Recent Developments in Literary Britain as per Mr Orwell
Arrantfop
critically reviled amongst the elite in Britain. Although both AF and 1984
appeared towards the top of the most popular Millenium lists amongst readers,
not a day now seems to go by without someone making a swipe at him. Although a
lot of this is the usual sneering about something which is populist, there have
been some valuable criticisms made which might interest those people who are
more than merely "fans" - the perception is that although he was a wonderful
man for ideas his writing was in itself poor. Similar criticisms have been
levelled at Wells, and, indeed, at most of the popular sci - fi writers of the
time.
There is also the suggestion that both 1984 and Animal Farm were confused as
allegories because of Orwell's confusion about his own politics at the time
[something which is undeniable since it is been uncovered that he spied for the
UK Government], and although he was able to make general, doomed comments about
the possible futures of mankind, he had no more of a grip on the real issues
facing mankind than the most romantic of the romantic poets. This of course
doesn't make someone a bad writer of course, only a naive one.
Any comments?
Alan Allport
Arrantfop <arra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000129101459...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> i thought people would be interested to know that Orwell is at the moment
> critically reviled amongst the elite in Britain. Although both AF and 1984
> appeared towards the top of the most popular Millenium lists amongst
readers,
> not a day now seems to go by without someone making a swipe at him.
> Any comments?
Can you think of any specific examples of this? I'm not doubting you as
such, it's just that the impression I get is quite the opposite - that
Orwell tends to be stolen (cf. Dickens) by almost everyone except the
rumpest Communists as being "their" man.
Alan.
John Rennie
not add up to being a spy. I would say that GO is now reviewed more
critically than in the past but this doesn't do him much harm. For me
Inside the Whale ranks with 1984 but Animal Farm is out there on its own.
Martha Bridegam
>
> There is also the suggestion that both 1984 and Animal Farm were confused as
> allegories because of Orwell's confusion about his own politics at the time
> [something which is undeniable since it is been uncovered that he spied for the
> UK Government], and although he was able to make general, doomed comments about
> the possible futures of mankind, he had no more of a grip on the real issues
> facing mankind than the most romantic of the romantic poets. This of course
> doesn't make someone a bad writer of course, only a naive one.
>
> Any comments?
Only a few --
__Animal Farm__ is an allegory. __1984__ probably seems "confused" as an
allegory because it isn't one. See Gene's post.
The man had a bullet hole in him for crying out loud. He had been an
imperial policeman. He had been nearly squeezed to death between the
Fascists and the Stalinists in Spain & had done propaganda work at the
BBC under intense military censorship. Naive is probably not the word.
What "real issues" did he miss?
While I think it was godawful of him to hand over his (fairly bigoted)
list of suspected communists to a friend at the Ministry of Information,
that's not quite the same thing as "spying." Snitching, yes. Spying, no.
There's a difference involved.
Finally, who sez romantic poets don't have a grip on the real issues
facing mankind? Care to explain why not?
/MAB
Jonathan Mason
Arrantfop <arra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000129101459...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> i thought people would be interested to know that Orwell is at the moment
> critically reviled amongst the elite in Britain. Although both AF and 1984
> appeared towards the top of the most popular Millenium lists amongst
readers,
> not a day now seems to go by without someone making a swipe at him.
> lot of this is the usual sneering about something which is populist, there
have
> been some valuable criticisms made which might interest those people who
are
> more than merely "fans" - the perception is that although he was a
wonderful
> man for ideas his writing was in itself poor. Similar criticisms have been
> levelled at Wells, and, indeed, at most of the popular sci - fi writers of
the
> time.
>
wrote a "readers review" on a book about the death penalty in the USA for
posting on the Amazon.com site, where I commented that Orwell's brief essay
entitled "A Hanging" was a much more effective statement of the paradoxes of
legal killing than the book I was looking at. And it is.
PS Having spent a little time delving into Priestley lately, I have started
imitating his habit of writing sentences like the last one of the foregoing
graph. How does contemporary wisdom in Blighty rate Priestley's skill as a
writer?
Jonathan Mason
Sorry if this post is a duplicate. My system does not work very well.
John Rennie
How does contemporary wisdom in Blighty rate Priestley's skill as a
> writer?
>
I dont know how to measure contemporary wisdom. What I do know is that
"An Inspector Calls" is still packing them in the West End.
Alan Allport
news:38933EFB...@sirius.com...
> While I think it was godawful of him to hand over his (fairly bigoted)
> list of suspected communists to a friend at the Ministry of Information,
> that's not quite the same thing as "spying." Snitching, yes. Spying, no.
> There's a difference involved.
Snitching is the telling of secrets. Orwell was collating information that
anyone could have got by hanging around half-a-dozen highbrow London pubs
for a few weeks.
I know you feel that no good deed for the government should ever go
unpunished, but I don't see the element of revelation here.
Alan.
Arrantfop
for many a year too in Britain. The critics [and i neither strongly agree or
disagree with them] detect something of the moral didact in both authors. Like
i said, neither of them have suffered in popular circles as a result, but it
has led to a number of people not taking either of their reputations as
sacrosant any longer. Priestley of course suffers in the same way as Orwell,
and i suppose Huxley and Burgess, in that they only have a few works on which
their popular reputation is based. If those are undermined in any way, then the
critics tend to sense blood and read more obscure things of the authors
[History and the Western Man for Priestly] in order to attack them for their
overall worldview.
A similar thing happened when it was restated that Wells was by policy in
favour of eugenics...............
Arrantfop
as to whether Orwell was a poor writer, I agree - i don't think this can be
substained. There are so many mediocrities in the literary world nowadays that
i could hardly substain that. He is however subject to the vagaries of fashion,
and England is very much a place which tends to [in critical circles at least]
lash out at the old when the new needs to be established. One of our better new
playwrights, Mark Ravenhill, was recently in the news when he commented on a
similar process in which Rattigan, Wilde and other 'formalists' received quite
brutal press in the sixties when John Osbourne's "angry young man" entered the
scene. A similar hatred for the old meant that people like Greene suffered also
in a different field, and his reputation never recovered.
I do think however that such a critical re - evaluation - and i hinted at this
in my last e - mails - brings out interesting and new slants on a writer,
albeit they might not please the "fans". I think someone else mentioned this.
Although i don't think Orwell was a poor writer, i think he was a didactic
writer who believed in "correct English". I think he wrote an essay on this
subject actually where he set down rules for what was correct english. This
type of formalism in his writing is what the critics have latched upon, because
the subject matter - as others have commented - is still relevant. I personally
believe, and i guess this is where i fall down on the side of the critics, that
his writing [not his subject matter - please do not confuse the two] is
tediously one - dimensional, and the more i read outside the novels, im
convinced of this. It's for the same reason that although i am in awe of
Conrad's or Forster's sweep, I would be thoroughly bored if i were to reread
them.
This is of course a subjective opinion, but to say blankly Orwell is a "good"
writer is meaningless. He was an imaginative writer, but if you use the word
"good" you are entering the world of relativist judgements.
As for the recent revelations about his political background, i don't really
care a great deal. If people read the earlier e - mails in detail, they will
find that i was describing a narrative of how the critics are attacking orwell,
not how i personally feel. If people wish to debate his politics, feel free,
but i would appreciate it if they did not wring their hands on this strand. I
personally find his wartime essays tedious in the extreme, and his meditations
on what it is to be english silly, and i can hardly blame the critics for
hitting on that point.
As for the curious comment about 1984 not being an allegory, I'm afraid that
Orwell has described it as such. Like AF, it was based on an exaggerated
version of what was going on in Russia at the time.
Alan Allport
news:38979E24...@sirius.com...
> The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the
> English speaking races [sic] are not innately better than anyone else
> and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph
> anywhere."
While endorsing the spirit of the abovequoted email entirely, am I the only
one who finds these prissy [sic]'s far more irritating than the original
offense?
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
>
......
> As for the curious comment about 1984 not being an allegory, I'm afraid that
> Orwell has described it as such. Like AF, it was based on an exaggerated
> version of what was going on in Russia at the time.
Shortly after the publication of __1984__, the New York __Daily News__
printed an article arguing it was an attack on the British Labour
government. In response, Orwell wrote a letter that was quoted in
several publications, in several versions. Per Davison, the original has
not survived but the probably most accurate version -- with a correction
Orwell specifically requested -- appeared in __The Socialist Call__ in
New York, July 22, 1949. It said:
"My recent novel '1984' is NOT intended as an attack on socialism, or on
the British Labor Party (of which I am a suporter) but as a show-up of
the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have
already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism.
I do not believe that the kind of society which I described necessarily
will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the
book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe
also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of
intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to
their logical consequences.
The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the
English speaking races [sic] are not innately better than anyone else
and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph
anywhere."
c/o MAB
--
jo...@sirius.com
Martha Bridegam
>
> Martha Bridegam <jo...@sirius.com> quotes George Orwell in message
> news:38979E24...@sirius.com...
>
> > English speaking races [sic] are not innately better than anyone else
> > and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph
> > anywhere."
>
> one who finds these prissy [sic]'s far more irritating than the original
> offense?
So you're against sicsual tolerance, are you?
/MAB
--
jo...@sirius.com
Joseph C Fineman
>Martha Bridegam <jo...@sirius.com> quotes George Orwell in message
>news:38979E24...@sirius.com...
>> The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that
>> the English speaking races [sic] are not innately better than
>> anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could
>> triumph anywhere."
>While endorsing the spirit of the abovequoted email entirely, am I
>the only one who finds these prissy [sic]'s far more irritating than
>the original offense?
If there were a typographical equivalent of raised eyebrows, I would
be tolerant of its being inserted after that curious phrase. However,
I am sorry that "sic" is so widely perverted to that purpose. Its
proper business is to reassure the reader who might doubt whether the
quotation itself was correct. The last time I used it was in
recording a dream in which someone said he wanted to eat some candles.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Big prizes make many losers. :||
Jonathan Mason
> I apologize to those people who i didn't directly respond to. Just on the
point
> as to whether Orwell was a poor writer, I agree - i don't think this can
be
> substained. There are so many mediocrities in the literary world nowadays
that
> i could hardly substain that. He is however subject to the vagaries of
fashion,
> and England is very much a place which tends to [in critical circles at
least]
> lash out at the old when the new needs to be established.
.............
> Although i don't think Orwell was a poor writer, i think he was a didactic
> writer who believed in "correct English". I think he wrote an essay on
this
> subject actually where he set down rules for what was correct english.
The essay you refer to just set down some very useful guidelines that any
nonprofessional writer would benefit from following. It isn't really
prescriptive, because it ends up by saying something like: "Ignore any of
these rules rather than write something barbarous." (I don't have the exact
quote handy).
There are many rule books written to help people write "correct" or at least
clear English. One such is the AP style book, which I have to refer to a
great deal at work in correcting the writing of professional journalists. I
don't agree with everything prescribed, but it helps produce clear,
consistent copy. And what, as JB Priestley would have said, is wrong with
that?
Jonathan Mason
Jonathan Mason <j...@sunline.net> wrote in message
news:87ht0...@enews3.newsguy.com...
" I think the following rules will cover most cases:
i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are
used to seeing in print.
ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv) Never use the passive when you can use the active.
v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you
can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."
He goes on to say that he is not talking about the literary use of English,
but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not concealing or
preventing thought.
And if that's not unprescriptive, it'll have to do until the real thing
comes along.
[Incidentally in i) AP style book would prescribe "that" for "which".]
Arrantfop
"correct english" [i believe they are still common currency in some of the more
ghoulish public schools of this land] and Orwell's guidelines, but the point
still stands. Even if one were to offer the essay as a slightly mocking take on
such rules [as is suggested in the "barborous" comment], the tone of the
article [which i reread last night] is still didactic and pompous. There is
little point knocking the patriarch off his throne, if he's only going to
replace himself as philosopher king before the night is over. I by no means
[oh, he'd like that begining] believe that art or language is a wholly
democratic form, but his particular brand of conservatism both in thought and
in writing need to be divided from his role as "ideas man" and "guardian
against fascist" to the public.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport
> I agree that there's a big difference between a rule book for grammar or
> "correct english" [i believe they are still common currency in some of the
more
> ghoulish public schools of this land]...
More's the pity. Even in the late 1970s at a third-rate state school we were
drilled through the rudiments of grammar. By the time my younger sister got
there, in the late 1980s, they had apparently given up. Abandoning obsolete
regulations doesn't mean saying anything goes, nor is there anything
'undemocratic' about insisting that written English should occasionally make
sense.
Alan.
Tom Deveson
>Even in the late 1970s at a third-rate state school we were
>drilled through the rudiments of grammar. By the time my younger sister got
>there, in the late 1980s, they had apparently given up.
"Nous avons changé tout cela."
The *National Literacy Strategy* now gives a framework for teaching in
all schools in England, setting out term-by-term requirements under the
three headings: Word level work, Sentence level work, Text level work.
To give a few very brief extracted examples ---
*In year 2* (7-yr-olds)
Word level: the use of antonyms, use of synonyms and other alternative
words/phrases; collect discuss similarities and shades of meaning...
Sentence level: recognise and take account of commas, be aware of the
need for grammatical agreement, use verb tenses with increasing
accuracy, identify and understand purpose of speech marks..
Text level: read recounts and begin to recognise generic structures e.g.
ordered sequences of events, be aware of the difference between spoken
and written language, use models from reading to organise instructions
sequentially, identify and discuss patterns of rhythm, rhyme and other
features of sound in poems, use dictionaries and glossaries to give
definitions and explanations, discuss what definitions are, discuss
meanings of words and phrases that create humour, scan a text to find
specific sections, write non-chronological reports based on structure of
known texts..
*Year 4* (9-yr-olds)
Word level: use a rhyming dictionary, explore the ways in which nouns
and adjectives can be made into verbs by use of the suffixes -ate -ify
etc, explore and discuss the implications of words which imply gender,
define familiar words but within varying constraints e.g. in four words,
consider how to arrive at the best use of words for different purposes,
use a range of suffixes that can be added to nouns and verbs to make
adjectives e.g. -able, -ful, -ing, -ic, understand how diminutives are
formed...
Sentence level: re-read own writing to check for grammatical sense and
accuracy, investigate verb tenses, understand the term "tense", identify
adverbs and understand their functions, investigate the effects of
substituting adverbs in clauses or sentences, practice using commas to
mark grammatical boundaries within sentences, link to work on editing
own writing, examine comparative and superlative adjectives, understand
basic rules for apostrophising singular nouns, understand significance
of word order, recognise how commas and connectives are used to join and
separate clauses, identify semi-colons, colons, dashes, hyphens,
understand how grammar of a sentence alters when the sentence type is
altered, noting the order of words, verb tenses, changes to
punctuation...
Text level: explore narrative order, chart the build-up of a play scene,
understand and use the terms *fact* and *opinion* and begin to
distinguish the two in reading and other media, identify features of
instructional texts, edit stories to fit a particular space, improve the
cohesion of written instructions, write character sketches focusing on
small details to evoke sympathy or dislike, understand the use of
figurative language in poetry and prose, write own examples of
descriptive expressive language based on those read, write poetry based
on the structure and/or style of poems read, identify how and why
paragraphs are used to organise information, improve cohesion of written
explanations through paragraphing and the use of link phrases, write
critically about an issue or dilemma raised in a story, produce polished
poetry through revision e.g. deleting words, experimenting with
figurative language, from examples of persuasive writing investigate how
style and vocabulary are used to convince the intended reader, present a
point of view in writing linking points persuasively, summarise in
writing the key ideas from a paragraph or chapter...
Believe me, this is only a *minute* extract taken directly from the
whole 80-page ring-binder.
I'll just give a few example from Year 6 (11-yr-olds):
Word level: invent words using known roots, prefixes and suffixes e.g..
vaccaphobe (someone who has a fear of cows), experiment with language
e.g. creating new words, similes and metaphors...
Sentence level: revise the impersonal voice, the use of the passive,
management of complex sentences, understand how clauses can be
manipulated to achieve different effects...
Text level: describe and evaluate the style of an individual poet,
compare texts in writing, drawing out their different values and appeals
to a reader, write a sequence of poems linked by theme or form, identify
key features of impersonal formal language, divide whole texts into
paragraphs, select the appropriate style and form to suit a specific
purpose...
This stuff can be done very badly, but it *can* be done well -- I've
been there in the classroom while it happened. It can also be done to
the exclusion of much else including music, art, history, design, etc.
It *can* be exciting -- few things intrigued me more in a classroom
recently than taking part in a discussion with local eleven-year-olds --
all working-class children of many mixed ethnic origins -- on the
difference between the presentation of Pierre in the BBC film version of
War and Peace and in the extracts they had read from Tolstoy. Or reading
the same class's response to Lawrence's poem *Snake*. But those were the
good days.
Tom (who is teaching a course for about sixty local teachers this week
on how to do the above -- which partially explains enforced absence from
abg-o -- and who only learned what a phoneme is at the age of about 35,
but heard a seven-year-old in a Bermondsey classroom use the term
correctly)
--
Tom Deveson
Martha Bridegam
>
>
> The *National Literacy Strategy* now gives a framework for teaching in
>
.....
> *Year 4* (9-yr-olds)
....
....understand and use the terms *fact* and *opinion* and begin to
> distinguish the two in reading and other media....
......
> Tom (who is teaching a course for about sixty local teachers this week
When they're done with the South London 9-year-olds can they come work
on our presidential campaign press corps?
/MAB
Alan Allport
news:I1cL4eA9...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
> To give a few very brief extracted examples ---
blimey teech wot with all these rules and everythin your gonna krush our
spirit, innit? jus like bleedin big brother's wot i say.
alan BaD2DBoNe
greg
Alan Allport wrote in message <87q34i$15i$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>spirit, innit? jus like bleedin big brother's wot i say.
>
>alan BaD2DBoNe
Bliddy yanks.
"Wot Prauce Salvysion Naoo?" - g b ShaW 4 EVaH RULES!
Jonathan Mason
sometimes train (high school graduates) up to the level of these
7-year-olds, we'd be pretty happy.
Alex Ball
<a...@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Really quite tangenical but have been meaning to post this for a
while. This is *Why I Write 2000* (It's been put through MS Word's
Auto-Summarize thing)
"writer. to settle down and write books.
ghastly failure. books at that time. 2.Aesthetic enthusiasm.
margins, etc. 4.Political purpose -- using the word "political" in
the widest possible sense. Once again, no book is genuinely free from
political bias. Spanish Civil War, etc. ordinary reader, must ruin the
book. "
the 'Spanish Civil War, etc' bit makes me laugh....
--
Alex Ball
email : alex...@mail.com
ICQ:17821675
hatstand
binder. Its a wonderful utopian vision.
If it were realisable, then my job would be done, and I could inculcate my
little lambs with a sense of literary technique; the different linguistic
effects of different punctuation markers, the spirit and philosophy of
literature, the organisation of facts and opinions into effective arguments,
the art of rhetoric and the like.
What happens is that in primarty school kiddies are dragged through a
sytemised series of tasks, with no time to develop or consolidate that
knowledge. As a result, the less able are simply forgotton as there is no
time to concentrate on basics (though they can recognise narrative
structures and other high level tasks) because the class must zip through
the literacy grinder.
Most kids are so bomabarded with rules and convention's that they get
confused. For example, top group kids are putting apostophe's after every
plural 's' because they vaguely recall a set of rule's that have been taught
by primary teacher's. It's very annoying to see.
This week I had to teach my Year 8 (13 yr old) top group that without an
active verb, a group of words is a phrase, not a sentence. I then had to
teach them what a verb is. They did, however, know what alliteration,
metaphor and sibilance was. Great innit?
I remain sir, etc.
Hatstand
----------
In article <I1cL4eA9...@devesons.demon.co.uk>, Tom Deveson
Arrantfop
ignores about fifty years of linguistic research into the ways in which the
structure of language [I'm thinking about Barthes at the moment, but all of the
biggies looked at the question] reinforce the existing values of an ideology or
a existing political / social structure. He either did not understand this
paradox, or else he chose to wilfully ignore it. Orwell's rules for writing
were inclusive, and his style of writing was equally so. His writings can't
really be attacked on this basis per se, but i believe he can - as i before
suggested - be attacked for his didacticism. It is unsurprising that his main
core support [of his writing style, rather than his role a popular defender
against fascism] comes from pedagogues and those who feel that "standards are
slipping".
It is an incredibly naive, and perhaps dangerous, statement to suggest that
words in themselves have honesty. Ideas do. Words do not.
Alan Allport
> The question "What's undemocratic in choosing to use your words honestly?"
> ignores about fifty years of linguistic research into the ways in which
the
> structure of language... reinforce the existing values of an ideology or
> a existing political / social structure.
I'm not sure I really understand your point with regard to _Politics and the
English Language_. What ideologies or existing political/social structures
was Orwell mischievously attempting to reinforce by asking writers not to
deliberately disguise their intentions? Is there something inherently
undemocratic or anti-socialist or Rosicrucian or whatever about
straightforward prose?
Alan.
greg
Arrantfop wrote in message <20000211074702...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>The question "What's undemocratic in choosing to use your words honestly?"
>ignores about fifty years of linguistic research into the ways in which the
the
ideology or
>a existing political / social structure. He either did not understand this
>paradox, or else he chose to wilfully ignore it. Orwell's rules for writing
>were inclusive, and his style of writing was equally so. His writings
can't
>really be attacked on this basis per se, but i believe he can - as i before
>suggested - be attacked for his didacticism. It is unsurprising that his
main
>core support [of his writing style, rather than his role a popular defender
>against fascism] comes from pedagogues and those who feel that "standards
are
>slipping".
Which pedagogues are those? Orwell gets slapped around quite a bit for not
"challenging eurocentric paradigms" and whatnot. And why fifty years? Kant
turned it all upside down two hundred years ago, and semiotics took on the
question around that time; not to mention Vico, who questioned "existing
political / social structure", as you put, and dared to look further into
the past to see where it gets recycled. A priori philosophical language is a
fantasy familiar from at least Bacon, and most efforts, including Barthes,
has been to show how hard it is to construct one, not to criticize a writer
for *recognizing* that ideology is one of language's inheritances. It seems
to me the trouble is that GO didn't bother to read these earlier writers,
and does indeed claim that thought and writing corrupt one another without
asking himself why (psych would perhaps have been a better path for GO's
investigations, given his ability to depict and mine anxiety about
oppressive ideology).
>It is an incredibly naive, and perhaps dangerous, statement to suggest that
>words in themselves have honesty. Ideas do. Words do not.
Since when were ideas 'honest' (and I think you are even saying they are
inherently so, though by what directive?)
Alan Allport
that touches on much the same issue being discussed here. It's at
http://www.linguafranca.com/9912/writing.html if anyone didn't see it the
first time.
Alan.
Alan Allport
news:881an2$6m4$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
And just to follow on from that: if Gayatri Spivak is a model of prose, then
I'm a deconstructed hegemonic monolithic Dutchman.
--
***********************************************
Alan Allport
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~allport/
***********************************************
Martha Bridegam
>
> The question "What's undemocratic in choosing to use your words honestly?"
Maybe, but my question was:
"What's undemocratic in saying it's a good idea to choose your words
honestly?"
Different question.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
>
> The question "What's undemocratic in choosing to use your words honestly?"
> structure of language [I'm thinking about Barthes at the moment, but all of the
> biggies looked at the question] reinforce the existing values of an ideology or
> a existing political / social structure. He either did not understand this
Y'know, some structure of language are more equal than others.
"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of
the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India,
the Rusian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on
Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too
brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the
professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to
consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy
vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the
inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned,
the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called
*pacification*. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent
trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is
called *transfer of population* or *rectification of frontiers*. People
are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck
or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called
*elimination of unreliable elements*. Such phraseology is needed if one
wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them..."
Facing a genuinely ugly bit of the language of power, it seems as though
the Orwell approach & the deconstructionist approach would make the same
criticisms, though probably in different words. Take (please), this real
extract from the California Penal Code:
"Sec. 2670. It is hereby recognized and declared that all persons,
including all persons involuntarily confined, have a fundamental right
against enforced interference with their thought processes, states of
mind, and patterns of mentation through the use of organic therapies;
that this fundamental right requires that no person with the capacity
for informed consent who refuses organic therapy shall be compelled to
undergo such therapy; and that in order to justify the use of organic
therapy upon a person who lacks the capacity for informed consent, other
than psychosurgery as referred to in subdivision (c) of Section 2670.5
which is not to be administered to such persons, the state shall
establish that the organic therapy would be beneficial to the person,
that there is a compelling interest in administering such therapy, and
that there are no less onerous alternatives to such therapy.
Sec. 2670.5. (c) The term organic therapy refers to:
(1) Psychosurgery, including lobotomy, stereotactic surgery, electronic,
chemical or other destruction of brain tissues, or implantation of
electrodes into brain tissue.
(2) Shock therapy, including, but not limited to, any convulsive therapy
and insulin shock treatments.
(3) The use of any drugs, electric shocks, electronic stimulation of the
brain, or infliction of physical pain when used as an aversive or
reinforcing stimulus in a program of aversive, classical, or operant
conditioning.....
Sec. 2671. (a) Notwithstanding Section 2670.5, if a confined person has
inflicted or attempted to inflict substantial physical harm upon the
person of another or himself, or presents, as a result of mental
disorder, an imminent threat of substantial harm to others or himself,
the attending physician may in such emergency employ or authorize for no
longer than seven days in any three-month period the immediate use of
shock treatments in order to alleviate such danger...."
c/o MAB
--
jo...@sirius.com
Jonathan Mason
> ignores about fifty years of linguistic research into the ways in which
the
> structure of language [I'm thinking about Barthes at the moment, but all
of the
> biggies looked at the question] reinforce the existing values of an
ideology or
> a existing political / social structure. He either did not understand this
writing
> were inclusive, and his style of writing was equally so. His writings
can't
> really be attacked on this basis per se, but i believe he can - as i
before
> suggested - be attacked for his didacticism. It is unsurprising that his
main
> core support [of his writing style, rather than his role a popular
defender
> against fascism] comes from pedagogues and those who feel that "standards
are
> slipping".
>
that
> words in themselves have honesty. Ideas do. Words do not.
>
I think you are really confused. Orwell is just talking about writing
clearly and using concrete imagery rather that abstractions--painting a
picture for the reader rather than just using prefabricated verbiage. If
this is popular with pedagoues (or as we Orwellians call them, "teachers",
it is because they are used to seeing mutton dressed up as lamb in the works
of their students. You only have to look at the schoolkids who visit this
site not infrequently looking for something that sounds intellectual to cut
and paste into their homework assignments.
Fact is that writing is a craft, and as Orwell noted of Dali, you can be a
great draftsman and still paint crap, but at least if you master some basic
techniques, you have a chance of getting your point across--though you may
still write utter crap.
Arrantfop
entries for the next week due to work commitments. Suffice to say, pleasingly,
that i once again disagree with much of what was said, and will elaborate
further later. Three points off the top of my head [Orwell is biting my leg -
Three points which seem relevant.]:
1] There was very little difference between the two questions, although, as i
know how angry i get when misquoted, i apologize.
2] I applaud the superior pedantry applied to my comments about linguistics,
but i fear i might have given people the wrong impression [not precise enough
language]. Obviously you can trace the exact point of the begining of
linguistics to wherever you like [I like Saussere myself, although feel free to
delve back into its roots in social anthropology and "the Golden Bough" for all
i care], especially if it depends on what branch of it you choose to highlight.
i chose the last fifty years because it seems to be the era in which the idea
of political ideas contained in language and the use of language has become a
very real political and social issue [perhaps more so in your country]. Dworkin
then, if you need a name to attach yourself to. Whatever i might think about
orwell as a writer, he foresaw that much in the practical sense. It is naivety
to suggest that "correct" english does not contain a political meanings, in its
use or otherwise. I will obviously not then retreat from the statements made
earlier.
3] I expect a basic level of civility in conversation - this may be above or
below the standard of netiquette. I sense a tone of peevishness in the
responses i received, or else in the case of chap who refered to Orwell's
"mischevious subtext" downright sly irony and disrespect. I further assume a
basic level of intelligence in correspondence; it would do you well to
reciprocate. If not, i will leave quietly and shut the door as i leave.
As i said, i will return soon, but before i go one thing might interest you.
The recent big scientific report [given to the public as well as politicians,
widely publicized] on the commercialized transplant of pigs hearts into humans
[which heavily promoted the surgical procedure] had a quote on the first page.
Can you guess what this wildly inappropriate quote was?
to paraphrase, and apologies if i misquote,
"and they looked from the men to the pigs, and the pigs to the men, and they
could no longer tell the difference."
lotd.
Gareth
Martha Bridegam
>
> I don't have enough time to post a proper argument in response to the preceding
> entries for the next week due to work commitments. Suffice to say, pleasingly,
> that i once again disagree with much of what was said, and will elaborate
> further later. Three points off the top of my head [Orwell is biting my leg -
> Three points which seem relevant.]:
>
> 1] There was very little difference between the two questions, although, as i
> 3] I expect a basic level of civility in conversation...
OK, sorry to be snippish. Am still not quite sure what you Brits mean by
"bloody-minded," but that's probably what I was being.
/MAB
--
jo...@sirius.com
Alan Allport
> 3] I expect a basic level of civility in conversation - this may be above
or
> below the standard of netiquette. I sense a tone of peevishness in the
> responses i received, or else in the case of chap who refered to Orwell's
> "mischevious subtext" downright sly irony and disrespect. I further assume
a
> basic level of intelligence in correspondence; it would do you well to
> reciprocate. If not, i will leave quietly and shut the door as i leave.
Since it looks as if I am the bearer of sly irony and disrespect, I will
merely add that a.b.g-o is probably one of the least cantankerous enclaves
within USENET. If you find the level of basic civility insufficient here, of
all places, I sincerely recommend against an extended career as a newsgroup
poster.
All I would be interested in having explained is this. If, as you say (and
keep saying), it is naive to suggest that "correct" English does not contain
a political meaning, what *is* this meaning exactly? Bearing in mind that
_Politics and the English Language_ is not so much about scanning syntax for
grammatical errors - though that is certainly part of it - as it is the
straightforward use of words and images.
Alan.
greg
Arrantfop wrote in message <20000212185101...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>
>2] I applaud the superior pedantry applied to my comments about
linguistics,
>but i fear i might have given people the wrong impression [not precise
enough
>language].
You can't imagine how much I hate "superior pedantry", and I must apologize.
I was thinking that many people do carry on as if political inquiries into
language structure were somehow a new thing, a product of
post-structuralism. What *is* new these last few decades is that *other
people* are now doing it, and getting results unique to their political
identities; Spivak and Cornel West and the others didn't invent these
'strategies' as they are called, but they have made them purposeful, at
least in academic circles, for other groups of people. Deconstructuralist
inquiries into specific language-related ideology are pretty much rooted in
Continental, white male philosophers, from Barthes and continuing backwards.
>It is naivety
>to suggest that "correct" english does not contain a political meanings, in
its
>use or otherwise. I will obviously not then retreat from the statements
made
>earlier.
Nor should you. But I'm not sure GO was talking about "correct" English in
the usual sense (that's an expression usually reserved for Fowler's Usage,
the AP Guide, etc.). At one point GO even complains that English words
aren't getting used at all when they would be helpful:
"Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., eg., and etc., there is no real
need for any of the hundreds of fereign phrases now current in English. Bad
writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are
nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander
than Saxon ones [...]"
I like how "bad writers" is qualified after its utterance with those
professional types (read the line outloud, it's kind of funny). Perhaps also
of note is that he doesn't warn against attempts at humor, as some language
guides do, but rather focuses upon the "folly" that comprises, rather than
compromises, politics, and what it does to language (and he guesses that it
also happens to other languages-- "when the general atmosphere is bad"!)
There's also a funny bit in *Gulliver's Travels* where professors decide
that they want to improve the language of their country, and finally agree
to eliminate words completely.
Martha Bridegam
>
> At one point GO even complains that English words
> aren't getting used at all when they would be helpful:
>
> "Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., eg., and etc., there is no real
> need for any of the hundreds of fereign phrases now current in English. Bad
> writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are
> nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander
> than Saxon ones [...]"
Much as P&TEL *is* a great piece of writing, isn't this specific
contrast of "Saxon" words and "foreign phrases" a little troublesome?
There's a kind of __Ivanhoe__ peasant-nationalism lurking behind it,
than which you'd think Orwell knew better.
Don't know if this is true, but once heard an English teacher say the
language of __Beowulf__ was so poor in synonyms that the poets *had* to
make up those compound descriptive terms, like "ring-giver" for "king,"
to keep from repeating themselves.
I mean, we *do* all agree that Latin and Greek give us a lot of
euphemisms -- and that for the sake of clear thinking, a prison guard
should *not* be called a "correctional officer" -- but for pity's sake
why declare war on "foreign phrases"? Does he really want to give up
tea, pyjamas, shampoo, sociology, etc.?
/MAB
--
jo...@sirius.com
Alan Allport
news:38A70761...@sirius.com...
> I mean, we *do* all agree that Latin and Greek give us a lot of
> euphemisms -- and that for the sake of clear thinking, a prison guard
> should *not* be called a "correctional officer" -- but for pity's sake
> why declare war on "foreign phrases"? Does he really want to give up
> tea, pyjamas, shampoo, sociology, etc.?
Or politics. I don't think you're doing justice to his point by representing
it this way. All Orwell was attacking was the self-conscious use of
needlessly obscure foreign phrases, particularly by left-wing writers
borrowing from Marxist and other continental sources. He didn't object on
principle to the immigration of words, but he thought that most (not all)
newly introduced terms were redundant. He also thought that their
pronunciation should be adapted to English form (cf. tea, pyjamas, shampoo,
sociology, etc.)
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
OK, obviously that's what he mainly meant. But he could have said so.
BTW, happen to notice that his Newspeak *doesn't* use much Latin or
Greek, and in fact *does* compensate for a small vocabulary by using
compound words in __Beowulf__ style? Funny.
/MAB
--
jo...@sirius.com
Joseph C Fineman
Martha Bridegam <jo...@sirius.com> writes:
>Much as P&TEL *is* a great piece of writing, isn't this specific
>contrast of "Saxon" words and "foreign phrases" a little troublesome?
>There's a kind of __Ivanhoe__ peasant-nationalism lurking behind it,
Any one who wishes to become a good writer should endeavour, before
he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be
direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid.
This general principle may be translated into practical rules in
the domain of vocabulary as follows:--
Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.
These rules are given roughly in order of merit; the last is also
the least....
I think Orwell (who surely read this) would agree.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: If you never do anything stupid, you're not as smart as you :||
||: think. :||