What is your reaction to Orwell's essay?
Had you read Orwell's writing before (e.g., Animal Farm or 1984)? If so, how does your knowledge of him and his writing inform your reading of this essay?
What faults do you find with this essay?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To start off, the only novel that I have read from George Orwell was Animal Farm, and to explain how I feel about it I will simply say that I would not recommend it to anyone. I have, however, read other works from him, and I have always known him to have inflated language—falling under the category of pretentiousness that he clearly argues against. Because of this, I read his essay “Politics and the English Language” with a sense that Orwell was simply ranting, since he failed to acknowledge the connotative power of eloquent language.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Orwell's essay has some truth to it, I believe that he over-generalized to the point that it was annoying. I do agree with the idea that one should try and be as concise as possible (in most cases), but at the end of the day, pretentiousness is a matter of preference—a trait that helps to define a writer’s style. Just imagine how stale poetry would be if poets were succinct with their words; it would not really be poetry since just about all types of poetry is ambiguous, interpreted differently by each individual. The versatility of poetry is the key to its grandeur—the instrument to the composer. Orwell simply stated that the English language as a whole would be better if writers wrote briefly, with as little fluctuation in diction as possible. He failed to mention the types of writing that benefit from this style, and thus, his argument lacked credibility (Ethos), made his logic one-sided (Logos), and gave the reader a sense of inferiority and confinement in a set of rules that would restrict highly creative writing (Pathos).
I am not a fan of George Orwell, and this essay did little to change my opinion.
I agree with George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" to a certain extent. I do agree that some authors' writing is overly stimulated with eloquent vocabulary that at times is unnecessary. This all depends on what is being written though,lets say for example a political column in the newspaper. Who wants to read an 1000 word article about politics? NO ONE. In which case, "pretentious diction" is unnecessary and unflattering. BUT, not all writing has to be dry and purely informative. That would make reading unbearable! I love reading and I'm sure anybody else that does will agree with me that not ALL writing needs to have Orwell's theory applied to sound precise. As long as the author gets their point through clearly it shouldn't matter how many metaphors or "big words" they use.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the passage I noticed that it was a bit sarcastic and very biased. His opinion on this matter is very strong and he goes through great lengths to prove his point. I actually disagreed with a lot of what he mentioned such as in his paragraph on "operators or verbal false limbs" I don’t think that using phrases such as, "be subjected to" and "exhibit a tendency to" are contributing to our declining language as Orwell would say. I think that is phrases like that, if used in moderation, can add an air of sophistication to an essay.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell states that using less words that are more direct and using simple words that aren't meant to be impressive simply make a better paper. The more we use modern grammar in our papers, the more confusion we instill in our work, instead of fully expressing OUR full opinion on the matter. His other works such as the allegorical "Animal Farm" have all been the same. He developed his work quickly getting straight to the point. Animal Farm was about 100 pages long, any other author would have extended it rather than making such a compact masterpiece.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this I couldn't help but think of the essay written by Nancy Mairs as she makes an assault on the English Language. She basically states that we constantly come up with new words and new meanings. In the essay she describes herself as "crippled". She highly dislikes the way every year there is a new word to describe her such as "disabled", "handicapped" and more recently she mocks the word "handi-capable".
I must say I agree with both Orwell and Mairs on the matter. The English language has become an international language. Because of this, the English language has slowly grown larger and larger in size. With so many words, we have lost sight of what words really mean, and along the way we have also forgotten how amazing it sounds to read a work that is direct to the point.
The reality is the English language is diluted, words have lost real meaning, and a lot of modern writing such as Harry Potter and Twilight have lost all directness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMelanie Williams
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with Orwell's essay on the downfall of the English language. Laziness and the constant invention of new slang and cliched phrases is making it easier for people to make statements without fully understand what they are saying. Further evidence that our language is suffering can be seen in music and literary arts as they are slowly losing their passion and creativity.
He makes a strong point that it is a cycle: laziness causes poor language and consequently, poor language allows laziness to continue. I agree that this cycle can definitely be broken if each person does their best to improve their own and support materials that are well written. However, breaking this cycle is becoming more difficult because each new generation is taught the English language as it is. With each new generation the quality of language decreases. If we do not improve the quality of language soon, we may never be able to.
I didn't agree with how antagonistic Orwell was in his critique of other authors. In some parts of his texts he was extremely hostile and patronizing. He also selected which parts of the text he did and did not want to include which made it difficult for readers to develop their own opinion of the works he cited.
A few years ago I read Animal Farm by George Orwell. I also read 1984. I thought the were both great books. They were both very well written, with great concepts that were thoroughly expressed. I definitely respect George Orwell as a writer. He is extremely intelligent and is very accredited in the realm of literature.
While reading George Orwell's essay I could not stop thinking about how true it was that some writers do use over complicated words to sound sophisticated or what not, but I don't fully agree with the fact that it's always bad. Are we really going to start writing like elementary kids and choose the simplest words we can find so we dont sound like we're trying too hard? There comes a point when the use of these words are necessary.
ReplyDeleteOn another point, I thought it was hypocritical of him to criticize other writers for things he himself wrote on his essay. It was not until he mentioned that he had indeed done the things he had been writing against, that I made peace with this essay. It also bothered me a lot how many times he used the word "one" in a single sentence.
Aside from that I think most of the things he said are true and he gave SOME good tips on how to be a better writer.
Overall I liked that the essay was not hard to read and he made his point across.
Kristen Rodriguez
ReplyDeleteIn high school I read George Orwell's Animal Farm, and from that moment I have been a fan of him. I enjoyed the book very much, the way he portrayed such a major time in history through the animals facinated me. I really love history and I enjoyed the book, and his essay had the same effect. You can tell Orwell was very passionate about the English language. I felt he made a lot of good points throughout the essay in order to persuade the reader to feel the same. One of my favorite things about this essay was his uses of metaphors to paint a picture. I agree with Orwell about the way that writing has evolved, and not in a positive way. After reading the essay I felt like I learned from Orwell. Sometimes when we write I think we forget about the reader, sometimes when we have to be "politically correct" or we want to sound just a bit smarter we corrupt our writing with foreign words, dying metaphors, and pretentious diction. Through his essay, i belive Orwell was just trying to educate and teach us how to fix common mistakes and help us all become better writers after reading his essay. Overall I didn't really find any fault from his essay, I thought he was clear and he made many good points throughout his essay. i really enjoyed it.
I read George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" in high school and I must admit that I did not enjoy it at all. Maybe it was because I was in ninth grade and I did not understand it too well, or maybe it's just because I did not like the way it was written. Whatever the case may be, when I started reading this essay, I was not too happy.
ReplyDeleteAt some parts of George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", I felt like he was being a bit of a hypocrite. He stated in his essay that " Words... are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements". I agree with what Orwell said, but I also felt like he did what he said we should not do. Some parts of this essay seemed like he tried using big words to make him sound smarter when he was saying that one of the reasons the english language is ruined is because of that.
I believe that most of Orwell's points were very true and I agreed with him with mostly everything. It is true that we do not need "hundreds of foreign phrases" and that "it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning", but at some parts of the essay, I did feel like it was one of those long passages with no meanings. There were some things that he said that I know he could have said it in less words. He knows what he is talking about, he just needs to know how to do what he says.
I read Orwell's 1984 and I believe that the fictional language "Newspeak" is an example of many the faults that Orwell outlined in his essay. One point he makes in both pieces that I believe is very important is the loop that language gets trapped into once it starts to decline. As language declines our thoughts decline, and as our thoughts become less evolved, so does our language. While using longer phrases and bigger words might make us feel like we're becoming more complex and sophisticated, but the meaning of words are falling to the wayside.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with Orwell's essay, though I suppose I would be more lenient with the aspect of metaphors. I personally enjoy using metaphors, and even overused imagery can evoke the needed response.
I read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and to be honest, I did not like it very much. I feel as if he could have been simpler with his writing. He gave so much advice about using fewer words and being simplistic and yet he was not simple with his writing. I do agree with the majority of his facts, however.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that sometimes we must use more sophisticated words. You can not always be so simple because there are times that you do need to show that you have an expanded vocabulary and can use it well. For example, a job interview. You obviously want to impress your interviewer and so are going to speak more proper than you would otherwise.
He seemed hypocritical when he said that he too makes those errors because even though everyone makes mistakes he is writing an essay about how simple it is to correct your work. He talks too much about improving our writing to mention that he too makes those mistakes.
Overall, I agreed with most of the things he pointed out but disagreed with a few as well
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell's essay not only sheds light on the very important (and often overlooked) matter of English fluency and meaning, but from the sheer mastery of his writing style, and uncanny ability to immitate the very prose he protests against, not to mention the ability to realize his own mistakes, one can understand how accomplished a writer he is; Far Beyond the writing capabilities of many great modern writers or professors who stumble over the common phrase-based literary fallies adressed in Orwell's essay.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Orwell's Idea that ideas must be expressed as concretely, and in as few words as possible. I also agree with the overall idea that the english language is a tool used for the purpose of clear communication, and is to be used as effectively and effeciently as possible, and that old metaphors, and common phrases which take the place concrete ideas and verbs are atrociously obsolete."one most derive words from meaning, not the other way around."
Though in his essay, Orwell himself does commit the very errors he protests against, it only serves to better prove his point that the english language has become corrupt, and embedded as a bad habbit among practically all writers, and we all must rethink what we thought we knew about the english language. I know I will.
George Orwell's essay helped enlightened how people use complicated words to make themselves appeared better but does not help the readers to grasp what they are reading. Orwell stress out the importance of word usage, we should use concrete and solid words to emphasize our points. English is more than a language, it is our native tongue. We use the English language and twist around to overlook what we are implying. I agree with the idea that English is a tool to help us to clear our meaning of words. As Orwell said,"becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish" so analyzing our words can help us to move from stupidity. Even though we may be intelligent similarly we can use foolish words that can make people think differently about us.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I own the book 1984, I have never really opened it and read it from cover to cover. Upon reading the assigned essay, however, I have become interested in George Orwell and will probably read 1984 in the near future. Orwell, in my opinion, may not be a very clear or to-the-point writer like "Politics and the English Language" may lead you to presume, but I did indeed find his essay thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "Politics", I found myself questioning my own writing technique and beginning to rethink all of the rules my former english and lit. teachers have taught me throughout the years. I have since justified my writing styles and the things I have learned and written by coming to the realization that Orwell himself makes the same mistakes he warns his readers of. Although this may seem a hypocritical action to some, I believe that this was a bold move and that Orwell is trying to imply that although he is the author of the essay, that does not mean that common mistakes will completely pass him by.
Although I found the author's essay a bit lengthy and at times somewhat dull, I believe that the main point behind "Politics" was a well-explained and thought out one.
- Stephanie Sims
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, I had not read Orwell before, so I read this essay with no preconceived notions. In reading the essay one of my first thoughts was that it was too one-sided. I believe that in any good persuasive essay the author should always present both sides. I also think that this essay shows a very extreme view. His rule, never use a long word where a short one will do, for instance can be true but only to a certain extent. As always, it depends on your audience. But if a person’s audience is a well educated group of people I see no reason why someone should stray from using their full vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteKeeping in mind that as Orwell states, he had “not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not concealing or preventing thought,” he made very valid points. Overall, I think Orwell wrote a great essay, but for me, it was not completely persuasive.
- Sofia Debs
My initial reaction to Orwell's essay was pure confusion. After I read it a second time, it started to make more sense, but I think that I would have to read it a couple more times to fully grasp everything he is saying in the essay. Also, I found it to be a bit hypocritical because he wants to point fingers at people for their writing style, but turns around and commits the same errors that he is addressing. In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw in his essay. On the other hand, I think that the essay holds some truth and that we would benefit from following his rules for writing. In the end, it was worth it to work through the confusing language because it will help me form a better personal writing style.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read any of Orwell's works before and I'm not too sure whether I would want to or not. His essay made me assess my own writing style and it definately enhanced my vocabulary, but I don't know if I could read soemthing of the same nature on a regular basis.
Honestly, I feel that Orwell is a bit confusing. In my opinion, Orwell is trying to persuade us to use modern English in our writing by using a more simplistic approach. He Supports his idea my citing five passages. The passages were difficult to understand proving his point. On the other hand, Orwell also uses many words that were outside of my vocabulary. I actually had to go look them up in a dictionary to figure out what they meant. This kind of showed me that he was contradicting himself.
ReplyDeleteTo sum it up, this was the first time I ever read something by Orwell. To me he did a great job trying to persuade us. The only fault he had was when he kind of contradicted himself.
Honestly, I feel that Orwell is a bit confusing. In my opinion, Orwell is trying to persuade us to use modern English in our writing by using a more simplistic approach. He Supports his idea my citing five passages. The passages were difficult to understand proving his point. On the other hand, Orwell also uses many words that were outside of my vocabulary. I actually had to go look them up in a dictionary to figure out what they meant. This kind of showed me that he was contradicting himself.
ReplyDeleteTo sum it up, this was the first time I ever read something by Orwell. To me he did a great job trying to persuade us. The only fault he had was when he kind of contradicted himself.
-Daniel Roberto Hernandez
This is the first time I have read George Orwell's writing, but this is not the first time I am hearing of him. There are some parts of the essay that make sense to me, however, his writing overall to me is hard to stay focused on while reading. When I was reading the essay I could not concentrate on what he was trying to say, most of the time. I feel this way because the way he wrote the essay did not keep my interest. I also feel that he did not follow his own rules. One thing that made sense to me was the fact that he said “If it’s possible to cut out a word out, always cut it out.” This will make your work more simple to read, and should bring you right to the point of what you are trying to say, instead of being wordy. Although he talks about trying to cut out words when you write, I did not feel like he did that while writing his essay. Another thing he mentioned was never using a long word where a short one may be used. This to me makes sense because it makes reading more enjoyable, rather than bringing out the dictionary every five seconds trying to figure out what each word means. But I felt that George Orwell himself does not always fall under his own criteria’s, because I found myself going to dictionary.com a couple of times.
ReplyDelete-Sara Eckel
I thought the essay was well done. I couldn't help but think to myself the whole time however, that some college professors want just the opposite. Which is a shame, because I completely agree with Orwell's essay.
ReplyDeleteOrwell may not have intended it, but reading his essay reminded me of Lenny Bruce and how everything he said connected to the audience. Bruce never censored himself or made his words sound smarter or more polite; he spoke like the people in his audience spoke and that is what connected him to them.
I've read Orwell before(1984, Homage to Catalonia) and I find him to be an exemplary writer. I did not expect this essay to disappoint me, and indeed it did not. Maybe it's a little bit of bias on my part, but damn it I like the guy's work.
The only fault I can think of is that Orwell comes off a little preachy, but hey, he's an opinionated dude.
- Marcos Gonzalez
My initial reaction to Orwell's essay was pure confusion. After I read it a second time, it started to make more sense, but I think that I would have to read it a couple more times to fully grasp everything he is saying in the essay. Also, I found it to be a bit hypocritical because he wants to point fingers at people for their writing style, but turns around and commits the same errors that he is addressing. In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw in his essay. On the other hand, I think that the essay holds some truth and that we would benefit from following his rules for writing. In the end, it was worth it to work through the confusing language because it will help me form a better personal writing style.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read any of Orwell's works before and I'm not too sure whether I would want to or not. His essay made me assess my own writing style and it definately enhanced my vocabulary, but I don't know if I could read soemthing of the same nature on a regular basis.
-Shelby Buxton
Honestly, I attempted to read Orwell’s 1984 in high school, but I never got around to actually finishing it. I think I was too young to understand what I was reading. Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” seemed easier to read; perhaps it is because I am now older and actually interested in reading. I found that the essay made several valid points. I agree with some things Orwell mentions; for example, in the section about “dying metaphors,” I have used metaphors without completely grasping what I’m trying to say plenty of times in my writing. The problem I have with this essay is that I find it difficult to distinguish between what is too simple and too eloquent. At times, teachers in high school would encourage us to expand our essay as much as possible to make it sound more “sophisticated.” Orwell is saying that we are not doing the right thing by adding more to our writing; however, he himself admits to writing in this forbidden manner. It seems hypocritical, but it shows that even he makes the mistake that we all do which is why we need to work at bettering our writing. Orwell makes sense after having read the essay a few times. I feel he is correct in saying that, in modern English writing, people are becoming lazy, and just using the common phrases they are used to hearing. It is now a challenge to be conscious of when I am committing the errors that Orwell mentions in his essay.
ReplyDelete--Kristian Quinones
The essay got me to think about how writer's today have complicated the english language to a point where the average reader would not be able to understand their diction. I dont consider myself an avid reader, but I have read a fair share of books. I was unable to understand any of the passages Orwell chose for his essay. I thought his rules of being concise and cutting out the wordiness in sentences is the best way to write. In my opinion writers should always strive to write essay that a larger audience would understand.
ReplyDeleteRyan Flaifel
I could not agree with Sara Eckel anymore. Last year, My high school English teacher assigned my class to read 1984. I began to read the book but I had no interest in it and decided to discontinue reading it. I am not a fan of politics and it bores me to read about it. I understand George Orwell lived during WWI and WWII and politics was the main thing to talk about. He did a good job of getting me lost with his five contemporary examples of bad writing. When he explained about why they were “bad”, I had no interest in knowing, I just knew they were bad because they didn’t make sense to me. I agree that dying metaphors should not be used and that a writer should know the history of a metaphor before using it but as time goes on the meaning of words can change. I don’t use verbal false limbs but I wouldn’t be bothered if a writer chose to use them. I like pretentious diction but, I agree that simpler words would be easier for the readers to understand. Orwell does not believe that we should use words that don’t have any set definition “meaningless words”. Just because some words can vary in definition a bit does not mean a writer should not use them. I found his example of good and modern English interesting. I found the Ecclesiastes verse in both good and modern English hard to analyze though. One thing is for sure the modern English translation was vague. I cannot see how the two passages are similar. Orwell’s explanation of difference between his translated verse and the original sounded like jibber-jabber to me. However, I do agree with some of the things Orwell says. Modern writers have lost creativity, we use other people’s words all the time and don’t ever realize it. I use “in my opinion” a lot and never realized it was someone else’s work. I agree that writers should ask themselves the four questions Orwell has thought of. If we ask ourselves those questions then we can become better writers. I liked the first four out of six rules Orwell has created at the end of his essay. I think it is ok to say a popular foreign phrases or scientific words if you please. I did not understand the last rule. Did he mean to say, he rather us break the rules than create something that didn’t make sense? I don’t have anything against Orwell but I rather not read any of his works ever again.
ReplyDeleteHannah Jazayri
2633006
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this essay Orwell shares many good points, specifically the notion that language shapes thought. I do not believe his intentions were to play the role of an English teacher, but of an informer. The title, “Politics and the English Language”, hints at this. Listening to a politician speak will give a perfect example of the style being dismissed in this essay (like “doublespeak”, from his novel 1984). It is when people use dull and robotic phrases that they become tools, similar to victims of hypnosis.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don’t believe his use of “long words” makes Orwell a hypocrite. He’s not saying that English should be composed in short, monosyllabic sentences. He’s simply stating that using vivid, specific language is much more effective than hiding behind euphemisms, and other well-known phrases that do not apply to a writer’s situation.
Daniel Quiros
While reading Orwell's essay I found myself agreeing with him constantly. He makes excellent points about how to keep writing to the point, rather than being vague. It was interesting to read the five examples he gave on bad writing and how they all made the same mistakes. Reading an essay that does not define its points clearly, or express its meaning is uninteresting. About 5 pages into the essay I started noticing that Orwell fell into the same trap that he was talking about in his essay. His sentences became unnecessarily long and he used words that did not need to be used. Towards the end of the essay however, he did state that, "Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against," showing nobody is perfect. Overall, I enjoyed the essay and six rules he gave at the end to improve your writing will definitely come in handy.
ReplyDeleteJake Tolton
Hi, first off, this was the first piece of George Orwell I've ever read and I enjoyed as well as agreed with his essay. Although frankly I do not feel I completely understood 100% what I have read, in the end, my interpretation of what Orwell was trying to say was that one should try to keep things simple, natural and to the point when they're writing, while keeping in mind formality and manners when needed.
ReplyDeleteThat said I agree with all of his points on the bad habits of modern English. Probably every one of us remembers an instance where a person or group tried to downplay a situation by "dressing it up" in vague vocabulary, or a person attempted to attach an air of credibility to something ridiculous by sneaking in some large words, or when a writer overcomplicates an otherwise simple statement by attempting to sound more professional. Just this election summer I recall having a great deal of trouble comprehending what exactly some propositions were trying to say because they were written in such an awkward and sophisticated manner . I do not think I was alone, as others around us were also complaining.
I don't think he contradicts himself by using his writing style because you have to consider that this man wrote this ~60 years ago, people spoke differently back then. You also have to consider the fact that as a renowned author, by nature he is going to have a sophisticated writing style.
I don't think he ever argued against using large words and formal writing, I feel that he only agued against using them out of place or using them needlessly/for deception.
My initial reaction to Orwell's essay is awe and admiration. This piece is further proof of the intelligent writer he is. I've read previous works by Orwell (1984; Shooting an Elephant) and they offered an idea on what to expect on this essay. The best points he makes are being concise and the tips offered on being a better writer, which anyone can use. The advice I found most useful was "to put off using words as long as possible and getting the meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations." This way the "phrases that will best cover the meaning" are used, creating the most effective statements.
ReplyDeleteThere are no immediate faults that I could see in his essay. While others argue that the errors he warns against are the only flaw he commits, I instead perceive it as him further supporting his argument by purposefully writing those sentences in that manner. I can only slightly disagree with avoiding "pretentious diction" because there will be cases when there is no other word that conveys the meaning the writer is going for besides that one specific word. Of course, the author must always be wary of the words being used and fully understand their meaning, and not just use advanced vocabulary to be impressive.
-Edgar Quezada
Although I have never read any of Orwell's writings before, I have to say that I enjoyed his "Politics and the English Language" essay. When I first started reading it, I couldn't really grasp what he was saying because it appeared as a bit pretentious; something you later see he is against but proves to contradict within the first paragraph. However, as I continued further on, I began to understand the points he was making, and the way he was able to admit to committing some of the errors he believed modern writers made, allowed me to see how every writers writing is always improving, how it's never perfect. He proved his effectiveness in persuasion because of the way he provided examples and guidelines to being an effective writer. After reading this essay, I am interested in reading more of Orwell's works because his writing is concise and to the point, as well as vivid, because his writings allow the reader to make references to a variety of things.
ReplyDelete-Steffi Guba
My first thought, George Orwell is hilarious. I have read 1984 and I’m dying to read animal farm. I imagine that he really doesn’t like any kind of government. I completely agree with him in every position he takes. The English language has been contorted by politics for many years before Orwell. He gives us so many examples of how people can construe words to mean absolutely nothing. Especially this election, which I paid attention to, I notice all the examples Orwell give s us. I laughed so many times because I can relate to his reaction towards the examples he shows us. One statement I have lived through is “If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church.” I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve been to church and then been shocked to see that it was over. One thing I love is that Orwell isn’t attacking literary use as much. I believe the English language has not decreased in quality with books like Harry Potter and Twilight, if anything those stories are straight forward with no hidden meaning. There are so many points that if I continue to spill my thoughts out, this will be my essay. He may have faults but none that I can see so far. So therefore I’m ending here saying that George Orwell you are an amazing writer.
ReplyDelete-Catherine Cepeda
Before reading "Politics and the English Language" I have to admit that I really wasn't sure who George Orwell was. Ive heard much of Animal Farm, but im not much of a read to be honest. Overall, I enjoyed the general idea of Orwell's essay. He tries to convey a point which seems to be very much true in the our modern day English. Writers seem to use fancy words to sound itellectual and drift off their main idea, instead of adding to it. I didnt find the essay hard to understand, since he was pretty straight foward in what he wanted to say. I say straight foward kind of hesitantly becuase it did take him 8 pages to do so, but he did manage to make his point understood. I can see why many people praise Orwell's work, but personally, im not a fan from what i read. I found it to be hipocritical for him to critisize writter for their wrong doing, and then admit that he does the same.
ReplyDelete-Jorge Salvat
I found Orwell's essay to be very interesting. Now, I am not a great writer, and after reading this I feel as if my writing is worst than I thought it was. And I must admit I agree on everything he has said. "The English language is in a bad way," but there is really nothing that can be done unless people start to make efforts to change their way of writing. If you consider the social conditions we live in, and how politics uses language, people will less likely try to take these rules, offered by Orwell, into effect. If a politician can say something without making a image of it, they do so. Instead of the news reporting that "today in Iraq, we killed 6 men, 2 women, and 3 children," they will say "today, we killed a group of insurgents" (See Orwell's example on page 6, second paragraph).
ReplyDeleteOrwell makes the same mistakes that he is trying to get us to fix. I don't believe this is a fault in the essay, because he admits to it. Also, it isn't a fault because he's clearly trying to change his writing.
Also, I'm not much of a reader. I hate to read, and how authors write today probably has a role in that. If these changes where to take place, and writing were to return to how it used to be instead of what it is today, perhaps I would read more, not just me, but many people.
- Abraham Rubio Jr.
I personally think that George Orwell is one literature’s great minds. Reading such works like Animal Farm as well as 1984, I personally believe he focuses around the idea of socialism and the theory of a perfect society. This essay however, I found troublesome to follow. Although I agree with his overall standpoint, I cannot say that his goal was to persuade the reader. I think his real objective was to appeal to the reader's subconscious. Ever since I read George Orwell’s essay, I find it painstakingly clear that I use many of the same strategies George Orwell says we should stray away from.
ReplyDeleteI do, however find the essay lacking some evidence as to how politics affects writing. He seems to only state it as a real fact and forgets about politics towards the end. When I read the title I thought he was going to provide excerpts of essays from politicians and convey some type of similarities to that of a writer. I did not find any of that and although I agree with is viewpoint, I think it was somewhat biased and very verbose. Two pages would have sufficed to come through his point.
Marilyn Cordoba
I must confess that my first reading of the essay left me with the impression the Orwell was not only incoherent (since he makes the same mistakes he's condemning others for) and little credible, but also tedious and irritating to a certain point. A second reading reveals a whole new point and what he is really protesting about, which has less to do with the English language and much more to do with politics and how politicians use educated words and nice-sounding phrases to sugar coat some horrible act, or to fool someone into believing in their ideals.
ReplyDeleteLooking at it from that point of view I agree completely with G. Orwell. History’s witnessed hundreds of these acts, and so did Orwell, he lived trough both World Wars, through the Holocaust, a time period in which good public speakers like Adolph Hitler, Vladimir Ilych Ulianov and Carl Marx had entire countries fooled with their words, promising them an ostensibly ideal future, hoodwinking them with void phrases. Thousands of people died for those ideals, and even more were killed by them. Even today, there are countries who suffer from this.
Orwell portrays his opinion very well, and gets his point across in a way that is easy to understand, he relates with the reader, and in no time you find yourself laughing at his ingenious phrases and satiric remarks.
I most definitely take back what I first said of the essay, it is a great essay, very well written and very meaningful.
by Claudia Alvarez
I find the essay to be particularly interesting because i've never heard someone so frustrated with their own language. He is basically bashing the english language, stating that the lack of basic concrete words and phrases are being replaced by more obscure ones. He wrote about how writers can ramble on, using large words, but not actually say anything. I agree with Orwell's beliefs, but only to a certain extent. A person should not be considered a more creative writer just because he/she can use bigger words. In fact, it is probably easier for the reader to grasp the idea being conveyed if it was short and to the point.
ReplyDeleteI can't wholeheartedly agree with all of Orwell's statements, because he seems to fall in his own trap. Many of his sentences are not as concise as they could be.
I read Animal Farm in high school and I thought it was a clever, simplistic depicture of the real outcomes of Communist/Socialist ideals. When I read “Politics and The English Language”, once again I was exposed to Orwell’s inclination towards simplicity, however I was only partially persuaded by his essay. As I learned in ENC1101, in a good argument paper, the author does not only have to support his/her arguments but also expose the opposition, all while making his own argument seem like the superior one. Orwell fails to do this as he limits himself to (very intelligently and sharply) attacking and criticizing his “opponents”. On the other hand, his strong sustain is sure to hook those who are easily persuaded due to his eloquent ways of writing. I agree with Orwell’s criticism towards the overly sugarcoated political ways of writing but I do believe that every word has its ideal place in context, whether it sounds pompous or too common, every word has a precise meaning that can be the perfect fit.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarie Gutierrez
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I agree with George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language. Laziness and the use of slang have contributed to the downfall of the English language. Many times people make statements without stopping to think whether or not their words have a meaning or if they make sense at all. Other times people use big words in order to sound sophisticated when in reality they are just confusing their audience. Even though I am against using a long word where a short one will do, I think that for certain topics/occasions it is necessary to use a more sophisticated vocabulary. When writers use too many words and foreign phrases they tend to lose their audience. What I didn’t like about this essay was that it was written in a complex way, he could have stated what he was trying to say in fewer pages and with simpler words. In fact, he could have stated positive aspects in the writing of the professors and writers he criticized. As for the class discussion, I disagree with those that thought George Orwell was being hypocritical in his essay. He mentions the few things that shouldn’t be done while writing but he also admits that he probably has done that himself in this essay. To me, George Orwell is both accepting his flaws and hoping to improve his writing.
I read George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" in middle school (8th grade) and I can honestly tell you that it wasn’t one of my favorite books. The reason for this could have been that I didn’t quite understand the use of words in the book and because it the actual concept in the book was boring and did not catch my attention. Unless it was required for a class, I doubt that I will read another book written by Orwell for my amusement. Even though his work is not my taste for reading, maybe some other student will enjoy his style of writing.
In high school I read 1984 and thought it was a very good book. I think that "newspeak" was a result of what he was trying to say in this essay. I agree with some of the points in "Politics and the English language". Some of the times we use multiple words instead of just one is because we are trying to fill in words while we think of the right one. Orwell, himself, in some of his works does the things he tells us not to do like using pretentious diction.
ReplyDeleteSofia Bojorge
When first reading Orwell's essay I found it to be interesting. When writing I thought people should use bigger words and phrases in order to make an essay sound better. Then, when reading his essay, I noticed he stated that using big fancy words and phrases are meaningless when you can use one word to replace a phrase. I do believe this makes more sense but people are just used to writing nonsense to sound better. Ill admit I have committed the same errors. I have used the bigger fancier words in order to sound better and make the essay more interesting. Then again i guess we all do this just to sound smarter.
ReplyDelete-Krystal Kay Soler
my first reaction to orwells essay was "yes! i HATE when people write like that!", if that makes any sense. basically, i completely agree with what he has to say. its unnecessary to make a simple sentence longer to sound smarter. a big point in writing, probably the biggest point, is to have readers actually READ what you are writing about. extending sentences, using big words nobody understands, using foreign words, and using over used phrases just bores readers. readers want to get to the point, not float around it for days.
ReplyDeleteyes, i have read some of orwell's work. i read "animal farm", which when it was assigned to read, i fell in love with it. i was actually assigned to read this essay back in 11th grade, when i took AP english. now, did i read it is another question.
the faults i found were that he sometimes made the mistakes he was writing about- for example, when reading the beginning of the essay, i was a bit lost. i felt that maybe, after writing, he was being more cautious about what he was saying and such to not break his own rules, because i noticed the reading got easier the more you read into it. but i dont think that should matter much, since we're only human.
-camille gonzalez.
PS: im not sure if you wanted our responses to be all formal and stuff, so sorry for my lack of capitals and such!
Overall, I agree with Orwell's statement. In our society, we often stress completing a task over performing it with care, imagination, and voluntary effort. This can probably be partly blamed on our school systems. As individuals mature, they become accustomed to “fulfilling the requirements” and not honestly giving our best effort. Also, in a culture that (discretely speaking) could do more to encourage reading, the average person isn’t going to be particularly motivated to read an essay, public statement, etc. intently in order to find examples of originality or detailed imagery. Therefore, writers are going to be likewise unmotivated to put original thoughts and imagery in their work. I thought it was nice how Orwell ended his essay with some advisory guidelines to help writers trying to find ways to improve their writing and avoid this mistake.
ReplyDeleteI read “Animal Farm” in a high school history class. I enjoyed it; it seemed to be a satire of the rise of Stalinist Russia. The main theme of the story was a warning of how dictatorships can arise from government censorship and blind loyalty to revolution. This novel identified Orwell as someone who was concerned with political change and social reform.
If there were any flaws in his essay, I would say that I didn’t really like Orwell’s attempts at making counterarguments. The tone of the counterarguments never seemed to be very unbiased. Also, I think it would have been a good idea to somehow show other people’s opinions concerning the issue; maybe through more quotations.
Darrin Dorsey
Regarding Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" I am experiencing a bit of ambivalence. Having read both Animal Farm and 1984, I developed a penchant for his direct yet imaginative style of writing. Consequently I was receptive to Orwell's logical and well-constructed argument in favor of concise and cogent rhetoric. If the primary purpose of writing is to effectively convey a thought, fact, or image, simplicity as a means to clarify and enhance content is a reasonable destination. Particularly in the examples he provides, it is evident that in some circumstances, a language cleanse is necessary in order to make meaning more accessible to the reader. On the other hand, I believe that whether one's intent is to inform or create, writing is a personal reflection of the author; one should not always compromise style to appease another's perceptiong of "good writing" . The circumspect that Orwell demands to avoid literary "slovenlines" is counterintuitive to language's intrinsic function; a device for expression. I believe expression should be free and flowing and not burdened by the fastiduous restructuring that Orwell suggests. Being mindful of content, purpose, and rhetoric is entirely different from the meticulous discernment that Orwell expects.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what Orwell has to say. I disagree with the fact though, that all writing must follow his rules in order to be good writing. There are so many different styles of writing; he just provides one short version for those writers who fail to express themselves with too many words. I think that his rules are great guidelines, but that is it. They are not concrete, because if they were, he would have revised his paper and written it perfectly.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see that he admits to his error in his writing, but if his sole purpose was to persuade readers to follow his direction, he should have revised that paper until it was left flawless according to the rules.
Cristina Fernandez
I've now read "Politics and the English Language" four times and am still fuzzy on some areas, but I get the basic idea that Orwell is trying to stress. It seems to me that he is telling us that we are ridiculous in our writing. Plain and simple, I know. We use unnecessary sentence extenders, bad metaphors and we even try to force across that we as the writer know how to use bigger, more sophisticated words. What's funny is that he's so right. I've probably already fallen a couple times to the faults he points out in his essay, right here in my post. I always catch myself trying to squeeze in "the fact that" or unnecessary words just to sound smarter or make the work look more aesthetically or auditorily pleasing.
ReplyDeleteAll in all I can say I did enjoy reading the essay and agree with it for the most part. What I can say though, is that he is very biased in how he tries to be persuasive. I would have liked to have seen some of his writing in which he makes those mistakes. That would have made the essay sound much less biased because he would be saying in essence, "Yeah, I'm ridiculous too..."
-Danny Garcia
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell is the first I've read of his work. I would have to say that I agree with Orwell in the case of our writing styles, and the way they have changed. I personally don't like reading someones work when they drag on every sentence by adding meaningless words and phrases. Keep it short and sweet and get right to the point. However, even though I agree with him, I too make the same mistakes and drag on sentences just like he describes.
ReplyDelete-Michael Janosky
This is the first piece of work that i have read from George Orwell and i found his work quite interesting. The message he is trying to send to his audience is the type of mistakes that many writers make when they are writing a piece of work. He to claims to make these mistakes yet he criticizes the people who do them. The good thing is that he uses many examples of other peoples worth that support this theory and that is why i strongly agree with his message.
ReplyDeleteThis was actually the first thing from George Orwell that I have ever read. I completely agreed with what he was saying and it made perfect sense however, a fault would be the fact that he made the mistakes he said not to do. Another fault, in my opinion, would be how he downed the other view of writing. I believe that when you are writing to persuade someone, a few positive comments towards the counterarguement are still acceptable and also make you seem more credible. Overall, I completely believe in mostly all he was saying.
ReplyDelete-brittany redmon
For me this essay was showing the point of view of the writer, but he does not give a positive analysis of his opinion about the other type of writing, qhen he gives examples of the way that language should not be used, he does it in a mocking way and for me that is not the right way to get an idea across an audience that is in the other side of your opinion. He also says that as writers we should not use words that are too complicated because that is showing off, in my opinion using words that are more sofisticated is a way to show how educated we are because if we just were to stick to normal words i do not think that we should be taking so many years in english classes, because we take this classes to improve writing and vocabulary and according to him we need to be short and clear. in conclusion i see his point and respect it but i not agree with it.
ReplyDeletePaula Gutierrez
T/R 12:30am
In general, I do not agree completely with George Orwell's essay. He discusses how the modern english language has become so complicated that it does not make sense anymore. In one example he states that a complicated word should not be used where a simple on can be used. I do not agree with this because then everyone's writing would be plain and simple. People have developed their style of writing through the variety of words. Complicated words is what makes everyone's writing unique and original. Not all writing should be straight to the point as Orwell states. This is because there has to be a way to persuade the reader in to reading the piece. If essays and books were just straight to the point, then it would not intrigue the reader; it would be boring.
ReplyDeleteBut, I do agree with Orwell that cliches has been used so much that their meaning has been changed. I believe anyone who uses cliches really has nothing else to say, which makes the essay sound wordy.
I have not read any other works from orwell. But, I can say I do not like Orwell's style of thinking by reading this essay even though he does have some good persuasive points and examples.
-Beatriz Barredo
I have never found Orwell to be a sensory experience; I furthermore have never had a grand admiration for his writing. In all truthfulness his work has little effect on my psyche and his technical use of word arrangement and syntax is rather lackluster. In part due to his straight forward diction, and lack of embellishment. Never, in my experience of Orwell (animal farm, to 1984, to this essay) has there been a moment where I have exhaled with delight at the beauty of a metaphor of his dripping with imagery, or at even a moment where his concise simplicity of a direct statement, has struck me with shock at the sheer rawness of his words without embellishment, rather I find he lacks in the general area of ethos, I find it rather unappealing to me to when Orwell speaks of the corruptible nature of our language and how we need to simplify our words, these theories seem to always formulte in a very dull circumstance and at appear at a loss for philosophy.It is as though he appraochs the subject matter of writing as if it wereartificial, setting restrictions to a very fickle instrument of communication and expression. Take authors such as Burroughs or Thomas Pynchon, it is precisely within their own chaotic meshing of implausible vocabulary and juxtaposing grammar that makes works such as Gravities Rainbow and Naked Lunch such innovative pieces for the time, where as I find that Orwell is a man who has very intricate theories on society and on the mannerisms of mans approach the situations of control and politics, yet in turn I find him to be a horrible writer. In essence he is a great thinker but a bad communicator an if it were not for his satire of the Russian plight at the time then in my opinion Orwell would not have been famous.
ReplyDelete- Anna Miorelli
I completely agree with what Orwell is explaining in his essay. I do not think he is attacking the other writers at all. He is only using examples, which he refers to as average not even the worst. I do not believe the english language is suffering. I just believe that our writing is the problem. When people talk they don't use crazy big words, yet they can prove their point just as good as someone who fills an essay with crap. We have all written a paper where we've hit the thesarus button. At times this can help an essay if it is used right and minimally, but really who wants to read an essay they can't understand. By being as clear and concise as possible it ac tually attracts a reader. I've found this after i read The Cather in The Rye. This is the only school book I have read that I was actually interested in because i could relate to it. The author used everyday words and was able to make the book one of the most clever stories I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteI have read Animal Farm. This is also a story that if is observed in depth has a very complicated storyline. He is able to use animals on a farm to perfectly describe and refer back to World War 2. His language in the book is easy to read and understand, even thought it was written a while ago. This just convinces me of his essay even more because he is able to apply his own rules to his work and it worked out well for him.
While reading George Orwell's essay I agreed with most of his points and thought they were interesting. First off, with his point on not using big words and being pretentious when you can use clear and simple words, I learned that in high school and last semester in ENC 1101 and noticed how it actually makes an essay stronger. People would rather hear a clear, straight to the point sentence that they can understand, and that is kind of what Orwell is trying to say.
ReplyDeleteAlso in his essay, i found it amusing how he talked about political leaders and how their speeches are deceiving. I never looked at it that way in Orwell's examples how they soften the truth of war or economic problems by using words that makes one look good but doesn't allow the audience to really understand. Probably that's how Hitler had so many followers. I liked Orwell's essay and I think itll help english to become more clear and back to it's own language.
To go in order with the questions that you asked us, I would have to say that my FIRST reaction to this Essay was sheer boredom...
ReplyDeleteAfter I read into the essay some more and had reached the more intriguing parts of the essay I started to enjoy it. Though I can't say that I agree with Orwell completely I can say that he does make a very good argument. As we all well know a good argument doesn't mean that the person presenting the argument is correct.
Through out the whole essay Orwell is badgering the writing of others as incorrect and too complex, and the entire time he is using the same writing methods he is advocating against. That in it self is not a bad thing, but he is also implying that it is easy to change this method of writing but shows no effort of doing so in his own essay.
I personally believe that language has to constantly evolve and move on its own accord. Language has a way of sorting itself out according to the region into the most effective and efficient form possible. Example: A military personal in combat and a politician on stage making a presidential speech are not going to have the same dialog to say the same thing, even though they are both in a form of battle.
And a little out of order and lastly, I have never even heard of George Orwell so i cant say that I have ever read any of his other work
"Politics and the English Language" is my third encounter with George Orwell's work.I was quite pleased with "Animal Farm" and how Orwell used the pigs to describe the axis powers in WWII. Likewise i agree with Orwells essay and how you should keep things simple. His essay gives off a "back to basics" feel;why use big words when small ones are just fine. Get to the point and don't "beat around the bush". If you keep things simple your audience is much broader. However if you use an extensive vocabulary you narrow down your audience.
ReplyDeleteOrwell did a good job at persuading the reader on his points. i agree with his opinions about cliches beings superfluous and how they shouldn't be used. i liked the fact that he admitted to the audience that although he disagrees with common writhing errors, he himself has fallen victim to them.
This was the first piece of work that I have read of George Orwell. At first, I felt like Orwell was all over the place with his examples. He kept contradicting himself by stating a rule, then going against it. Although at times Orwell was a bit misleading in the essay, he got his point across to his reader in the end.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Orwells essay completely. Even though he himself break several of the rules that he states, I still believe he makes a strong argument and its something that every writer faces. Everyone tries to sound smarter by throwing in some flashy language and some famous metaphors, but we usually lose our message because we're so focused on sounding intelligent.
ReplyDelete