The essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell is essentially a commentary in itself; this makes writing a commentary on it rather difficult. This essay focuses on Orwell’s displeasure in how writers are writing. In this commentary, Orwell’s use of diction, and his ability to clearly express his point of view will be analyzed.
Like any poem, or short story, this essay’ phrases were chosen specifically to serve a purpose. Orwell is trying to show how he is not fond of how the current writers were writing their works. He does this heavily through word choice (aka diction), particularly through adjectives. With words such as foolish, ugliness, sheer incompetence, slovenliness, and perversions, Orwell is able to add depth and feeling to his otherwise bland point. By bland, what is meant is that this is an overly clichéd argument. There has always and will always be issues with writing. Orwell is able to effectively display these issues through his use of sentence variety. It is clear that Orwell has a very strong opinion on this topic, and that opinion comes across clearly.
Orwell is able to make his point without being overly repetitive. Using a variety of sentence structures, a wide range of vocabulary, and a true interest in what he is writing about, Orwell is able to achieve this task. One technique that he uses is finding a wide range of sources that make the same error, and comparing them. This allows Orwell to elaborate on his train-of-thought, and it adds depth to his argument. Orwell uses this technique throughout the entire essay. Another technique that Orwell uses is description. He does not use description in a normal way: he uses description by making you imagine how awful this particular piece of literature is. By using words with such heavy denotations, Orwell is able to make the reader see how truly awful each and every piece of literature is.
This particular essay by George Orwell is an interesting read. Orwell is able to effectively convey his point of view, and do so without coming across as overly rude or repetitive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Shawn :),
ReplyDeleteTo me, the central idea of this essay is that the English language people use is becoming more corrupt over time. Orwell conveys this central idea throughout the entire argument, using quotations as evidence to support his thesis statement. He analyzes each quotation and proves his central argument with his analysis. As well, he explains the many faults people do in general when writing in the English language. The section I found interesting was when he used the phrase “an effect can become a cause” (Orwell, 1) and explaining this phrase by comparing it to a man drinking because he thinks he is a failure; however becomes a failure because he drinks. The use of syntax was evident within this evident such as the capitalization of words to give the main ideas of each paragraph more emphasis, as well as the numbering of the quotations which improves the essay’s organization.
I believe your commentary was covering how Orwell conveyed these ideas which you did well. Your explanation of Orwell’s diction was well explained. I agree with many of the points you made such as Orwell trying to depict how the English language has been evolving over the years. I also agree that Orwell effectively conveys his opinion in a way that he can give evidence and support through quotations and comparisons. As well, his extended vocabulary enables him to be more concise with stating and supporting his central argument.
Orwell is suggesting that the English language has become sloppy and filled with unnecessary words; and while I agree that there is some slang out there I think that the slang defines who we are. Obviously Orwell is a writer and has made that his career so I guess he should care about the English language, but at the same time because his financial situation is reliant on the language he is perhaps approaching the situation with blinders on and not seeing the other side (which is that the slang is an art form in it’s self). I think that one way to think about this essay is that he is showing off how good a writer he thinks he is, the essay is mainly just him pointing out the flaws in other peoples writing and I think that that forces us to think about his writing which he is obviously trying to make fancy as a contrast to the other authors work. I get the feeling that he is living in the past; when he provides his translation of one of the other authors work I thought is was written in Greek, he was using so many big and fancy words that it was practically illegible especially when you compare it to the more modern version which I could understand. This gave me the feeling that he was trying to turn back time and move people away from the slang that he so feels is wreaking the world, but realistically one writer is not going to turn back time like I feel he hopes to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what both you boys said; Shawn made some good points as did Jonathan. I would argue Shawn that this essay is not written in the form of a commentary mostly because it is called an essay and not a commentary. There is not too much more to say you guys took all the good points.
By By