JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 "Politics and the English Language," Orwell. 1946. Read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 [The] mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose... I reely think heez a good riter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Useless trivia - what famous dystopian writer was Orwell's french teacher for a short time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Reminds me of the discussion I had a with a former group leader of mine. She commented once that I "wasn't very diplomatic". To which I replied: There's an emotive difference between saying something like "I find myself professionally unfilled at the present juncture and desire more challenging tasks and responsibilites." and "This place sucks". I pointed out that I might be, at times, undiplomatic, but I'm never lying or prevaricating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 "This place sucks" = "I find myself professionally unfilled at the present juncture and desire more challenging tasks and responsibilites." A connotation of the modern lexicon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Maybe Donald Rumsfeld should give "Politics and the English Language" a quick run-through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yea, yea. See Strunks orginal The Elements of Style 1935 where much of this comes from. The later updated version by E.B. White is a classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 So I can't think of that many "dystopian" writers. I'm going to guess....Huxley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Huxley? Correct. I find the link between the 2 interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 What aspect of the connection between the two is interesting to you? I'm not terribly familiar with A. Huxley's Bio, but I think that the fact that Brave New World was published in 1931 - before the apex of most of the totalitarian regimes, and that Orwell completed 1984 after the world got a glimpse of the true nature of them is telling. In the case of Huxley's dystopia at least, the truth was far more horrifying and brutal than fiction. With respect to "Politics," I think that Orwell's indictment of the vague and euphemistic in the place of concrete terms is pretty thought provoking stuff - no matter what your politics are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skykilo Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Orwell's work may be more realistic and scary, but I found Brave New World a much more satisfying read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 "Politics and the English Language," Orwell. 1946. Read it. Admit it. You came up with the Orwell quote whilst googling "ducks and drakes". There, I just gave an example of how we are mangling the English language by constantly inventing new verbs where existing one can suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 I actually came across the essay during my Sophomore UW when I had a history TA who had was so sick of reading poorly composed essays that he refused to grade anyone's work until they read "Politics." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Orwell's work may be more realistic and scary, but I found Brave New World a much more satisfying read. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Why? Orwell's novels are as subtle as a 2x4. He's a much better essayist. Huxley was a better novelist. I also find Huxley's concept of the state gaining power by infantisizing the populace much more relevant to todays world, as well as topical jabs at consumer culture ("ending is better than mending", no new sport can come unless it requires more equipment than the last, etc.) much more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Orwell, didn't write to "satisfy" people. He wrote to make people think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Why? Orwell's novels are as subtle as a 2x4. He's a much better essayist. Huxley was a better novelist. I also find Huxley's concept of the state gaining power by infantisizing the populace much more relevant to todays world. Speaking of 2x4s, Ayn Rand was far worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 My bad. Strunks orginal Elements of Style, from which Orwell borrows freely, was published in 1919. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skykilo Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Elements of Style Had to give that to the FatBoy, hoping his trip reports might quit making me grimace. There has been a marked improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Why? Orwell's novels are as subtle as a 2x4. He's a much better essayist. Huxley was a better novelist. I also find Huxley's concept of the state gaining power by infantisizing the populace much more relevant to todays world. Speaking of 2x4s, Ayn Rand was far worse. No kidding. The didactic punishment that she dealt out in "The Fountainhead," was so tiresome that I gave up after about 100 pages, which is 100X more reading than necessary if all you want to do is understand her basic message. I think the book is so tiresome and repetitive that the most intersting thing about it is that apparently large numbers of people took it seriously at some point? The first explanation that I can think of - that the American public was reacting against the prevailing conformity of the 1950s - seems a bit too pat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skykilo Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Speaking of unworthy books, I just cracked Last of the Mohicans last night to where I left it 2/3 finished nearly a year ago. It reread the page and quickly decided it just wasn't worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Speaking of unworthy books, I just cracked Last of the Mohicans last night to where I left it 2/3 finished nearly a year ago. It reread the page and quickly decided it just wasn't worth it. Much better than the last of the Mohicans is Twain's Fennimore Cooper's Literary Offenses (it's also a reasonable literary style guide) Also good is Cannibalism in the Cars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Why? Orwell's novels are as subtle as a 2x4. He's a much better essayist. Huxley was a better novelist. I also find Huxley's concept of the state gaining power by infantisizing the populace much more relevant to todays world, as well as topical jabs at consumer culture ("ending is better than mending", no new sport can come unless it requires more equipment than the last, etc.) much more interesting. Maybe he was heeding the parable cited by Teddy Roosevelt. Given the politics of the day - just slightly less than a decade after Bernard Shaw et al's copious apologia for Stalin - my hunch is that he thought a literaray 2x4 was what the times called for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 I loved Twain's dig at Cooper. His essay on anti-semitism in Austria "Concerning the Jews," is another obscure classic IMO. Link Here Favorite quote from this one: "I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being - that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus* could not have been condemned. Of course Satan has some kind of a case, it goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that is nothing; that can be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I will undertake his rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher. It is a thing which we ought to be willing to do for any one who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents. A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence the other popes and politicians shrink to midges for the microscope." *Of the Dreyfus affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I loved Twain's dig at Cooper. His essay on anti-semitism in Austria "Concerning the Jews," is another obscure classic IMO. Link Here Favorite quote from this one: "I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being - that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus* could not have been condemned. Of course Satan has some kind of a case, it goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that is nothing; that can be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I will undertake his rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher. It is a thing which we ought to be willing to do for any one who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents. A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence the other popes and politicians shrink to midges for the microscope." thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.