As I first began to read Orwell’s article, I instantly disagreed with his thoughts towards his belief on the English language. I believed that he was just simply targeting it out of his anger towards his opinion that which many writers were careless towards their writing, putting in less effort than necessary. Due to the “bad influence” from the political and economical language, Orwell states that the English language is filled with bad habits which triggers it all. He wants to make it clear to us that as we read the five examples he has chosen, that they are not the worst. He criticizes the work just to make more comments towards the ugliness of these “average” pieces of writing.
Orwell states later in his article, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.” By this statement, he is inferring that as writers of the English language, we should not be ugly writers and know how to be a better ones. He is contradicting himself in a way by saying that the English language has adapted to more of an ugly form but as inaccurate writers, we should know what we are doing wrong.
In today's day and age, I believe that Orwell would consider the English language even more inaccurate than he believed back in 1946. It is only a given that as the years precede, that the English language is just going to continually adapt to its current society and environment.
I found it interesting when I read that disagreed with him, but when I read the rest of your post, I found that you made some very valid points. It made me rethink my point of view.
ReplyDeleteYou do have an interesting point of view, and as Kyle said, valid points. But I do want to ask if you agree that some writers overlook simplicity for finesse?
ReplyDelete