Orwell's point seems to be that in our modern world intelligent writing means many difficult words must be strung together to say simple ideas. I agree with this in academic writing because we are often told to learn new vocabulary in order to spice up our essays. However, many people do not actually know what they are saying when they use these words because they misconstrue their meanings.
Despite this, I believe we are headed down the opposite path as of today. We are too simplistic because of the social networks (and also text messaging) that we communicate through. Words are often abbreviated and language has become unimportant in that way: words do not matter, so you do not have to write them out fully. We are taking advantage of writing because we use it everyday, though we do not practice it correctly everyday.
My AP Literature teacher used to tell us not to use words that have no meaning, such as "great" or "very" or as Orwell says "human," "natural," or "sentimental." I have never understood this because these words do mean something as long as they are in context. All words have meaning. I think the point my teacher (and Orwell as well) was trying to make is these words are used today as filler words - words that do not particularly mean anything, but seemingly give your sentence a little extra. In overusing these words, we have hollowed out their actual meanings and replaced them with many meanings so that they might fit into many sentences. This is unfortunate because we have taken away the validity of our language and made it frivolous just so we could use a few extra words to make us seem more intelligent. It seems simple - use the words you need and leave out the ones you do not. The most intelligent people are the ones who put ideas into words that everyone can understand.
It seems like there is a "magic number" which relates to how many words it takes to say something. Orwell argues that we use too many, while your argument about abbreviations in social networking asserts that we don't use enough. I agree with both points, and while they sit like bookends at different sides of the argument, I still don't understand what is meant to be in the middle. Is there a "magic number?"
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that he is trying to argue for better use of vocabulary. He seems to take offense to what I interpret him to mean as "lazy" writing.
ReplyDeleteI think we should always be trying to expand our vocabulary and that may be the argument that he is making.
I haven't thought about your idea before but I do see where you are coming from and agree with it. Like you said, it does sound easy to use the words you need and leave the ones you don't out.
ReplyDeleteHowever, sometimes, the simplistic tasks can be the ones that are most difficult. I often find myself struggling over the most simple instructions and end up getting frustrated because I am not able to produce anything. Anywho, I was reading this essay and all I could focus on was how harsh Orwell was being and not on the content of what he was saying. Your post, however, allowed me to see it in a new light.
Tracey, I think Shanelle was right in saying that Orwell seems to be too harsh on this topic. It seems you cannot satisfy his argument in any way. As for a magic number, that seems like a ridiculous notion. Writing is about getting a point across and whatever that takes should determine sentence structure, not some silly system that tells you what is right and wrong about writing.
ReplyDelete