George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" described what he claimed to be the biggest threats to English as a form of writing. It argued that in an attempt to sound more dignified or intellectual, political writers would use overly complex language, which would unintentionally make the meaning of the work far less clear. In addition, those who read such writing typically tried to emulate it, ultimately leading to an endless cycle of a decline in meaning. Based on Orwell's claims, I expected the state of political writing today to be atrocious. However, I was pleasantly surprised about the overall quality of the writing I read.
The article I examined was "Why President Trump's Ukraine Scheme Matters" by the New York Times. The first thing I noticed when reading the article was how easy to understand it was. Compared to the examples of poor English presented by Orwell, it was to-the-point and simple. Instead of becoming a thicket of obscure references, drawn-out sentences, and complicated vocabulary, the article explains itself enough so that it can be understood by anyone, but refrains from being too lengthy or wordy when it does not need to. While some readers may believe that these qualities make the authors seem less intelligent, the sacrifice is worth it because of the added benefit of having a clearer point.
Another claim Orwell made was that metaphors that had turned into cliches had lost all meaning and detracted from the writing. While the article contains relatively few metaphors, a comparison between President Trump and a tyrannical king is a common thread throughout it. Such a comparison could absolutely be seen as trite, because comparing any leader to a generic dictator has been a relatively common strategy of opposing them for centuries. However, unlike most articles, this editorial is able to use the tired nature of its comparison for effect, because it explicitly references a similar comparison made by the authors of the Constitution. Therefore, even if the metaphor itself is somewhat uninspiring, it still holds a meaning in the article because of its relevance to the core argument about the Constitution's intent.
Orwell claims that bad writing is commonplace when one attempts to hide the flaws of their own party. However, the Editorial Board negates this idea by taking a bipartisan stance on the issue. The biggest example of this is the claim that the same group of people advocated for Bill Clinton's impeachment inquiry, since it shows that their viewpoints are consistent across party lines. In addition, they admit that the Democrats would benefit from the impeachment, meaning that they have no goal to hide the wrongdoings of either side. The article's perspective as a neutral onlooker is further bolstered by its habit of referring to both Republicans and Democrats as separate parties, rather than identifying itself as either. Overall, the bipartisan nature of the article prevented it from using unclear language to benefit one side of the political spectrum.
While this article may just be a deviation from the norm, it helped convince me that the state of political writing is not nearly as dire as Orwell's essay convinced me it would be. While I think the claims made by Orwell are still valid, articles like this prove that there are writers who are able to present a point without diminishing the value of what they are saying.
Here is a link to the article.
The article I examined was "Why President Trump's Ukraine Scheme Matters" by the New York Times. The first thing I noticed when reading the article was how easy to understand it was. Compared to the examples of poor English presented by Orwell, it was to-the-point and simple. Instead of becoming a thicket of obscure references, drawn-out sentences, and complicated vocabulary, the article explains itself enough so that it can be understood by anyone, but refrains from being too lengthy or wordy when it does not need to. While some readers may believe that these qualities make the authors seem less intelligent, the sacrifice is worth it because of the added benefit of having a clearer point.
Another claim Orwell made was that metaphors that had turned into cliches had lost all meaning and detracted from the writing. While the article contains relatively few metaphors, a comparison between President Trump and a tyrannical king is a common thread throughout it. Such a comparison could absolutely be seen as trite, because comparing any leader to a generic dictator has been a relatively common strategy of opposing them for centuries. However, unlike most articles, this editorial is able to use the tired nature of its comparison for effect, because it explicitly references a similar comparison made by the authors of the Constitution. Therefore, even if the metaphor itself is somewhat uninspiring, it still holds a meaning in the article because of its relevance to the core argument about the Constitution's intent.
Orwell claims that bad writing is commonplace when one attempts to hide the flaws of their own party. However, the Editorial Board negates this idea by taking a bipartisan stance on the issue. The biggest example of this is the claim that the same group of people advocated for Bill Clinton's impeachment inquiry, since it shows that their viewpoints are consistent across party lines. In addition, they admit that the Democrats would benefit from the impeachment, meaning that they have no goal to hide the wrongdoings of either side. The article's perspective as a neutral onlooker is further bolstered by its habit of referring to both Republicans and Democrats as separate parties, rather than identifying itself as either. Overall, the bipartisan nature of the article prevented it from using unclear language to benefit one side of the political spectrum.
While this article may just be a deviation from the norm, it helped convince me that the state of political writing is not nearly as dire as Orwell's essay convinced me it would be. While I think the claims made by Orwell are still valid, articles like this prove that there are writers who are able to present a point without diminishing the value of what they are saying.
Here is a link to the article.
Comments
Post a Comment