Thursday, April 5, 2012
George Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language'
This reading made me laugh a few times, but I don't know if Orwell meant for the piece to be funny. I think maybe he did (in a few places, anyway!). As someone who is not hugely interested in politics--mainly because I don't know much about what's going on in the world of politics--the title of this essay didn't initially attract my attention. I thought it was going to be boring. To my pleasant surprise, I really enjoyed reading it because I can identify with what Orwell talks about here: he is lambasting the use of unnecessarily complex phrases and words. Until now, I thought that I was stupid to not understand political speeches, dull religious works, and other seemingly super-intelligent, highly complex forms of written and oral communication. Orwell makes me feel better about not understanding what people try to say when they complicate the English language to the point of obscurity.
There are two great things Orwell does in this essay that make it more than just a rant: first, he gives ample reason for his disgust with the modern (or 'fashionable') English language and then shows the audience how to improve upon that 'slovenly' way of writing and speaking. He is being a smart writer here and is making sure that the problem is fixed--he is not simply complaining in order to vent. Second, he admits that he, too, commits these atrocious acts of awful English--even within this very essay! I admire his vulnerability in admitting this to us. Up until the point where he says this, I found myself searching for examples of 'fashionable English' within his essay, simply to prove him wrong or perhaps hypocritical. At first I thought Orwell was being insanely critical, and I figured it was nearly impossible for him to write in the perfect manner he so ardently desired for others to write (and speak) with. He won my admiration (and satisfaction) with his confession to probably using the same type of English he so obviously hates.
I love the imagery that Orwell uses in this essay. It is fresh and funny, and it contrasts wonderfully with the stale metaphors he lists for us and keeps us interested and intrigued. Some of my favorites were: "like a cuttlefish spurting out ink" (10) and "fall upon the facts like soft snow" (9). As far as I know, these are original phrases and they give clear meaning to what he is trying to get across. I also enjoyed his modernizing of the verse in Ecclesiastes--not only was it a splendidly clear example of how badly we twist and muddle the English language, it was hilarious! In spite of all the humorous ways in which Orwell illustrates his points, he uses serious examples, as well--not just funny ones, which is the mark of a great writer. The examples of convenient euphemisms on page 9 touched me the most, and I realized that these 'cover-ups' in English are a huge part of what obscures politics and makes political language incredibly impersonal and objective (and therefore dull and uninteresting--to me, at least).
We spoke in class about the attractive nature of lists, and Orwell certainly uses many lists! They help his meaning become and remain clear, and give us succinct, direct examples of what could be long-winded explanations. Orwell's simple rules for abolishing our sloppy language are short and to the point, and if we keep them in mind, we can write and speak in ways that allow for, as Orwell says, "expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought" (12). I'm glad we read this essay, but now I know I will really be reading my writing critically and searching for useless words and sour metaphors. I suppose--no, I know that is a good thing and it will allow me to become a better, more meaningful writer.
Laura Strawn Ojeda
P.S. I'm sorry if this blog appears twice somewhere in the sphere of our class blog--I'm new to blogs and they confuse me a little bit!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm so glad you mentioned two of my favorite parts of this essay. One is the fact that he pointed out that he, too, makes the mistakes he lists. It also won him credibility in my eyes, too. Also, my favorite image in this text was the snow one. I think it worked perfectly!
ReplyDelete-Alexander Hirata
As I was writing notes about what to say in my blog post, feeling inadequate about jargon-filled speeches or articles by highly respected political, scientific, religious, etc. leaders, I also felt stupid when I wasn't able to understand what they were saying. I don't want to read sentences multiple times, using a dictionary to look up five words in a seven word sentence. While politicians and other leaders speak in these terms to confuse their audience, journalists should be aware of this and be careful not to do it in their articles. Newspaper and magazine writers should be especially wary since readers often rely on them to explain the vague and misleading speeches of our nation's leaders.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciated Orwell's use of lists. It breaks up the long paragraphs and leaves more white space on the page. I'd never thought of it as a technique before, but now I have noticed it in multiple articles.
-Katie Huffman
Laura,
ReplyDeleteYou are not alone in having difficulty understanding the political speeches. I think that's just part of the job.
What I didn't like about the lists is that they seemed to have little to do with the thesis and point of the paper. The title and thesis let the reader know they will read about politics, but he goes on to list common fallacies in writing. I think he should have tied the lists in more to the theme of the paper.
- Ruthie Heavrin
Ruthie,
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't be part of the job! I think that's part of what Orwell is trying to say. He does mention politics a few more times towards and at the end of this essay--and the thesis, I think, is that 'the process is reversible' (1) more than 'Politics is the demise of good English.' At the beginning of pgph. 2, he says "Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely..." (1). I think this says that one could say politics and economics are ultimately to blame, but not completely--or maybe, it didn't start out that way. What he is saying is not completely clear to me (so I don't think he's the perfect essay writer, either) but I don't think he meant for the thesis to insinuate that the paper was going to speak only about politics and the fall of the English language.
-Laura