1984 was about the future -- and it still is, although in many ways it is 1984. Remember, that smart phone you love so well, that you can't do without -- yes, let's admit it, to which we have become addicted -- knows where you are at every moment, and remembers everything you've texted (and will, long after you're dead).
Remember this commercial? Of course you don't, you weren't even close to being born yet. It's ironic, because here Apple is promising to free us from Big Brother, and now Apple is Big Brother. (Or could that Apple insignia be the sign of the Beast? Just sayin'.)
But as I say, we're not reading 1984. We will be reading Orwell's essay on "Politics and the English Language". Please leave your comments below. I would suggest that you don't get hung up on some small details of language that Orwell presents. He admits that he breaks many of them himself and that one should rather than "say anything outright barbarous". Focus more on how language affects thought and communication.
I was happy when I discovered the topic of this article; I think most English speaking people could use a grammar lesson. Being around kids all the time I'm used to it, but sometimes it's just ridiculous. As I was beginning to get a sense of George Orwell's personality in this article, I half expected him to start talking like Mr. Mac, like about how the new generations have just ruined something else. After reading his five quotes, I realized he was right. I really don't believe these are sentences I'm reading right here. They're more like the offspring of sentences, fragments, and someone talking gibberish in their sleep. I have to agree with Orwell when he describes the staleness and indifference in meaning within the passages. They remind me of the things some students come up with in creative writing. When it comes to writing and word usage, it's easy to tell what sentences actually have purpose and what sentences have just been pulled out of someone's butt. Imagery and elaboration is good, it can be beautiful, but it can also be the ugliest thing if it has no other purpose than just making something seem pretty. Adding on random words that you think sound smart, for no other purpose than trying to sound smart just sounds bad and everyone can tell what you're doing. Not to sound rude, but I remember one "poem" written by a student that was just terrible. She was describing nature around her. She kept using long adjectives, one after another, adding on description after description of just random things like trees and wind. Y'know, deep stuff like that. The poem was very long and elaborate and she was so proud of the vomit of words she'd created. I analyzed the poem and all that it boiled down to was this: she was outside. That's the whole story. Making something sound wordy and dragging on a sentence doesn't make it intelligent and it doesn't make it sound better. Every word has a purpose; don't beat a dead horse. I'm sorry about that. It's a touchy subject for me. Anyways, back to the essay. I like the simile he used on page 2. "...More and more words of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house." That's funny.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell makes a good point when talking about overused metaphors. I cringe every time I read or hear the "Achilles heel" line. I've promised myself to never use that one.
One of the major points Orwell is trying to say, throughout his whole essay, is that if you're going to write, don't be lazy. While reading this I realized that I often use "Verbal False Limbs." I should probably stop doing that so much. I learned quite a bit from reading this; of word usages I didn't before recognize or flaws I couldn't before put into words. "Never use a long word where a short word will do." This quote right here reminds me of my rant earlier. This man is my idol. This essay describes everything I've been trying to formally put into words for a long time. He reminds me of Benjamin Franklin who was a strong believer in throwing all unnecessary language and conversation "into the dustbin where it belongs," (Orwell). I want to read this entire essay to every writing student I know. When it comes to both writing and conversation, all these tips should be taken into account. I'm glad I've been presented with this article.
Jordan Lyonnais
ReplyDeleteI understand where George Orwell come from when attacking what language has become and how we have come to a point where we string together long complex sentences that mean nothing. The one thing I don't agree with him on this is that I enjoy this. He said, "Political language---and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists --- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind". Even though Orwell wrote this so long ago this is the exact problem we face today. When Bush wanted to retaliate and seek revenge by starting the middle eastern conflicts his administration refused to use what Orwell says is "good writing". They did not use the good writing because they didn't really have a plan when it came to the middle east, but using broad terms and the glittering generalities politicians love no one really questioned what was going on. It was only later when we had been there for so long and people began to actually wonder what Bush was saying that problems occurred.
Even today the Obama administration is coming under fire for their attacks against ISIS because they are not using the techniques Orwell is saying are a must. They keep stringing together these phrases of nothingness to paint a picture they can't see. People today have learned from their mistakes of not questioning what is being said and want to know what the actual plan is.
Even now with all of the political ads on television from Tom Foley and Mallow parading around in areas of Connecticut saying absolutely nothing with so many words it's funny to watch. Mallow ranted about Connecticut having the highest education gap in the country but failed to mention are lowest performers are still higher than many other states. Little comments like these from them show they do not have a point when it comes most of what they say. They say what they do because it's with bad writing that many people cling to the most because they think there's a deeper message that they were smart enough to figure out on their own. I think Mr. Orwell is correct in saying that political language is some of the worst writing, but it's some of the worst because it is the most effective writing. They prove everyday that it's not what you say it's how you say it, and that's all that matters.
Obama came out for net neutrality the other day, and Sen. Ted Cruz immediately dubs it "Obamacare for the internet." Is it? What does that even mean?
DeleteWill it work? It just may -- much better than a rational argument would.
“By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself” (6).
ReplyDeleteI thought this quote was still very relevant in todays society. Almost every time you hear someone give a speech, they wrote it first so I am going to count it as writing also, they almost always say a phrase that it is overused. Almost everybody is guilty of using one of these dying metaphors. When they do it is not as thought provoking or does not sound as good as it used to. I know that high schoolers put in these metaphors, me included, thinking that their teachers will be thoroughly impressed with them. After reading this I don’t think so as much any more considering Orwell was saying that these metaphors were overused more than 50 years ago. These metaphors are also used when politicians go on and on about a certain topic. They do it just for the sake of making their speech longer and so that they seem more intelligent. Well as Orwell said it makes your meaning vague and I have to agree. If kids in sixth grade already know some of these metaphors then politicians should not be using them as readily as they are. Politicians should be thinking of new metaphors to use. This would be thought provoking for the audience and the speech as a whole would become better because of it.
Also I thought that the commercial for Apple was pretty weird.
Maybe you've seen Jon Stewart run one of those montages where he plays clip after clip after clip of politicians and political operatives repeating the same exact phrases -- "talking points" -- designed to obfuscate, not enlighten.
DeleteAs for the commercial -- you should have seen it in January, 1984.
“I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not concealing or preventing thought.” (page 10)
ReplyDeleteThe political usage of modern English has become a sort of façade, with words and phrases meaning or insinuating something completely different from their direct translations. Our vernacular is so riddled with the associations of feelings and ideas with words, rather than that of their actual definitions. As a society, we place a lot of emphasis on the emotions or thoughts that come with a phrase. This can especially be seen with the slang that is used nowadays. Calling someone a vulgar term doesn’t actually mean that they are the term itself, but rather a skewed societal representation of that word. Such interpretations are becoming increasingly common to the point of concern, a point that Mr. Orwell effectively makes in his essay. This method is used politically, as well. We do use glittering generalities, as Jordan mentioned, and idealistic overstatements to promote a biased, inconceivable reality to potential voters and the public at large. Such misuse of our language is leading to its very destruction and I feel is immensely irresponsible. It is the job of our politicians to tell us the truth and tell it clearly, in a way that all may understand and comprehend. This is impossible when the very method of universal understanding, language, is serving as a barrier, methodically placed- to confuse and manipulate audiences.
They'll never tell the truth until we start demanding it. And then we'll have to keep on demanding it until they do.
DeleteI find this article interesting because I can learn a lot from it. I know for a fact that I'm not the best writer around, so tips like this are very helpful. I also appreciate how he comments on how the little things are what matter, not necessarily always the big stuff. Not only with writing but in life I like the saying about this. Admiral McRaven of the U.S. Navy once said, "If you can't do the little things right, you'll never be able to do the big things right." Now this obviously has nothing to do with writing when he said it, but if you use it as a supplement to the article it has a very clear and relevant meaning.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I like about Orwell's rules is that they all basically say to dumb it down to make it better. Obviously it's not dumbing it down exactly, but he even admits that his rules seem elementary. The reason I like this, though, is because it almost goes against any teacher I've ever had. With a few exceptions, the rule so far has been to use big words and make it long to try to be smarter. Realizing that this isn't necessarily true is kind of funny and I like the advice he gives. My teachers have taught me a lot, don't get me wrong, but getting tips from an outside source like this is nice. I'm actually going to use this in life now and that's the kind of stuff that I like to learn about, unlike upper level math classes (no offense to any math people out there).
Teacher sez: The words seemed big at the time because you'd never heard them before, and they were used by big people (like teachers). I wouldn't say "dumbing down", exactly. When you say what you don't understand or really mean, that's dumb. Let's go with Mr. Thoreau and "simplify, simplify". Or to misquote Mr. Occum "Simpler is better." Or as Mr. S. T. Coleridge would say, it's about finding just the right word, be it long or short, common or obscure.
DeleteWhen reading this article, the only thing that I could think was how people could use the same things over and over again when writing, and how new thoughts and ideas are not generated enough. And in a sense, that is true. The author made a good point on these topics, how when writing, people use “dying metaphors, operators or verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, meaningless words” and so many others. My mind was blown when reading some of these! Some of the words and phrases I typically use like romantic, primary, make itself felt, etc. were being criticized as making our writing and speech worse. Simple, original words like those are part of the decline of our language.
ReplyDelete“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” This quote really struck me. One time, I heard someone say that the way we think is evidently the way we talk. However, I think that our thoughts are much different than how we speak them. To me, thoughts seem much more rambled, unorganized, informal, and scattered, while our speech is more collected, “professional”, and even thought out…get it? Thought out. There is the difference! How we think is not the way we talk. Our thought and speech are connected, thus thought and language are connected. As the author said, “A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.” I know my thoughts are all over the place. When I want to say something, I always collect these thoughts, put them in an order that I think would sound good, and then say it. The same thing goes for writing, especially with lectios! I just write what my mind thinks and then poof, it’s all on paper. The idea of repeating ideas over and over again is one that everyone commits. Because our thoughts are attached to how we speak, it is inevitable that if one is corrupted it any way, it will corrupt the other as well. More and more, I find myself talking like the way I think. As we all know, it shouldn’t be that way.
Even the author says, “…for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.” These faults have been drilled into our everyday lives. We are accustomed to them now because of tradition and imitation from other people. “…language…an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.” The greatest thing about the United States is that we have the freedom of speech. It is time we start using our language for expressing. However, it is time we start expressing with a greater awareness of our grammar and speech.
Try to be clear. Be precise. Say what you mean.
DeleteMichael Marandino
ReplyDeletePeople learn by copying. Everything we do and learn is done, basically, by imitation. This is a very important lesson in the world of music, and in life overall. But, at what point is copying too much or not enough? What if we need to form our own thoughts and opinions, rather than conforming to those preset around us? George Orwell put it right, “...prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.” It's true, and I'm guilty of it; we often just take fancy-sounding hollow words that we've heard before and slap them together to make a sort of Frankenstein sentence. This is great and all, until it goes too far. When there are too many extravagant words, and not enough emotion, I lose interest quickly. The problem, though, is that we learn how to write through making these “Franken-sentences,” and it becomes a habit. We tend to select our words carefully less and go for the most attractive phrase, even though it may not fit our intended meaning at all. And though the writer may see nothing wrong with their cumbersome sentences, readers certainly will. What will we do when these phrases get combined to form worse phrases? Eventually either the language will hit a reformation period, crumble, or be unintelligible to most. It's okay to use a trite phrase every once in awhile, but if your entire piece of prose is made up of them, no meaning will reach the reader. It's hard to see a message through something as thick as “...but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.” Readers need a dictionary or translator just to decipher the thought, whereas saying something like “...but time and chance happeneth to them all.” says the same thing without the excessive “jibber-jabber.” The empty words are stripped, and the sentence is simplified. After all, isn't that what the main purpose of language is: to express a emotion, ideas, share messages, or evoke a response? Words like invariably and element take the purpose away, and complicate an idea. It's like the overused expression, “Don't fix it if it ain't broke.” Why reconstruct a perfectly beautiful sentence to complicate it, and muddle the message? Say what you want to express, don't run around the purpose as though you are afraid it'll jump up and bite you. Don't try to impress a reader with long strings of glittery words, because that will just set them up in a game of hide-and-seek with your message.
Well, I say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a nice phrase. It flows. It contains folk wisdom. It is prefabricated, though. I guess I'm okay with it. But Orwell's right -- those prefabricated phrases -- and we get a lot of them in educational jargon, can sound good but have very little real meaning.
DeleteThis article was interesting. Orwell made good points when stating people today produce fragments and incomprehensible sentences.I have to say, even I create terrible sentences of poor grammar and run-on sentences. Although he said that many writers today don't produce anything with actual substance. Writing is opinion based and each person that reads a piece will take something different from it and giving a generalization like that is wrong. I think the structure that people write is poor, however if the message is effective I would say it is a good writing.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was also really interesting how he blamed the poor quality of writing being produced on people's thoughts. Orwell said the foolishness of people's writing is directly related to the foolishness of people's thoughts. He compared this foolishness to an alcoholic drinking because he failed, which in turn makes him fail more completely. That metaphor defiantly gave me a new viewpoint of the influences on writing. It also gave me a new understanding of the importance of writing to Orwell. Don't beat around the bush and keep it simple, I hope I used that correctly and Orwell doesn't come after me.
Well, he's dead. But -- why would one want to beat around a bush, anyway. Who are we beating? Why are we beating around the bush, and not beating the damn bush itself? Is this the Australian Bush we're beating around?
ReplyDeleteIf the metaphor is dead, it becomes an idiomatic expression, and that can be okay. We can't answer any of those questions, but who cares! We know what Emily means.