For this week's blog, I'd like you to comment on the strengths and/or weaknesses of Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language." Perhaps these questions may help "kickstart" your response: does this essay provide practical help to you as a college-level writer? Does it change your thinking at all? Does it conflict with things you've learned in previous writing classes? How might Orwell improve his essay? Does he start from a flawed premise?
(Responses are due by Jan. 20th at midnight. And place your name either at the beginning of your post or at the end.)
For me, i think that Orwell was over thinking about the whole situation with modern english writting. I beleive that the english language is constantly changing over time and it is almost impossible to avoid that because people will write and speak the way they learned and the way they like. If you can't change the way people think then what are the chances to make them change the way they write? He makes it seem like there is this "perfect" way of writting. So he is not realistic in that sense. Don't get me wrong, there is always room for improvement. And he did point out some pretty good things that i would consider :-]
ReplyDelete-Dania Castillo
The simple, straight forward language that Orwell uses in the "Politics and the English Language" essay are admirable. I found his practical examples could be readily applied to our society today, modern writers/politicians tend to be less concrete in their meanings, hiding them beneath metaphors and concealing them with words that do not "draw up the mental image".
ReplyDeleteAs a college-level writer, and an avid one at that, I found a lot of pointers that can help to improve my writing skills. Such as the separation from padded sentences that eliminate simple verbs, what Orwell calls, "the operators or verbal false limbs". This can make for an unclear message when writing and can cause your reader to become confused.
Many of the things that Orwell discusses I have never thought twice about but the more that I read through the essay the more that I understood his message and began to take on some of his opinions. He is most definitely a strong and persuasive writer. When writing to express such strict and opinionated matters like a standard of English and its relation to society some people are bound to disagree and take offense,
as with ANYTHING in life itself.
Initially, I disagreed with some of Orwells points. I misinterpreted him, I thought he was advocating the use of archaic speech and grammar for the sake of nobility. As I read however, I realized that he was trying to stress the importance of clarity and simplicity. Flourish and dazzle will emerge in a speech if the message is noble and the speaker is clear. Trying to add roundabout catchphrases and metaphors will only complicate a speech and dilute the message.
ReplyDeleteI do find it difficult to apply Orwell's lessons to anything but formal prose. I would not use his five questions when composing anything else.
Beginning with the purpose of the essay, although it was persuasive, I do not believe its sole purpose was to convince people to write a different way. With its straightforwardness, I believe its purpose was to make individuals aware of the frequent errors that are made with the simple English writing and provide ways that they could be corrected. It is clear that Orwell feels there is some type of standard to writing, given that he implies rules which should be followed. The fact of the matter is that for anything to be practiced, such as the English language, there has to be some type of rulebook or even guidelines that must be followed. It may sound as though I am overly thinking the issue, but I guess that is the effect it had on me.
ReplyDeleteI definitely felt as though Orwell’s essay helped me in my personal writing, especially with the four common figures of speeches that Orwell points out. I, personally, am an advocate of using the phrase, “due to the fact that”, which falls under the category of “operators or verbal false limbs”. Now that I see how bizarre it makes a sentence seem and how much better the sentence can sound without it, I feel a bit foolish, but now I know to fix it. I am even sure that in these few paragraphs that I have written, I have most probably broken a few of “Orwell’s don’ts”, but no one is perfect when it comes to writing, and he even admits that he breaks the rules as well. I do see where people can take his essay personally because its message is a bit strong and even uses examples from other known authors; however it greatly adds to his credibility. Overall, due to Orwell’s strong writing, it is an essay that forces readers to change at least one of the ways in which they choose to write.
-Anais Perez
Upon reading Orwell’s essay the first time, I didn’t agree with his argument. He was very blunt and, at times, offensive. But, once I read it a second time, I understood his claims and found his suggestions to be helpful. After analyzing the essay closer, I realized that Orwell basically wanted his readers to learn how to write a clearer essay. While being educated in FCAT frenzied schools, “fluff” was always required to make your essay more appealing. However, Orwell argues that it is unnecessary to write like that. Of course his ideas go against everything I was taught, but I always thought it made more sense to write how Orwell suggests; clear and straight to the point. A few of his suggestions aren’t very practical. Yet, the majority of them can help anyone who is striving to become a stronger writer. Most of the time, Orwell does sort of speak in a negative tone. He constantly belittles the way people write. I feel that if he actually praised good writers instead of condemned the poor writers, his essay would have been more appealing to me. Overall, the solutions stated in the essay can really help.
ReplyDelete-Megan Hill
I think Orwell makes his point clearly. He is frustrated with the pretentious writing he sees all around him especially the writing of politicians and their speech writers. I think he feels that frustration with political writings because those people are getting away with things he feels are immoral. He is aggravated because they find ways to cover up dreadful things the military has done with vague explanations and, were getting away with writing speeches that didn’t really say anything yet the masses would believe they were being told. I think he feels as if political writers are in a way cheating and as other writers read this and listened to this their writing digressed too. He makes his feelings of frustration very clear and his reasons for being frustrated very clear. I agree with him completely. I think there is no reason for writers to complicate their pieces of work so that they can sound smarter, or make it look nicer. I think that this just complicates things for so many people who have such a difficult time reading works written in that way. It gets to the point where it is so difficult that many people will not read these works. Then they miss out on the information they should know and are very eager to learn. It is very sad. Writers who write pretentiously are doing this at the expense of many people. This is probably not their intention but it is true. I completely understand that if a writer is writing a scientific article, or research paper, etc. a metaphor can get a confusing train of thought explained simply, and that scientific words should be used in order to be more specific but, in cases which scientific words, words in Latin, Greek, or other uncommonly unknown languages, or excessive descriptions are not necessary there is no reason an author can not use a simpler word, simpler description, or delete unneeded words to make their work shorter and simpler.
ReplyDelete-Noemi Guerra
The only carelessness I found was the position of the first line of the last paragraph. As it stands in the rear, the general underlying thought is twisted and an entirely new perspective is formed and the reader is forced to reevaluate give way to misunderstanding and a general misinterpretation of the essay in its entirety. Other than that, Orwell’s writing is clear and concise further pushing the purpose of the essay itself.
ReplyDeleteThe set of guidelines listed is valid and a list I have seen promoted by multiple English professors and a list I have tried to pay regards to. His essay has defiantly brought to light small bad habits that have limited the growth of my writing since probably as early as middle school.
I believe Orwell makes his points concise and effective. Therefore, I am able to agree with most of his beliefs. Throughout my life, I have been taught to write the dreadful five paragraph essay and be constrained to that type of writing. Sometimes, I would have trouble coming up with enough information to talk about and wouldn't know what to do. So the only reasonable option would be to "beat around the bush" and prolong the essay. However, Orwell opposed this method and is trying to warn us that we shouldn't approach this method because it makes our writing unclear. We should just get straight to the point and let our readers know the message that we are trying to convey. Politicians are fairly good at doing this as well because their ability to speak alot, gives them the advantage to hide thier real messages. He acknowledges his own faults as well. He said that he has fallen victim to bad language and he needs to correct this issue. This adds credibility to his writing.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" it was unclear whether I agreed or disagreed with the essay. Orwell makes very good points which state that people use too much fluff when writing and that vocabulary should not consist of too many fancy and unecessary Greek and Latin words. He even calls himself out for making these mistakes. This allows the reader to give Orwell credibility. Despite the good points Orwell makes, he has weaknesses as well. In the first line, Orwell refers to 'most people' allowing the reader to think that the audience is most people. However, in the end of the essay, he blames politics as the reason for bad language. This allows the reader to think that the audience is politicians. Orwell blames politics for changing language. If politics is the cause, it is always changing which is obviously going to cause language to change. Perhaps politics is not the reason for poor language, but rather laziness of each individual.
ReplyDelete-Nidia Roque
As a freshman student in college, writing papers is something that I am still "warming up to" (ha ha). Well, with plenty of papers due all around the same time I can say it's kind of hard to "stick to the point" when writing. Usually when I need to fulfill a paper's word requirement, I try to make it as lengthy as possible. This is how I can relate to what Orwell is trying to say with the example of the eclesiastes... It's true that yes, I may be able to finish off my 1,000 word paper by elongating expressions, but in the end, the message is not as clear as I would want it to be. Adding many "decorative" words simply makes the paper harder to read as it strays away from the general message. Therefore, to me, I am glad to see how Orwell can create this 9 Page long essay in a completely clear form of language that allows the reader to understand it easily and also helps the reader enjoy what they are reading since they do not have to struggle to understand what is being said. Also, I must say that I believe it is a strength how Orwell says that he himself is also at fault of becoming used to modern day language since he proves his point on how easy it is for one to follow the modern day trend of writing.
ReplyDeleteIn Orwell's essay I found it to be very informative and he states his points of view clearly. He believes language, English in particular, to be very bad but he is partially correct with his opinions. I strongly believe that language has evolved since the 1940's, I mean you would not expect some of his time to say LOL or What up? Orwell can be a bit biased at times and his argument about politics is a bit confusing to me because I don’t really see what that has to do with language. I assume his idea is that politicians speak to the masses just to "make lies sound truthful and murder respectable" so politicians are all devious when they speak. On the other hand, I like how he lists the rules for effective writing which I sometimes use. There was also an area about the dying metaphor that I enjoyed, when he says metaphors are worn out and used just to save people the trouble of inventing phrases. I found this funny because I constantly hear contradicting and illogical phrases used daily that we accept as modern language, but I am always learning news ways to improve my writing and speaking. In Orwell's essay he is very clear and to the point, in making his point about writing in general.
ReplyDeleteFrank Nunez
ReplyDeleteIn George Orwell's, "Politics and the English Language", there were many strengths and weaknesses that I found in my opinion. One of the major strengths included George writing about how to make an essay better and stronger. He uses examples like dying metaphors and pretentious diction. Using these manners of writing can weaken any essay, according to George Orwell. He also gets his point across effectively by explaining every detail and his opinions. I feel that he successfully gets his explanation to his audience very well. On the other hand, one of his major flaws is that his writing is too opinionated and wordy. George is way too one-sided with himself and never really gives a counter argument. When a essay or any piece of writing is wordy, then it makes it difficult for the audience to read and understand. It depends on who is reading the essay. This essay does help me in some ways as a college writer about his rules to writing a perfect paper in the last part of his essay. While reading "Politics in the English Language", it has made me think more effectively now on how to write better. I can think deeper on how to make my point across and doing it in a effective manner. Reading this essay has caused me a little conflict in some of my previous writing classes. Some teachers in the past are the total opposite of George because they alwyas used to say that using long and complex words will make your essay sound more intelligent and using metaphors and similies always make it stronger whereas George Orwell contradicts these themes. To improve this essay, I will say to George to have some sort of counter argument before his conclusion or somewhere near the end and to come up with shorter words so that more people can read it without any trouble. I think George starts his essay from a flawed premise because in the intoduction he states that "most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way." He should'nt say most people and should come up with some other sort of way to get this point across. Frank Nunez
Altagrace
ReplyDeleteI agreed with what Orwell said about using what I guess most of us might call fancy talk. Initially I thought he was against it for everyone, including politicians, but I believe that he was trying to say that there's a time and place to have impeccable vocabulary and that it isnt always necessary to use big words when trying to make even the smallest of points.
However, he did make it seem as if there was a one-way answer to the whole english language debate because just like we discussed in class, certain phrases that we use on a regular basis are often used incorrectly but just because it could be wrong for one person, doesnt necessarily make it wrong for someone else.
I feel that the essay could even be used in terms of how we pronounce many words in the englush language because many parts of the U.S. say the exact same word differenly. For example, people from New York dont pronounce "water" the same way that bostonians pronounce it, or the way californians and mississippians may pronounce it.
I think the overall message was to be simple when simplicity is needed and dont try too hard to sound like something you're not for the sake of being misleading.
what i like about George Orwell's, "Politics and the English Language, is that furthermore than criticizing he gives solutions. He also admits he is faulty of doing what he points out is wrong, and to me he is showing humility. That attitude increases his credibility as an author.During my high school years i was taught to always use big words and to sound fancy.By reading this essay I realized that writing in simple every day English may be harder than imagined, but not impossible. To me the essay has more strenghts than weaknesses. some of the strenghts are:he is straight forward with his opinion, he gets credibility by admiting he is guilty, he gives solutions,and the examples are useful and can be applied to our everyday life. some weaknesses are: the essay is two long, disorganized and must be read more than twice. Although it was too long I appreciate his recommendations and agree with his point of view.
ReplyDeleteAna Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteOrwell's argument is something that I had never thought about. I agree with what he is trying to say and I think that, while there were a couple flaws, overall he wrote a good argument. All throughout high school I was taught to use "fancy" writing. My teachers would have me decorate my paper with words that would make the paper sound "prettier" but in the end, the material would be blurry. I admit, when I have a certain word requirement to meet I start to add phrases and words that will elongate my paper. This was the way that I was taught up until high school, so when I entered my ENC 1101 class last semester I had a bit of a hard time trying not to make my papers so cloudy. If you're trying to argue a point, it's better to worry more about the issues and information to back up your argument rather than making the paper sound so pretty. It's true that wording is important because the paper has to be appealing to the audience, but if you focus so much on trying to make your paper sound appealing to the reader you'll end up beating around the bush too much and by the time the reader is half way through your paper, they would have forgotten what you were arguing in the first place.
When I began reading George Orwell’s essay I was taken aback at the amount of negative words and phrases used at the very beginning of his essay. He starts off by using words that hold a very negative connotation to most as in failure, fail, ugly, inaccurate, foolish, imitation, and slovenliness. Words like the ones previously stated make it rather easy to judge Orwell and his essay and not necessarily in the best way. However, once I read and even re-read that second paragraph I realized what he was trying to say and that it didn’t necessarily mean that he was attacking us (me) as a speaker of the English language. Orwell later shows the reader what he means by all the negative comments towards the English language by taking excerpts from famous professors, pamphlets, and even newspapers. Those 5 examples strengthen the essay by allowing the reader relate to the writer, once I read those 5 excerpts and had no idea what the message they were trying to get across was, I was able to see what Orwell was saying: that the idea of a writer gets lost once they try to incorporate metaphors, phrases, and words that could of easily been left out. The lack of imagery and precision is what leads writers to creating things that have lost all meaning. In my opinion, the essay has enough examples, explanations, and solutions to improve the English language, that makes it a strong essay rather than a weak one. I also agree with Orwell’s overall message that dedication should come first instead of conforming and losing your passion for writing.I believe, that one of his stronger suits is how practical the essay is in the sense that all that was explained are things I as a reader comment on when I read certain things that have no apparent meaning or simply don’t make sense because its true value is masked behind words and phrases that shouldn’t have been used. With this essay I was able to change my thinking towards writing with the idea that simple sometimes is better although it does contradict what I’ve been taught for the last 19 years.
ReplyDelete-Kristen Moller.
As i was reading Orwell's essay I found myself loosing my train of thought. After attempting to read the essay several times I realized a few things. Orwell, at first, is concise and stright to the point, however he continues to drag on his point further and further into the essay. The horrid examples he used were great in getting his point across but after explaining his view on the English language and stating his point he just precedes to ramble. I don;t believe there was a need for Orwell to use eight pages to get his point across, it was simply to much.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Barroso
Upon reading George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", I found myself having trouble completely understanding what point he was trying to make to the reader. As I read further, I realized that although he was being very blunt and concise with his arguments, the piece itself was too wordy. He used way too many examples and although their intent were to convey the flaws within the English language, they somewhat deviated from the point. I did like that he used some counter-arguments to build his credibility but I believe he used too many. I think he could have presented is argument in a smaller amount of text. I find it ironic that he writes about prententious diction yet he writes in that very same diction. In essence, I think it was a rather tedious piece of writing. However, I completely concurr with his point of view in the fact that the English language is deteriorating and could in fact be reversed.
ReplyDelete-Melissa Montero
Upon first reading George Orwell's essay
ReplyDelete"Politics and the English Language", I would have said that I completely disagree with what he's saying. I remember thinking, who is Orwell to criticize the way people write English. As technology advances and times move on, people change and the way we write as well. So who is Orwell to criticize the way people write modern English.
After a second reading, I realized and fully understood the full message of his essay. Being unique is one of the most important things in life, I believe that. Being unique is important in not just how a person thinks or the way they are, but the way they write as well.
I completely agree with Orwell, why should people put into their own words the things that others thought of and wrote long ago before them. I do think that simplicity and uniqueness are the most things to writing. I think being a unique writer is important, and that's the message Orwell is trying to send out in his essay.
- Alexander Dominguez
Jessica Ward
ReplyDeleteInitially upon reading George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", I was struck by his premise which seemed to portray today's writers as ignorant. Their essays are filled with pretentious words and empty metaphors. While I agree that this style of writing is rising, I do not believe that it is the crisis Orwell makes it out to be. A writer can tweak his or her style easily with some instruction. Orwell used excerpts of poor writing in his essay to provide examples. However, I must understand that Orwell is biased. There may be many more works that are not so flawed. Orwell's style of writing seems to mirror the exact style he is trying to persuade the reader against, but he seems to warn you of this beforehand.
Even though I believe his premise is flawed, I think the essay's strengths, outweigh the weaknesses. It was well structured, with each new point followed by elaborate examples. Orwell's essay does provide practical help to me as a college-level writer. He pinpoints the main faults in writing today and provides solutions to them. I can now use these solutions to analyze my own writing and hopefully submit clearer essays. His ideas go against everything I was taught in middle school and high school. As an avid reader, I enjoy reading and writing works that are clear and concise. As a student, I was taught to fill my essays with as many large words as possible. Avoiding single syllables and utilizing the thesaurus whenever possible. I did not enjoy writing in this manner and I definitely did not enjoy reading essays written in this manner. Therefore, I can understand where Orwell is coming from. I would like to see a return to simpler, but still effective, writing.
I believe that George Orwell’s essay offers useful advice for college students. Many writers, even college-leveled ones, lack the discipline to stay focused on what they’re actually trying to write. The ability to explain one’s views in a concise and thoughtful way is necessary for any great writer. Even as I reply to this blog, I find that it is challenging to use direct and specific words and meanings. Orwell’s argument certainly deserves a writer’s full attention.
ReplyDelete-Victor Z
Of the many things that grabbed my attention in Orwell's essay, the sheer amount of practical and realistic examples, observations, and advice he provides definitely, to me, only go to support his argument. There are, however, occasions where he makes broad, overly generalized statements or assumptions that can throw his readers very far off.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, he refers quite often to the usage of Latin or foreign words. What's odd about this is that he assumes his readers understand what he implies when he does refer to his opinion of them. I was lost when he wrote how there is "the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones." At first I assumed he meant the use of actual Latin or foreign words, but later, when he writes how an English professor would defend Russian totalitarianism, I began to think that perhaps Orwell meant using words derived from Latin or foreign roots rather than Saxon ones. The whole experience was frustrating and it nagged at me as I was reading the rest of the essay.
Orwell also suggests, or maybe assumes, writers who are guilty of some of the mistakes and "ugly writing" he speaks of either don't care what they are saying or are, by personal preference, ignorant of the meaning and form of the words and phrases they use. Though there are some who are like this, in my opinion most are innocently unaware of the origins, form, and meanings of the words they use because most people don't particularly think of the English language in such an analytical way. They are still, somewhat, in the wrong but the manner in which Orwell just assumes how people are seems a bit to critical and biased to me.
Despite the weaknesses, I've learned a lot from Orwell's work; most of it, if not all, beneficial and worthy of retaining. I've changed how I perceive language and how we communicate as human beings. Many of the preconceptions I had about writing and how I use words have been shattered and thrown away. After reading this work, whether you disagree or concur, Orwell's essay definitely throws the questions:
1) Are we treating language as a tool in order for us to accurately communicate our thoughts to others? Or are we just coasting on a perceived natural and continual progression, or maybe evolution, of this tool?; and
2) Are we using the words we use because they concisely convey our purpose and meaning behind them? Or are they ineffective and trivial, even distorting the very purpose behind using them?
I believe Orwell's essay to be an incredibly illuminating one. Orwell argues that modern English has been profoundly tainted by perplexing language, idioms and metaphors being used out of context, and political correctness. That is, modern writers choose flamboyant and uncessary words to inneficiently convey their ideas. Often their word choice is as idiotic in its flamboyance as it is in its innapropiate usage. Similarly, writers also use ambiguous language to introduce ideas that will seem blunt and outrageous if boldly stated. These trends are too often seen in modern English writing. Orwell completely supports his argument with various examples.
ReplyDelete-Giancarlo Guerrero
George Orwell had a very interesting way of taking the common way of what people write and telling them how it is wrong and stale and explained how writing should be your own well thought out piece as opposed to something unoriginal. And using words that are either very common and boring or very pretentious and flashy that just take from the imagery of what is trying to be said is wrong. From the beginning I noticed reading the mistakes he mentioned and though there was several things he said that I didn't agree with there was still too many things that made sense like his descriptions of metaphors that are no longer appropriate. I am grateful for George Orwell's piece because it is actually a very useful way of getting out of boring styles of writing and coming up with your own unique way of saying something.
ReplyDelete- Carlos Donado
John Mejia
ReplyDeleteI have always though that writing should be simple and straight to the point and that is why I ultimately agree with Orwell. Throughout my academic career, until my junior year, writing was focused on the FCAT style. Writing was prefabricated and you just plugged in a few of your thoughts to ultimately write five sentences per paragraph in a five paragraph essay. I do believe that the writing approach supported by Orwell allows anyone to be a better writer and the tips that he presents are actually very helpful. In the end I mostly agree with Orwell, but I do feel that he exaggerated the issue. Simply put, everyone has a different writing style, it's like an art, and no one can really claim to have the best of the styles, not even Orwell.
George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" essay made me reconsider my style of writing as an Undergraduate college student. While in middle and high school, my teachers had encouraged me to stick to the basic five paragraph format and to fill my essays with large and sophisticated words in which I hardly knew the definitions to. Orwell discouraged this in writing, calling it "meaningless words". Orwell wanted writers to simply state their points in an essay directly instead of adding unnecessary vocabulary to it just to complicate matters. He presents an effective argument by providing five examples that helped strengthen his essay. His essay, in short, brings meaning to the saying "quality, not quantity."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Orwell's essay, I feel as though more freedom has been given to me as a writer because my mind has been opened to a more simplistic, yet effective style of writing that breaks away from the stale methods of writing practiced in high school.
Orwell's essay though had a few negative points to it. He mentioned that the English language was devolving. I do not believe that this idea is accurate because English is a constantly changing language. The audience has changed in modern writing, therefore the style of English writing must change as well. Orwell's standpoint needs to take into account the "new" writers that use their own style of writing instead of sticking to a more formal style of writing. Orwell could have provided a counter-argument to make his essay seem less bias. Despite these small points, I found his essay very effective and I will find myself changing my style of writing to something effective that I actually enjoy.
Orwell opened my eyes to things that I have never really thought about. I agree with some of his points, and i disagree with others. I like the way he says we should write straight to the point, but i think it should only be applied to politics. This helps the reader and listener have a better understanding of what the politician is trying to say. Politicans sugar coat everything they say, and they almost never say what their real intentions are. This frustrates me, because all I hear when a politican speaks is a very long speech with a lot of decorative and high class words. In the end, I don't really know what the politians true intentions are. They should be concise in their speeches and writing. Sadly, this is how almost every poltician speaks and writes. It will probably stay that way unless a standardized way of writing for politics is not made and followed. I think it should only be applied to politics because it is what affects the masses the most. If a writer wants to use many high vocabulary words or write an entire sentence when they could have just used the word ambigous, I have no problem. I don't think we should restrain the english language when it comes to books and essays. I think an author of a book can write however he or she desires. I think that's the beauty of the english language you can write one sentence so many different ways, but i despise it when it comes to politics because of the importance of knowing exactly what a politian is trying to say. I have other things to talk about, but I will save it for my essay.
ReplyDelete-Danel Abreu
When i began to read Orwell's essay, i think of the many times where i was getting a point across in a conversation, to then having someone correct me for using something in the wrong sense. That's how i pictured Orwell; a prententious-self-righteous-prick who just wants to correct people's language. I am not afraid to take ownership for being one of those people who use the english language in the "improper manner", because atleast it is more practical and understood by most. Atleast, i believe that is the sole purpose of language. Meanwhile his essay left me perplexed, which, he himself pointed out, is not the purpose.This, of course, was my intial reaction but as i gave my scrutinization a rest, i realized that he was just trying to pin down what genuine writing really looks like. I would have to agree with him on some of his views on the English language, other aspects i would have to differ. I believe language is best when it is simple yet wholesome. Orwell did good in pointing out the way politics plays into language and how we tend to wear certain words or ideas out because we don't care to express ourselves with our own original ideas.I have to admit i tend to do that. Overall, the essay, though a bit too wordy, was thoughtful and sensible. If there is anything i learned from this essay, it would be the purpose of lanuage: it is not language that makes a point valid, but it is the way you use language to make a valid point.
ReplyDeleteAt first I found Orwell’s Politics and the English Language hard to get into. He introduced his opinion on how our language is declining on an intellectual scale and that this will lead to a crash. I did not agree with this so I was put down a little bit to hear what else he had to say on the subject. I got more interested when Orwell gave more examples because I felt like he was proving his point in more words than necessary, which he did touch on. Even though the beginning was a little slow in my opinion, throughout the essay Orwell explains his points of how politics uses large, frivolous words, similes, foreign phrases and passive words/phrases and how this is not good for society. This is not good in a sense that these phrases that are saying too much for what they really mean can be used to cover up the truth or skew reality from the people it is aimed towards. A lot of people, including politicians, use phrases like “dying metaphors” or “verbal false limbs” to sound well educated or extremely intellectual. I understand is good to be concise, but now I understand why, it is so you get your point across so hopefully it will not be misinterpreted or make the reader lose interest in the middle of reading your work.
ReplyDeleteOrwell, although slightly dramatic, was completely right about the English language being in a "bad way"; but it's like many things in today’s world. For starters, communication has been degraded by technologies like the text message or the instant message. So many common phrases and words have been abbreviated to acronyms because it's simply easier. I think people have forgotten how to even argue and shout in person. Certain values that were appreciated "back then", are simply becoming obsolete in the modern world. Grammar and spelling is unimportant due to Spell Check, slang and local lingo is accepted through text messaging because of the informalities and people are just too lazy to care.
ReplyDeleteThe most important part of this essay is the sense of hope Orwell gives us. He assures us that this process is "reversible." People just need to become aware. There should be a fine line between formal writing and informal writing and people need not confuse the two. Many think that formal writing has to do with using fancy words and catch phrases that one hears through life, but Orwell says that is 100% wrong. One must talk as if one was talking to the audience in one's own words. I feel that the problem is people don't even know how to talk to one another like they did before cell phones and computers. People are awkward with words, so they feel compelled to use these socially accepted phrases that have either lost meaning with time or the meaning has completely changed over time. He just wants people to be real, and I think it is possible. He convinced me and has definitely made me think a whole lot about my writing. Now there’s only a few billion to go.
Javier Perez
At first, I disagreed with Orwell. I believed the English language to have no visible problems. After taking a good look at my own writing I realized that I also commit many of the mistakes Orwell mentions.
ReplyDeleteI tend to mainly adorn my writing with anything to make it longer or harder to read, so trying to confuse my audience into believing that it is somehow better than it actually is.
By the time I had read the essay completely and understood it fully, I ended up agreeing with Orwell completely.
Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English language” really hits home when you read it. His use of practical and vivid examples takes the reader deep into Orwell’s views and opinion of professional writers as well as politicians who are pretentious and use meaningless words constantly. Clearly, Orwell had thought of every point in his essays through. His research and knowledge of his topics adds to the credibility if this essay. His purpose was to show how vague and confusing a bad writer could be and how that, in turn, affects society’s everyday speech.
ReplyDeleteIn "Politics and the English language", Orwell argues that the English language is in a "bad way" and uses practical examples to prove his point. In the essay, Orwell criticizes politicians for using pretentious diction and meaningless words, among other things. Their misuse of the language often leaves people confused about what they are really trying to convey. The political misuse of the english language negatively affects the masses. Although Orwell's essay appears to be written specifically towards political writing,I have found ways to improve my own writing as a college student.
ReplyDelete-Stephanie Jimenez
After I read Orwell's paper on "Politics and the English Language" I agreed on most of his points. He demonstrated some great examples about the english literacy today, and how it is flawed. He also presented his case in a very straightfoward manner to a point of ridicule. I personally found it funny the way he criticized the proffesors examples in his essay making the essay even greater to me. Although the essay was great, after reading a second time you begin to pick at his flaws. First of all he has two main thesis which can throw of the reader and some of he did not organize the essay perfectly. He even admits himself that he made a few mistakes in his essay, after having criticized others. Overall though Orwell's essay is a great essay which I strongly agree with.
ReplyDeleteOrwell does a good job at evoking emotion from his audience whether supportive or critical. I do not agree with his ideas about "tired" metaphors. It is like plaid, way overused a few decades ago, but posh once again. What Orwell sees as "tired" metaphors, I see as fresh new metaphors that haven't been used for an entire generation.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that in writing we should cut out the b.s. as far as cramming as many big words into a paper as possible to say the same thing that a few simple words could explain. But as long as institutions require a determined length for any particular paper, I will cram as many BIG words as I can in there to get the grade that I am seeking; an A.
the last comment was from James Dean........sorry.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I agree with Orwell's essay. I believe that Orwell excellently illustrates a very real situation in which the English Language has found itself in from years of its speakers' and writers' bad habits. In my own experiences I have found that vagueness is probably the most prominent issue in political writing and even everyday speaking. For instance, Orwell states in his essay that too often can one find himself/herself reading or listening to a string of long-winded sentences which do not seem to have any meaning whatsoever. However, he defines the cause of this problem as "overuse of metaphors". This statement was not as persuasive to me. Although over time a metaphor's meaning can change and manipulate, it still holds some meaning that is meant to evoke an image, and I feel that most metaphors, if not all, do just that.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Orwell's claims that "the English Language is in a bad way", is a very true statement, and I agree with some points that he identifies in his essay, but I also do not agree with other points. His basis for his essay is justifiable and he innumerates some good points, but some of the other means by which he associates his essay are not practical.
Orwell does a great job in evoking emotion in the reader, and his is very successful in getting his point across and supporting it though he is extremely strict on the English language. In the first two paragraphs I felt hesitant to even continue reading the essay, simply because Orwell seemed to be stuck in his ways and I did not want to listen to him just go on saying how he feels that the English language is crap. I do not like that he made the generalization that most people believe that the English language is declining because there is no way for him to know that.
ReplyDeleteThough I did not agree with his Orwell, he made many valid points of how there is a lot of lost phrases and that people use some words just to seem more dignified, which I believe is true. He also gave examples that really helped support his idea. I like that his examples showed his point clearly without being so extreme that the reader thinking that his examples were the most drastic and unrealistic selections. When I read those examples I realized how fake people are with their writing and made me think of times that I read an essay knowing that the writer added certain words to seem more educated and to make the essay “pretty.” It also helped that Orwell cited where he got his selections from cause it showed that they were all written by educated people, which shows how sometimes words are used just to show the reader how smart they are. Overall, I feel that even though Orwell was a bit hard on the subject, he did a great job in getting his idea across and supporting it with facts and examples.
-Mariano Rodriguez
When I first read Orwell’s essay I found it difficult to stay interested in the text. In the first few pages it seems as though he is talking down to the everyday english speaker. Once I was able to better understand his essay, I had mixed emotions towards his argument. I have often been told by my teachers that I am to straightforward with my writing, often being told to add some “fluff” so I was able to relate to Orwell and his no b.s. policy. I have taken a lot from this essay and I have found many ways to improve my own writing as an undergrad student.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Lyon
Orwells essay was written to get a response out of the public. he wrote this essay to inspire people to change. he appealed to our logos, pathos, and ethos in his work. he used his examples as a strength of his argument, and made sure to express his fellings. he basicly says be as straightforward as you can be and cut out all the extra stuff that writters of today often add to make themselves seem smarter then their audience. that is just excentric and really doenst have a purpose. thats what i got out of this essay.
ReplyDeleteJose Garcia
When I started reading Orwells essay, I was overtaken by the complexity of words. As I started to read it more and more everything started to make more sense to me especially after looking up some definitions. With the title including politics I started to wonder about how writing during orwells time and politics as well compared to each other and also about writing now and politics now as well.
ReplyDeleteI do not want to start making the comparisons because im probably gonna end up stating that in my essay but I think everyone can pick at a few things.
-Steve Machado
As much as I appreciate Orwell’s concise and effective flaws of the English language, some of his arguments contradict his own style of writing, and some are too generalized in that they can not be removed entirely from the English Language. I realize that using meaning-less words do not evoke imagery, and disrupt the clarity of the essay, but Orwell’s suggestion on using phraseology only in instances where words portray meaning instead of mental imagery in my mind counts for using phrases such as “greatly to be desired”, etc. when writing formally to someone we are not familiar with, an aspect that Orwell strictly bans us from using. He is opinionated, yet his set of “rules” made me wonder how he would like English to be, and his connection to political writing reflects not only the time period for which he speaks, but also a limited number of individuals who are influenced by it. As a college student, I enjoyed the fact that he encourages readers to speak their minds, but individuals have the freedom to express it the way in which they would like, and this could mean with simplicity or using phrases that either clog the reader with vagueness of the material or leave them impressed with the elegance and flow of the writing.
ReplyDelete-Azmeh Khan.
i like orwell's essay because he had several valid points. a lot of points were the exact same stuff ive been thinking about for years but because of the FCAT teachers have forced me to write differently. i do disagree with him saying that the language is getting progressively worse because that implies that english has a defined beginning. what most likely happened is that the language evolved from other languages. you could even go so far as to say that the english language is the slang of another language
ReplyDeleteElias Daldi
Personally, Orwells essay was eye opening. I had never paid close attention to how people use the english language. He makes many interesting points about the structure of the english language and how for some reason a style has caught on among intellectual people and government groups in which they go around a subject and completely distort sentences, making the reader confused and resigned to even trying to understand. This made me think the most, Why is it accepted for us to not understand half of what a president or governer is saying in his speech? Why does getting to the point and speaking clearly seem too simple and even uneducated?
ReplyDeleteWe can anylyze any essay and find many faults according to our perspective. From my perspective it seemed a bit confusing at first. His points where organized in a way I couldn't understand. Mostly his examples cleared everything up for me. It is very likely that because i had not thougth of this before it was hard to understand these concepts that where new to me.
I found his essay to be insightful.
-Rocio Reyes
Orwell argues that people should be more simple when they write, but also stay away from the cliche's and vague writing that is commonly used today. I agree with him to a certain extent, but I also think that the English language is up for interpretation. People write with different perspectives and with the intention to evoke different emotions in the readers.
ReplyDeleteAs for his own writing, while I understand the general point of his essay I think it's just way to drawn out.
Beatriz Carricaburu
Overall, I found George Orwell's essay to be well written and i would love to be able to write like that someday. His use of examples to help prove his various points allows me, the reader, to better understand his point of view on the matters at hand. His organization throughout the essay also made it very easy for me to read along and really get to know where he was going with the essay. There were a few things that i disagreed with in the essay such as when he states that the English language is deteriorating. But all in all I feel that this essay makes sense on many other levels. Clarity and Precision are two things that many people are not able to demonstrate in their writing. I found his rules to be helpful in eliminating pretentious diction and being more concise in my own writing.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Ospina
I feel that Orwell’s essay has strong points about writing and how is being poisoned by metaphors and other factors but I don’t think it’s practical during our era. Language has changed from century to century and this is no exception. I wasn’t aware of all the faults in the English language until I read the essay, but I think those faults are so common now that they won’t disappear even if they’re wrong. The English language has to develop with technology so that it stays relevant. Things will eventually go obsolete like terms from Old English once did, but as we progress as a society language must also do the same. His essay does contradict a lot of things that I’ve learned in the past but it’s always like that when I get a new professor or read another scholar’s essay.
ReplyDelete-Yorman Sanchez
When I first read Orwell's essay I really didn't catch the main idea of it, instead I got little bits of issues he has with the English language. But slowly re-reading it I got the general statement of what the man was trying to say. I'm not saying it is a weak essay, I find it extremely interesting that language can be dissected and analyzed at such a level, but the fact that he's basically over doing it. I actually checked my own writing style after reading the essay and I agree with him. People do tend to use Greek of Latin rooted words to make their statements more elaborate and catchy, like adding glitter to a drawing it catches the readers attention.
ReplyDeleteOne thought of mine that goes against Orwell's essay is that the English language is made up of words of other languages combined, etc and the people who use the language are people of diverse backgrounds. Its not like Spanish where its mostly used by Hispanics of Latinos. I think Orwell gets his message across, not perfectly but he does and that's his opinion on the matter and I respect it but what I stand behind is that the English language must be diverse and made up of other culture languages because the people who use it are.
- Danesh "Gio" Ahmad
Throughout George Orwell’s essay I had mixed emotions. A lot of his points were targeted well, and he backed them up to give the reader a good understanding. This in fact I enjoyed. However, in some sections of his essay I was thrown off and confused by points he made. For example, a few of the five examples he gave on the first page were difficult to interpret and left me somewhat hanging, and lost to what he was trying to get at. That was one of the particular flaws I noticed in the essay. On another note, I can 100% agree with the six rules that Orwell ends with, considering I always thought that simple writing compared to much more complex writing was more sufficient. Of course use of good vocabulary and grammar is always key, simplistic makes the writing flow, and easier to process for all readers.
ReplyDelete-Brooke Englert
at the beginning of the essay, i was reluctant to continue reading because i got the impression that orwell was just going to talk crap about the current use of the english language for 7 pages. upon further reading, i noticed that orwell changed my mind.
ReplyDeletei agree and disagree with certain points that orwell makes in his essay. In my opinion, the least amount of metaphors the better. when trying to pay attention to someone speaking or trying to understand someones writing, the use of too many metaphors throws me off and prevents me from fully comprehending the message being delivered. politicians love to do that. so for me, when it comes to politics, getting straight to the point and skipping the nonsense is a point of orwell's that i support fully. this same concept should not be applied to writing in general though.
orwell's essay should be mandatory in all curriculums in high school and college because it sheds light on current problems in writing and also offers helpful tips to assist a writer of any level.
---Jonathan Davalos
At first, I found Orwell's essay to be rather indignant on the development of the English language. In fact,he seemed to be set against the modernization of English on the whole. However, as I read on, it became clear he was advocating the old-fashioned way of stating your story as it is, without incorporating faux, "flowery" language. I learned that not only does this complicate your reader's ability to interpret your point of view, but also may show you to be not genuine about your writing. I would say that this essay has helped to shape my writer's perspective.
ReplyDelete-Samera Nath
I enjoyed Orwell's essay right from the beginning. I found it easy to read because his opinions were so strong and interesting. Orwell’s point of views and rules on how one should write were like a splash of cold water because they went against everything I had been taught in middle school, high school, and even my first semester in a university. After reading this essay I realized that in the English language and in writing there are no rules set in stone, writing is a personal style and each writer has their own word preferences, rules, guidelines to follow, and questions to ask. I believe that regardless to whether a reader agrees or disagrees with Orwell’s essay they will always remember the essay and at least keep in mind one of his rules or opinions when writing their future papers. For me, one of Orwell’s flaws was how his generalizations about the English language assumed too much and how he admitted that he did not have to knowledge to validate his assumptions. Another one of Orwell’s flaws was how he himself did not follow his owns rules yet he criticized others for not following them. Overall I agreed and enjoyed Orwell’s essay and am positive that it will impact my writing for the better.
ReplyDeletethe previous blog was written by Michelle Hernandez.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "Politics and the English Language" I realized that I often use some of the cliches he mentions. This helped me because i tend to add repetitive sentences to some of my papers in order to increase the word count or even reach a page requirement. I just need to focus on the main goal of the paper and do the best I can without distracting from the main topic. It helped because now I will subconsciously notice when I use some of the wildly used cliches in my papers.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that stood out to me was when Orwell mentioned that the economy and political leaders influence our way or speaking and writing. If the economic situation of a certain family is not good then they will most likely focus on getting a job to pay for the basics of life than try to get a better education. Regarding the political speakers, the way that our leaders speak influence us as well because if they do not bother to speak properly then why should we. That is not my way of thinking but it can be the way of thinking for a large group of people.
Overall I feel that the essay will help me in my future papers.
To begin with, I found Orwell's essay very interesting. It is like noting Ive ever read before. I like how he blatantly states his opinions on the he way things should be written. I especially find his six rules towards the end of the essay to be helpful. But on the other hand, I do not agree with him being so one-sided. I do not find it just that writers should never do certain things because they sould do whatever they please to the get the point across. But overall, I am glad I read the essay.
ReplyDelete-Danae Powell-
I felt Orwells essay was well written. He uses many examples and details to demonstrate his point of view. I feel this gives credibilty to the author and stregnthens their argument. Orwell even goes as far as to incorporating the "bad" english people use. The way he broke down the topic into section also helps, and really analyzes the piece, it even gives insight and shows some of the mistakes we may have made in the past. Though one flaw I felt was crucial, is that it may have been too long, though he does stay on topic, they essay could of been a bit shorter, this way he keeps the reader interested, and it is more to the poin. Over good essay.
ReplyDeleteI think Orwell's essay was very interesting because of the way he wrote his opinion. Although he did criticize how the english language was changing into a bad way, the manner in which he wrote his essay reflected what he was criticizing. He even admits it in his paper. I think it would have been more convincing if he had maybe written his essay in a simpler form in order to get his point across. Overall I think it was a good essay because he did make good points and provided good examples.
ReplyDelete- Karla Olivas
Even though i disagreed with most of Orwells critics and points of views towards how to write and its changes, I still found it quite interesting because he has a complete different concept of how writing should be. For example : I understand that he isnt comfortable with how English lietracy has been changing for "worse" he thinks that the the new modifications and new vocabulary supose an involiton to our language instead of an inevitable and natural process that affects every aspect of our ways of comunication . I just think that our English Lieracy is adapting to our new enviroment. HAve been said this i also think he could ove simplified his essays instead of using complicated random catchy frases to convince the reader.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be the weakest aspect of Orwell's essay was the generalization of the English language and literature. In the first few paragraphs of Orwell’s essay, fives pieces of text that “illustrate various of the mental vices that we now suffer” are introduced. Orwell claims that these five passages are not only ambiguous in meaning, but illustrate redundancy. This in itself then becomes a reflection towards all of the English literature and the English language, which not only becomes radical, but quite ridiculous. He virtually claims that these five passages become the reflection of the English language in itself without taking into observation many factors surrounding the passages such as their author’s nationality, their audience, and their origins. In no way is Orwell wrong to claim that the passages are unclear and repetitive, as anyone with a high school education can see their faults, but who is to claim that these five passages all of the sudden, paint the English language? In no way is Orwell qualified to generalize the English Language.
ReplyDeleteI found Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language" very helpful as a college student because it made me realize although there are rules in the english language, writing is expressive and does not need an exact formula. I've always found it frustrating to read articles where the author is vague and does not say what he really intends. The rules he presents at the ending of his essay do seem "elementary", but are often ignored making the writing piece hard to understand, let alone want to tolerate. Moreover, I agree with his idea that politicians sound like robots reciting there speeches. I did find it ironic how he did break some of his own rules. His essay was well written and organized but i think too long.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Padron
For this essay I’d like to explore religion on first a personal and then a universal level.
ReplyDeleteBoth my parents were raised in strict Catholic households, but for the most part they did not raise me the same way. I can remember going to the same church in North Miami for a good eight years of my life, but then everything changed in the third grade when my family moved to Coconut Grove. We spent many weekends trying out different churches in the area, some of which were not even Catholic, and in the process I was exposed to all different branches of Christianity. As a youngster, it got me thinking: Do the small differences that separate us matter at all? The church I the most vivid memory was a non-denominational church named Unity on the Bay. It was the first time I can remember looking forward to going mass every Sunday; not just for the free donuts outside the chapel, but because I genuinely enjoyed learning about my faith. At the time I didn’t make sense to me that Christians of all backgrounds (and sometimes even Jews and Muslims) could worship together like that. Unfortunately that didn’t last long. W ended up moving again, this time to Broward County, and we returned to parents’ religious roots, settling on a traditional Roman Catholic church named St.Edward’s. I started going to mass because I felt like I had to, but after a while I realized that if my heart’s not in it, then I may as well explore other faiths that interest me.
So I guess my initial question might be, “Can exploring other religions really make me stronger in my faith?” For this assignment, I plan actually experimenting with other branches of Christianity to find what it was that attracted me to Unity on the Bay and try to recapture that (and maybe bring some of that back to St.Edward’s?). I’d also like to apply what I learn to some global problems, like how people from various religious backgrounds can coexist. Is the solution as it simple as it seems? And if the solution is so simple, why is religion the reason for so much conflict in the world?