George Orwell, most probably, had written this essay because he would have been so much frustrated with the way people have used English to the extent that they have abused the English language. In the essay, he uses an analogy of preferring candles to electric light, and hansom cab to aeroplane, as people stubbornly stick to archaic writing (using foreign phrases, scientific words, and jargons while everday language can be used).
Though I do not agree with all his opinions, I understand what he is getting at. The reason is that far too many people, by trying to sophisticate their use of language, make their prose a mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence. This is evident from the five examples that Orwell provides in the beginning of his essay. The first example is from Professor Laski where he uses five negatives in a sentence. The second one, from Professor Hogben uses term in the wrong context. An essay on psychology in Politics contains a number of circumlocutions. The fourth example, Communist Pamphlet, has lots of phrases that are stale. The final one, Letter in Tribune, lacks in detail because words and meanings do not really match. What I disagree with Orwell is some of his "rules" that cover(?) most errors in writing. Firstly, he insists not to use any figurative language which one is used to seeing used often. Well, I just think that he is making an induction. Because figurative languages he had seen are bad, it does not mean all figurative languages that we use are bad. I also do not agree with the fourth one. He says "NEVER" use the passive voice where active voice can be used. This is not always the case. How about this?- 1984 was written by George Orwell.
It seems that lots of guys tend to disagree with Orwell's opinion. I also think in the same boat but his rules are very practical. People who write fancy by incorporating lots of figurative languages and scientific languages, they often fail.
ReplyDelete