Politics in the English Language (Orwell)

1. I agree with Orwell's position. While basic language may be an instrument of growth, we use language for more than mere communication He goes into detail about how politicians twist their words and intentionally create vagueness to confuse and appease the masses- something that had been a successful political tactic. When used properly, language is for communication, but when used more manipulatively, it can become a weapon, with fallacies illustrating the way we use language to a achieve a negative goal. Even as I right this, I am torn between sounding super professional and using a bunch of fillers words so I can make this blogpost reach half a page.

2.Orwell objects to ready made phrases and mixed metaphors because they are overdone and no longer cause an image to form in a reader's mind, they are often misused, and when they are utilized, it is because writes have become lazy and are trying to avoid investing time and effort into creating their own unique phrases.

3. I agree that they are the most essential questions for a writer to ask themselves. It resolves the issues of lack of precision and staleness that many modern writes (myself obviously included) are plagued with. By even asking these questions, the writer is able to clearly establish their point ad is better able to communicate it to their readers/ audience.

4. Orwell means that the way we think influences our language, and our language influences the way that our thoughts are formed. For example, if our language is precise and focused on things that are important (ie. key social conflicts, than our language will reflect that. From there, if we surround ourselves with eloquently spoken people with concise opinions, we pick up those characteristics and opinions from them. Likewise, if we are around people who do not have any set opinions and just blindly ramble, then we become like them. Read this over again, and it still won't make any sense, so you can see the sort of ILLITERATE people I associate with (rhymes with Bayla Krunell).

5. I feel like his statement is vague and hard to agree or disagree with. Based on the circumstance, my feelings about  this statement greatly vary. Sometimes, grammar is very important. For example, the classic let’s eat grandma versus let’d eat, grandma, which SAVES LIVES!!! In this case, and other situations where the content is changed by punctuation, then yes grammar is important. Otherwise, if the point remains the same, then grammar rules about punctuation, and when to use a hyper versus a dash have no real importance.

6. Yes, Orwell’s thesis is directly stated. After his list of horrible writings that he has come across, he says “The mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially any kind of political writing.” Here he clearly establishes the faults with writing today, and begins to introduce the way these faults influence the political sphere, which his paper goes into great detail about.

7. I think it is very effective, and highlights the way that our language affects our writing, which in turn affects our language. A man drinks because he thinks he is a failure, then becomes a failure because of drinking- which neatly ties into how our thoughts and language create bad writing which, you guessed it, create sloppy thoughts and language (like this mess of an answer).

8. He establishes ethos by being clear, concise, and illustrating the mistakes in our lives. For one, Orwell calls on individuals to create change, and rather than being some large political figure telling us how to live our lives or making decisions for us, he is someone that the common person can relate to, through his specific use of diction that can be understood by almost everyone. He also establishes common ground and a common enemy, attacking politicians who twist their words and are intentionally vague in order to confuse their audience.

9. I think that the overall tone of the essay is one of profound disappointment and disgust, but also one of hope- so there is a great amount of variation. From the second paragraph, after going on a spiel about how the English language has become an utter disgrace, he writes, “The point is that the process is reversible… the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.” Here, not only is he hopeful that there can be change, but writes this piece as a call to arms, letting people know that they are each responsible for being the change they want to see in the English language. When he goes on to describe the flaws, however he is disgusted and disappointed. He writes, ““The mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially any kind of political writing,” ashamed not only with how sloppy and stale the writing is, but also the way that it is used to manipulate people.

10. As much as Orwell critiques writers for rambling, using big words, and lacking imagery, he is also not perfect. While this may be because of how much English has deteriorated, there are certain segments of his writing that took me multiple read throughs in order to even begin to understand. The opening sentences are the clearest example of this. Orwell writes, “English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.” That was a long, rambling sentence which could have been stated much more concisely: The English language is deterioration and many assume that nothing can be done to change it. Even that can be shortened to something simpler. This line and others like it, means that Orwell falls prey to the “pretentious diction” and “meaningless words” that he criticized.