This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
English language as George says has bad habits, but these habits are not the driving force for one to think more clearly since without them one can be rejuvenated politically: bad English should not be used exclusively as the tool for professional writers to be fighting over the works of renowned writers like Orwell. A bad habit is politics.
According to George, his thesis: "if one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers," the language he has used is strong enough to capture well the message of his intended work. Pattern of language used corresponds well with the English that was being used in his age and time (1964). Currently, if one uses that kind of language in his writings, no one will read his works since they do not understand what the writer is trying to say. George has strong points to put across to his readers, but communicating seems to be a problem. He has used so many words that are not related to the topic at hand to show that he is skilled with words despite the fact that as a child he felt lonely and unappreciated.
His purpose of writing using the jargons he used was to prove to others that even though his background is not that good, he is clever enough to compete with those writers who got the privilege to attend sophisticated art schools that gave them the knowledge of writing unique narratives, poems, and essays. He was trying to show those people who snubbed him during his childhood that he has what it takes to do something worth being noticed by the world. As a writer, George is determined to live his own life on the whole. I find his works very intriguing as they reflect back on what politics and language have in common by using political words in his work to mean the opposite of what politicians mean. In literary criticism, it is very normal for readers to come across passages that are completely lacking in meaning since words used are intentionally used to show dishonesty: the writer has his own private meaning, but allows his readers to interpret it in another different way.
George's predisposed nature is well grounded since he has experience of what political writers can do to get noticed by readers. Political writers are only after saving their image which matters so much in their line of making money which is their interest. Their aim is not that of promoting knowledge amongst individuals but they intend to be recognized and as such, want to be remembered by people long after they are gone from the face of the earth. He is not bias at all, but rather wants to engage the reader in learning more english words that can be used later. This brings out the underlying connection between politics and english. In terms of cultural context, he is not well informed with the ways in which he should present it since he is from an urban setting that does not consider much of historic events that took place. His work basis is on politics and how language has been used to present its pleas.
Historically, language was not much of a concern to the writers since no written material was needed to convey one's message. People used crude methods to communicate. He is against political writers, but urges them to consider the art of being able to communicate the intended message without harming other's image and protecting theirs. He wants them to be more concerned with the language they use when writing articles which are meant to be read in future. The image they portray to the future generation contributes to the impression they create pertaining the way their forefathers used to live. As we are well aware, history repeats itself. If the current political writers decide to go to the way they wrote, chaos will prevail in all organizational sectors. Orwell's perception of politics was that he was skeptic about the mass media, of his motivational writings, and his views of governmental figures.
According to his works, they are clear, motivational and are desired to make people see things as they are by finding out the true facts which are used later in their day-day activities. As a reader, I don't agree with him when he says that his argument does not make the right appeal since it has been of help in my art and literature course. I have been able to understand how writers combine the different metaphors in their works, replace long sentences with short words where necessary, it's not always good to use jargons to show your vast collection of words since they will give your work a different meaning.
This may make people neglect reading your works since they are not interesting or exciting. His works has enabled many people be politically enlightened on ideas they can instill in order to have the society they want. His aim of using fallacies was not to persuade his readers, but to convey information that regard the government hence needed to be relayed to parties concerned to interpret. They are the ones who would then replace the appropriate to feat for the message to be well understood and action be taken without arousing any emotions that would make the government suspect that something ahs been revealed concerning their form of governance. His argument to political writers makes a right appeal to those who want to engage in political language. They are given an overall approach on how to write articles that are appealing to readers of all ages and time.
George's writing has logical fallacies like the "Black or White" form, which is an argument used to convince people that only the supported preference will stave off calamitous consequences. Black in this case may come with a connotation that most people don't like, so he attempted to make the language less sexist, but rather it created a virus. Political correctness wasn't appalling, but Americans did it the way they could only do. It has left the option for the reader that, of one or the other to be true a set of propositions should be appropriately used. He uses clear, simple language to evoke concrete images other than relying on abstract forms that do not convey a clear meaning.
He also uses language, clarity, and honesty as a logical fallacy when he imagines of a professor who defends Soviet totalitarianism, he does not use the straight forward approach, but decides to make the sentence long and obscure. According to Orwell, this is pretentious, dishonest, and insincere. Political propaganda is a tool that has been adopted by most writers in addressing matters of such degree. For example, they convert 'war' into 'peace', and 'peace' into 'war' since the government sees such writers who are upfront as their enemy. He has used logical fallacies to transform factual truths into lies, and the converse applies. His political and english works should be read critically since it helps in understanding the logical fallacies being applied.
Well, the argument is very convincing because we see the meaning of using such kinds of works was because of his anger of seeing so many men being accused falsely by the politicians whom they chose to represent them in government. He exposes some lie and that is why he uses prose style of writing to reconcile the embedded likes and dislikes with the public who are very important in an individual's social well-being. George's argument is well established and built, but because of the fact that may political writers bend the language to suit their needs, they have made his works to be questioned and accused by many writers as being vague and unclear. To say that his work is weak is an understatement since most people have been able to gain knowledge from his works which are teaching aids for college and university students who want to be political writers. George's work is convincing, accurate, mentions things that relate to every day life in society, and uses dying metaphors which has assisted readers thought by evoking a visual image.
George is a credible writer who wants to expose those individuals who want to oppress the common men by throwing them into jail cells and throwing the key away so that they can be in contact with the world and expose them of their horrible deeds. He manages to show people the effects of political propaganda, officials, and the shallow thinking possessed by many people in regard to vocabulary, literary styles, and thought. George's works has pleasure and beauty perceptions in the impact of one sound to another, good prose or good story rhythm is firmly rooted with the deepest desire of sharing experiences that are valuable and ought not to be missed. George has managed to obliterate his own personality that has made his works readable.