Not quite.
In his essay, Orwell emphasizes the significance of simplicity in language and the clarity of images that a simplified dialogue will produce. He criticizes phraseology, the stringing together of phrases that conveys the impression of clarity through common cliches (such as 'stringing together of'). And finally Orwell justifies his examination of language, and the importance of reconciling 'the debasement' of the English language, by relating the ambiguity of poor writing to its common place in politics; where the publics acceptance of meaningless cliche may empower global initiatives.
His central persuasive technique is this emphasis on the relation of language to the public's interpretation of political jargon. While the essay primarily concerns the debasement of the English language, Orwell titles his essay 'Politics and the English Language.' Although he does not begin focusing on the political relevance of language until the eighth of twelve pages. His analysis of political language persuades the common reader of his argument's real world relevance. And within the title, by submitting the subject 'English Language' to the catalyst 'Politics,' Orwell insures that his article will receive the attention of common readers as well as literary critics.
Digression: A college essayist cannot read Orwell's article without feeling slightly exposed. I confess that I have written many a mindless phrase. What interests me most about Orwell's article is that he offers a solution to the debasement of English. Clarity and originality of imagery, simplicity of syntax, and simply thinking before writing; however, I think my own discontent derives from the professorial praise that pretentious writing achieves. A good professor sees through the bullshit, but often enough professorial minds maintain such flowery conceptions of themselves that they giggle with glee when they catch their own reflections in the embellished lines of a veritable moron.
No comments:
Post a Comment