."
ReplyDeleteI found this sentence very striking as I began reading this essay. As I continued on I kept relating what I'd read to this idea. Orwell writes about how the English language and the art of writing has deteriorated as time has gone one. How imagery is no longer used as it should be and how writers throw in meaningless words and metaphors to try and "spruce up" their writing. In the modern day I feel that writers try to manipulate the English language as Orwell says in the quote above. They use preconceived phrases and metaphors, but use them in a way that attempts at giving them a new meaning or some superior purpose. I also agree with the point that the language is something that grows and changes in its own time. There's nothing we, as humans, can do to alter it. Language is supposed to flow and be something beautiful to read or to hear. When it is chopped up and misused by authors or writers, it is completely and utterly destroyed and mutilated. No longer its original form. Even as I write this response, I'm thinking of how I'm affecting the flow of the language- or if I even can. Does one person have the power to really change how language is used? This idea leads me to my next quote:
"I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. "
This quote makes me think even more about the mundane effects we have on language. It makes me believe that language does flow and change on its own, but with the slight guidance that the writer or author presents. The person translating the words into stories and ideas has to respect the flow of the language, but also needs to assist it in some ways.
Kaitlyn Bristol
Well after reading George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language”, the last thing I want to do is write never mind attempt to express an original thought. Ten pages later and I wouldn't dare argue any of Orwell’s points. He has clearly done his research and thoroughly explored the argument from all angles. I can agree that some of our current political turmoil can be linked to the use of words that lack in meaning. There are many other aspects of society today that are corrupted by wordiness without actually saying anything. The TV channel QVC comes to mind when considering this abuse of the English language. The hosts of QVC attempt to sell a product and for the first few minutes of the show make some great pitches. However even after all the key points have been made the show continues and the hosts are paid to persist with their persuasion. There is only so much that can be said for a piece of jewelry or a vacuum after a half hour of non stop praise the convincing words devolve to meaningless, background noise. However I feel that George Orwell would be an enthusiast of modern technologies such as texting and the social network Twitter. These present day devices of communication force expression to be simple, short, and to the point. Especially Twitter which only allows 140 characters to voice information, an opinion or idea. These brief expressions are referred to as “tweets” and can be “favorited” by others. Twitter users not only face a restriction on length but are compelled to be original and appeal to others. Wih each tweet they must cut long and unnecessary words and use only everyday English. Politicians are avid users of Twitter, the President even has an account. So I wonder if some aspects of Orwell’s views are becoming outdated. Its currently trendy for politicians to make appearances on talk shows another opportunity to explain and promote their views. Still they must refrain from using meaningless, excessive words or foreign phrases. Orwell also mentions how writing has become a process of rearranging the presentation of others ideas and claiming ownership of them. However I think that this occurs often not because it is easier than having original thoughts but because the internet has robbed us of our sense of originality. The internet allows anyone to express their opinion on anything and is also an excellent tool for conducting research. When seeking information on the internet to create a thesis, for example, it's impossible not to come across the idea of someone else. This idea could be just what you were on the brink of developing but the moment you read it stated by someone else your ability to create a format of your own seems to have vanished. Although time and technological advances have greatly altered the society George Orwell addresses his efforts to stop the abuse of the English language are still valid. If everyone were to abide by the rules he has developed our literary words would appeal to greater audiences, our ability to communicate would finally reach its full potential.
ReplyDeleteElise Phelan
Orwell might well be tweeting (although I don't think he'd like "favorited". [Shudder!]) OTOH, a lot of tweeting is mere "retweeting", and #badwriting is no substitute for astute criticism.
DeleteInteresting response.
Madison Florence
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell makes several extremely valid points. He explains that in writing everyone seems to be trying to make themselves sound smarter by using big, scientific words however by doing so they sound less intelligent. Like the constable in Much Ado About Nothing people often misuse words so they no longer hold the intended meaning. Poor writing also uses common phrases that he calls “Dying Metaphors”. They are simply metaphors that are used so frequently that its meaning becomes diluted and altered over time. I agree with his beliefs. I have often seen people write with long, fancy words but when asked for a definition they cannot give one that is accurate.
On the matter of politics I am in complete agreement with Orwell’s judgment of politicians and their use of written and spoken word. “The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself,” best sums up how it appears most politicians are. They do not write their own speeches rather they hire someone to do it for them. When the president addresses the country we are not hearing his words. We are hearing words that someone else wrote and are being read aloud by the president. I do however disagree with his disapproval of the way writers and speakers will try to hide.
What I think the reader should take from this is that when writing one does not need to show off. They don’t need to use big words or have long sentences. The writer should write what is necessary using the words that they know and are positive about their definitions. They should write in a “safe” manner.
A Much Ado reference. Nice!
DeleteWhen I first read this, I didn't really get the full effect that this was meant to have on the reader. But after I read it for the second time, it was much clearer to me. It is obvious though, no matter how many times you read it, that language is something he is extremely passionate about in its preservation and execution. He believes that as time passes and civilization "progresses", we are taking steps forward in terms of technology and the improvement of our daily lives but are taking steps backward in terms of the way we communicate. We have replaced the words of the English language with acronyms such as "omg" and "lol" because we no longer want to put the effort in to writing what we truly mean out. So even though I see Elise's point with Twitter and texting and how it makes communication "short, brief, and to the point" I don't necessarily agree that George Orwell would still be in favor of these modern means of communication. I find it hard to believe that George Orwell would want to sacrifice the proper execution of the English language for the sake of efficiency. There is a line between being quick and efficient and being lazy, and I believe that George Orwell would classify the usage of acronyms as lazy.
ReplyDeleteI also couldn't help but compare "Politics and The English Language" with "Living with Less" because both of these works address how we as a civilization are suffering despite our attempts to improve ourselves. Though each of these articles don't necessarily address the same topic ( "Living with Less" talks about our dependency on material objects and "Politics and the English Language" discusses our deficiency in the execution of language), they both have the same general theme: we have not truly made progress unless we have improved in all of the areas of civilization, not just one. Just because we have improved our technology doesn't mean we are therefore a completely improved species, and just because we have found a quicker way to communicate doesn't necessarily mean we have improved communication and with it language.
Sierra Jesanis
While “Politics and the English Language” was lengthy and brutally honest, it was very informative. It should be a must-read, especially for high school students. I find that I often use an awkward phrase where just one word will do. Many times I do find that I fill passages with meaningless words. I believe that we think writing more makes us seem more knowledgeable, when in fact “less is more”. I also believe that Orwell made a good point about using ready-made phrases. If I am in a rush, I find that I will just use a phrase I have heard before instead of creating a unique one for the situation. I loved his rules at the end of the essay. I feel like I will end up taping them to my computer for the essays I write at home. I often find myself trying to spice up the essays I write by including words that aren’t necessary used everyday. Overall, this essay was a fantastic reminder of good writing techniques.
ReplyDeleteAnd now a Wordsworth reference. You guys make working on a Friday night seem worthwhile.
ReplyDelete"Fast language" is like "fast food" -- convenient, tempting, but no substitute for a good, home-cooked meal.
General Comments
ReplyDeleteYes, it was long. Welcome to college. And I suppose he comes across as arrogant, but many authorities do. And, he's earned it, and he knows whereof he speaks.
We have to remeber that the purpose of a writer is to send a message to a audience/readers. I believe Orwell is simply telling us to better communicate with our readers, we must build a bridge of communication. In which the readers can best understand the language. Using techniques like economy of thought help enchance things like inciting emotion or effectiveness. Smooth communication is ideal and one mistake or an unorganized struture can throw off the whole sentence.
ReplyDeleteOne idea that stuck out for me was the idea of how a word can have its own negative or positive connotation. Society, historic events and or political events have a big impact on English language. A great example is demoracy vs communism.Through most of the late 1800's through the Cold War, democracy was a big political and social idea in America. Anything considered not democratic was threatening to the lives of Americans and people believed communism was not just a bad form of government but it came with other horrible effects. If your ideas were close to Karl Marx's, you were considered a commie which is a degratory term. More examples are how if a writer writes terrorist in our time period, most readers would think of an Arab decent man with a turban or traditional clothing. When really the word is meant to describe anyone who does the act of terrorizing. Another example is a Spanish reference in Argentina where there is a rich culture of cowboys or Gauchos. Gaucho before was used simply to describe cowboys and most Argentinis would be proud of its inciting cultural memories. However closer to our time the word Gaucho is a degratory term for a low-class savage like cowboy, set by the social idea of rich-class ettique. Lastly using euphemisms for words that have harsh meanings is a technique seen a lot by media. For instant if America kills innocent lives in an act of war, its considered as collateral damage and dulled down. Using different words can really change what the reader gets out of it. A personal connection to a single phrase or word helps engage the reader and incit thought if used well. And also if it affects the majority of the target audience. Example could be including a phrase like Porshes are like riding a bicycle without training wheels; its the real deal. The sentence is weak but what if the author wanted people to think about the time they first rode a bike. It makes you remember a story and connects to either a parent letting go of his kid not knowing if he will be able to ride well or a licensed teenager who remembers the pain of knee scars.
Overall, carefully constructing your sentence should reflect what your reader gets out of it.