Please read Professor Esch's analysis of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." You must first quote a passage (a few sentences) from the essay that you agree with, disagree with, or that you find striking in some way. Then you must also respond directly to one of your classmates observations of the piece.
So - you will have 2 comments total.
To receive credit, you must comment by Tuesday's class
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
"It's hollow, evasive, irresponsible, meaningless-we supply whatever meaning seems happiests for us at the time, and the speaker is never accountable for anything, because he never says anything."
I don't necessarily think this is always true, but I like the point that speakers can use words to say nothing.
"He's from 'Washington.' ... From Washington = Corrupt Politician."
I didn't really make this association when I read the phrase- I think the author assumes that many people will readily make this connections, which I think (hope) isn't always true. These examples do get his point across, that people "blindly follow orthodoxies," but I don't think everyone thinks the same way.
Julianne
"The corruption of language gives rise to massive political conformity, a consequence that makes the propagandists shiver all over in victory thrills...The power of political propaganda was in the air. Bad writing was in the air. Muddy thinking was in the air."
I absolutely agree that political propaganda is directly related to corrupt language; when words are twisted by politicians they can be transformed to mean almost anything. Vagueness in writing, or 'bad English', leads to evasive, obscure translations. In politics epically, elusiveness can lead to propaganda and disappointment.
p.s. I love the last sentences, so dramatic.
I'm responding in agreement with Julianne's second quote: "He's from Washington.' ... From Washington = Corrupt Politician."
I also did not make the association that the author assumes the general public will make. Honestly, the general public, in my opinion anyway, only follows orthodoxies because they are too ignorant and simple to know any better. It will not be an issue that a certain politician is from Washington unless another powerful person points out that corrupt leaders have come out of Washington.
At first, I made the foolish mistake of reading George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". Once I got to the analysis, however, I was quite thankful to have the actual essay in mind. Having said such, I think that Professor Esch wrote an accurate analysis on George Orwell's essay.
"It's hollow, evasive, irresponsible, meaningless-we supply for anything, because he never says anything. If he says something, we just might hold him accountable. So he's careful never to say anything too clearly. It's a convenient arrangement for him."
Sadly, I believe this quote says it all when it comes to politics. How often do we see these politicians and candidates get up and give speeches, answer questions, respond to issues, without actually adressing or responding to the problem or situation at hand? I feel that there is a real fear of accountability in the world today especially when it comes to politics. No one wants to lose popularity among people because of the way they decide to resolve an issue. It is as if the politicians' fears of offending people are so much greater than their desire to speak the truth, speak their mind, speak what they do intend to do. By speaking vaguely so as to say nothing "too clearly", a politician never backs himself into a corner. He never has to be held responsible for anything. It could not be more of a"convenient arrangement for him." More importantly, however, is the first part of the quote, "we supply whatever meaning seems happiest for us at the time". As people listening to the candidate or politician we develop our own ideas to fill in the holes in the politician's speeches. This causes us to develop false ideas about candidates, liking them for the wrong reasons, or disliking them for the wrong reasons. When no concrete ideas are given, we develop our own whether they may be true or not. Overall, I do believe that George Orwell was quite aware of this issue in politics and did an excellent job of exposing it in his essay. I do believe that Professor Esch did justice to Orwell's essay in his analysis.
I would like to begin by saying, I did not realize that Julianne and I chose the same quote to begin with, and I refrained from reading her comment until now, but oh well, I suppose great minds think alike.
I happen to disagree with Julianne in that the author is making correct assumptions about the way people think in today's world. I do believe that there are key words and phrases that people clue into when listening to politicians, but they already have assumptions based on those clue words, they're just waiting to hear them. I would agree with her in that one would hope something of this sort was not true, but I believe in today's world, today's society, it is true. Although, I also agree with Julianne in that not all people think the same way, I do believe that in some ways everyone does clue into those key words that they hear from politicians that they have come to associate with other meaninings.
-Courtney Mello
I agree with Taylor's statement about corrupt language. Instead of trying to say something useful, propagandists try to appeal to everyone by saying something vague, allowing the hearer to interpret it however they like.
However, I do think that the author should have given more examples of what "Bad English" is, in order to better make the point that we do not even notice such language because we are so used to it. We allow our own associations to take the place of any real content.
Julianne
"So why is Orwell so against staleness of imagery and imprecision with words? It's not just the pain of empty language, although sometimes it is that. But more importantly, staleness and imprecision are odious because they lead to vagueness, which (especially in politics) can lead to anything. Meaning is sometimes deliberately manipulated. "
I found the last sentence of this quote to be particularly striking, mostly because it happens so often. I think that most people, even unconsciously, twist their words or the words of others to mean something that they didn't originally. We hear what we want to hear, and that's what we pass on to other people.
I definitely agree with Taylor's comment about vague language opening the door for manipulating the meaning of something. The more obscure the words are, the more room it leaves for free interpretation, or, as this anaysis argued, deliberately lead interpretation that only seems like free thought.
-Carolynn
"Bad writing (or speaking) is a cause of the public's blindness."
This quote embodies the reason why political speeches are well...garbage(to put it nicely). Why do you think the president has people who write his speeches? It's so he doesn't give away too much information. "The speaker is never accountable for anything because he never says anything." The public's "blindness" is a result because we take the limited, vague information that is given to us and "we supply whatever meaning seems happiest for us at the time."
Resonding to Julianne and Taylor's quote,"He's from Washington.' ... From Washington = Corrupt Politician." I would never make that assumption, and I thought maybe it was something that maybe our generation would not concude. I read my parents the quote, and they said they would not make that assumption either. I think all three examples in the section on stale images are responses that only a few would think. I do agree that bad writing does lead to stale images, I just don't think that the definition was very clear.
-Julia J
"fifty-four years later, we can still share his complaint and still find a million examples to prove that bad writing (or speaking) is a cause of the public's blindness."
I found this quote to be quite powerful because if you think about it, it's true, and it's scary. I've been saying for a while that I find politics to be pointless, mainly because it's been years and years and the same issues are still discussed every election term. The way I see it, if a president does what he says he will do to get elected, the issues wouldn't be the same now as they were the previous election, and the one before that, etc. Yes, we'll elect a new president, but I guarantee that in 4 years, there will still be the same issues to fight about.
In general, I believe that the poor use of language is harmful in a lot more ways than in just politics. I always complain about the lack of basic language skills kids in our grade have, and it really does effect a lot of other social things. I obviously don't want to stearotype, but a majority of jails are filled with the illiterate, and the streets are full of people who don't care about language anymore. Language has become a way to get out of answering tough questions, such as with the politicians, and it's become nothing more than simple words. I think it's kind of sad.
I agree with Courtney's comment whole heartedly. Political speakers really DON'T care about staying true to themselves; they tell us what they think we want to hear. It's proven in the fact that nothing ever gets done. I also agree with Taylor when she said that elusiveness can lead to dissapointment; I like the way she worded that.
-Lauren S
"Orwell insists that the corrosiveness of modern prose is in the air we breathe and when we need the "right" phrase, it just floats down to us ready-made, easy to assemble, euphonic and effortless."
I agree with Orwell's first part about the corrosiveness of modern prose, but not entirely with finding the "right" phrase. At least not with me, do I feel that what I am truly trying to say just comes down to me with no problems. I mean there may be times where that does happen, but I feel like a lot of the times the sentences you feel best about are ones you put hard effort and work into.
-Chantal
I'm writing in agreement with Taylor's statement about the quote talking of political conformity. I agree that corrupt language has much to do with the political propaganda. Many politicians do not only twist their words, but will not tell the whole truth. This goes along with the vagueness. Politicians have their devious ways to put "Muddy thinking" in the air.
"Big Government= Too many taxes, too many wasted social programs for lazy people, too many beaurocrats...We can't have a guy thats for big governemnt. That would put an end to the gravy train." THis describes the disdain for the "fancy" or complicated way about government, the newer way. He wants to go back to the old ways, where we have a deficit, we recover, adn we have a period of econonmic growth, we have "Prosperity." This makes sense but onpaper, perhaps it is too idealistic, and not realistic. For in the modern age, we need a modern form of government, and as we develop, so should the processes that govern our society.
Tim Foley
tpTaylor's quote is very interesting in that it is a new perspective on the events that unfolded inthat time of turmoil. It accurately qulaifies thecause and effect relationship for such a terrible war, a terrible era in man's history. "The political propaganda was in the air," and it was for the "Mudruckers" were digging up dirt and glorifying seeminly insignificant events, which brought arise to the horrible acts on both sides. Would the mass killings be justified had we not gone into WWII knowing the GErman atrocities, and would we have been the bad guy. We will never know but it is very interesting to think about, and Orwell gives us a unique persepctive.
Tim Foley
We certainly seem to have a dim view of politicians. How can we change this? Why do politics have to be so corrupt and banal? What is our obligation as a citizenry in this matter? Once we are made aware of situations by writers, how do we proceed. It is obvious that politics have been muddy waters since long before even Orwell. Why do they have to be a cesspool? Which ones of you will take up the banner and work to change what is broken?
"It's not just the pain of empty language, although sometimes it is that. But more importantly, staleness and imprecision are odious because they lead to vagueness, which (especially in politics) can lead to anything. Meaning is sometimes deliberately manipulated. "
I really like this quote. It brings up an idea that I have never payed attention too, but as I read it I realized how true it really is. The examples of "political staleness" were great. Politicians do use words like "more" to emphasize what they are trying to explain and to "manipulate" the minds of the voters to believe that "more" means something much clearer and plausible. There is so much vagueness in politics and I do not think that people realize how unclear their candidates really are.
--Katie
Responding to Julia's "Bad writing (or speaking) is a cause of the public's blindness."
I agree with Julia and I think she makes a good point in saying that this "blindness" is the public's response to vague speeches--to fill in the blanks with what was not said and what is assumed that would have been said. This bad writing and the public's response to it really does make language meaningless. Why not continue to be vague when the public continues to hear what they want?
-Katie
"(Referring to 'slack or hack writers') They will construct your sentences for you-even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent-and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself."
I liked how Esch addressed the often-hired writers that politicians use to create their speeches, campaign stances, etc. I learned a long time ago that those televised speeches Bush gives? He didn't write a word of them. Rather, some man or woman will open a Word document a few hours before the live US address and figure out what the president is going to say. Are these the exact thoughts the President has? Or is he just happy to be saying something that he didn't really have to think about, rather just read on a teleprompter? I'm not so sure, but Esch goes even farther to say that these writers deceive even their employer.
I'm going to consider Mr. Dewar as a classmate--
It's difficult to find a decent politician today, arguably impossible to do so. Politicians are attempting to win over the majority to get elected into office, right? That's certainly necessary to continue their job after being elected. In doing this, they have to water down a few stances, become two-faced, etc. I'm not sure how this can be overcome. Honest people never make it past the primaries, it seems. But once one does, will they even be noticed?
Post a Comment