Im only uploadind this because i want to get onto this site.. lol
Orwell Essay Draft
The highly political and literary worlds constructed from the writer George Orwell has allowed audiences to see glimpses of themselves among these worlds, as well as provoking acts of analysis and reflection within themselves, decades after these worlds and opinions were initially established. The ongoing relevance of Orwell is due to an inspiring recipe of writing greatness. Orwell’s authentic craftsmanship, directness of expression, straightforward-simple style, methodical structure, pure honesty and most importantly textual integrity, marries together with his abilities to use his context and experiences as evidence for his ideas and argument. Essentially, it is Orwell’s universal and highly relatable ideas that allow his audiences to reflect upon Orwell’s arguments, amongst their own personal contexts for decades upon decades. These ideas constructed from the literary, political and nationalistic worlds, are derived from Orwell’s famous essays, Writers and Leviathan (W&L), Why I Write (WIW), Politics and the English Language (PATEL), Notes on Nationalism (NoN) and Sporting Spirit (SS), which are still studies and read worldwide today.
Through Orwell’s essays Writers and Leviathan, Why I Write, and Politics and the English Language, Orwell has been able to establish a literary world for his audience to reflect their literary views and opinions upon. Writers and Leviathan, was a response from Orwell’s political context in post WW2, Britain, concerned with writers integrity. He states, ‘This is a political age.’ Consolidating this statement he lists ‘War, Fascism, concentration camps, rubber truncheons and atomic bombs’. Orwell argues that being a writer in his political age meant having to be aware of political biases and refusing to give into the demands of newspapers and political organisations. Orwell adviser’s writers to ‘yield subjectively, not merely to a party machine, but even to a group ideology is to destroy yourself as a writer.’ This emotive statement, especially the word ‘destroy’ clearly emphasises how strongly Orwell opposes writers submitting to the ‘dominant orthodoxies’ and ‘party lines which demand a plain lie.’ To allow writers to relate to his argument, Orwell uses an analogy to describe a writers positions in his time, ‘When you are on a sinking ship your thoughts will be about sinking ships.’ This clever analogy shows us how difficult it was for writers in Orwell’s time to express their ideas opening, since they were surrounded by politics. Orwell reflects this amongst himself in his easy Why I Write, where he reveals ‘in a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties.’ Writing for Orwell has also allowed him to expel his thought that were strongly influences by his political context and experiences, ‘Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism. As we have become informed about Orwell’s personal influences on his own writing, we are more capable to understand his vision for writers if his time in W&L. He instructs writers to ‘never turn back from a train of thought because it may lead to heresy’. This strong imperative gives writers a clear direction to not use their writing for deceitful purposes. After methodically expressing his arguments by informing his readers by using a conversational tone, Orwell involves them in his discussion using rhetorical questions like ‘or am I exaggerating the mess we’re in?’ by personally referring to the reader, he is able to provoke his audience to question their own response to his question and even how they may see themselves in this literary world. Keith Genssen describes how Orwell’s ‘wonderful sharp-edged plain style makes you feel that there is no way on earth you could possibly disagree with him unless, you’re apart of the pansy left.’ In my own literary world I agree with Genssen because Orwell’s concise execution of his ideas has allowed me to see glimpses of myself through my own writing- highlighting Orwell’s ongoing importance.
Another aspect of the established literary world is the English language and its impact on society. Orwell’s essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ is a great example, s it is mainly concerned with how the decadence of society is linked with the decline of the English language. He believes that ‘the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thought.’ Orwell methodically structures his essay by first using 5 examples to establish the mistakes that writers are guilty of using. Among these examples are writings from professors- who should know best shouldn’t they? No. All of these examples have two faults: lack of precision and staleness of imagery. Orwell then discusses the general characteristics of bad writing, including meaningless and politically misused words, fly-blown metaphors and pretentious diction. This methodical and concise analysis is excellent in being able to understand Orwell’s argument. But why is Orwell so concerned with detailing in great depth the faults of our language? It’s a reflection of his context. Having lived through WW1 and the Spanish Civil War, Orwell recognised how information could be alchemized into propaganda. Orwell revealed that in his time political writing and speech were ‘largely the defence of the indefensible’. He clarifies this statement with contextualized anecdotes and references to empower his audience’s opinions. Orwell contends that political language consists, ‘largely of euphemisms question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness,’ where ‘defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside... this is called pacification.’ This violent revelation explains how jargon is used to collude lies to society, as Orwell memorably states, ‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful.’ Orwell then lists 6 rules for writers to prevent any literary faults- giving a clear direction. He concludes that ‘the process is reversible’ since language is an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.’ By adopting better practices and teaching other by example, Orwell hopes the ‘special connection between politics and the debasement of language’ will be stopped. William Drew Jr believes that for most of the essay, Orwell is focused on convincing us of all the ways writers were misusing the language (the ‘old’ view), but spends little time advocating his ‘new view’- his ambitions for writers in the future. To some extent I can agree, as his ‘new view’ isn’t expressed in enough detail as the rest of the essay, yet overall I believe that Orwell successfully expressed this message through his clarity and contextual relevance of his arguments, which have allowed myself and others to consider the way we use our language, as we have all committed some of the faults overstayed in our literary worlds- emphasising Orwell’s continued relevance to the form of our language today.
Although practically all of Orwell’s essays discuss or involve politics, his essays Notes on Nationalism and Sporting Spirit discuss political involvement more broadly in everyday life, instead of just the literary aspect. In Notes on Nationalism, Orwell warns of the dangers of unthinking adherence to a cause, as he attempts to expose the general habit that he sees fundamental to nationalism. Again, Orwell uses a methodical structure- it’s almost as though he is dissecting his theory scientifically. In each of Orwell’s set categories, he explores his context of WW2. 1946 and his participation in the Spanish Civil War, where he witnessed firsthand power of political motivation to drive individuals into opposing each other. Orwell’s categorizes the forms of nationalistic thought into obsession, instability and indifference to reality. Regarding obsession Orwell stated that, ‘No nationalists ever thinks talks or writes about anything except the superiority of his power unit. This obsession thus clouds their judgment where nationalists have the ‘inability to form a genuinely rational opinion.’ This statement leads to the next form: indifference to reality. Orwell maintained that ‘as soon as hatred, jealousy and power worship are involved the sense of reality becomes unhinged.’ An example of this interesting statement, ‘For quite 6 years the English admires of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald,’ while ‘Russophile ignored the 1933 famine in Ukraine.’ These factual statements emphasise Orwell’s argument immensely. These nationalist sentiments are not only relevant in Politics, but also in sport. In the Sporting Spirit, Orwell argues that competitive sport on an international scale always arouses nationalistic sentiments that lead to ‘orgies of hatred’ amongst countries. He uses contextual events to depict this argument, claiming that ‘running, jumping and kicking a ball are all tests of national virtue.’ Even today in our society we witness how spectators of the State of Origin yell over their states football prestige. It is as though it is absolutely correct when Orwell says that ‘sport is war minus the shooting’. This classic statement is accurately precise in judging our sporting world, bringing continuous relevance of Orwell’s views. In NoN, Orwell believes that nationalists ‘are not far from schizophrenia,’ where he aligns the English intelligentsia with this critical remark. Orwell explores beyond mindset one of the particular party of group ideologies under the categories of Positive, Negative and Transferred nationalism, listing movements like Neo- Toryism in positive nationalism. By explaining these forms of nationalism, we are able to consider Orwell’s great understanding of nationalism; after all, in 1946 didn’t Orwell anticipate the fall of the Soviet Union? Believing that the Russian Regime will either democratize itself or perish? It is through his extensive political knowledge and craftsmanship that we are able to understand such complex idea- nationalism. Orwell begins to conclude with an extended apology, which Peter Marks believes threatens to undermine the seriousness of his theorotical analysis of nationalism. I highly disagree with Marks as I believe that it allows Orwell to not be seen as contradicting, hypocritical or exaggerating- has just being honest. With this understanding Orwell leaves us with a final call for action, ‘If you hate or fear... if you are jealous... if you despise, you can at least recognise that you have (these feelings) and prevent them from contaminating your mental processes. By speaking to us in first person, Orwell is inspiring action and reflection amongst his readers, including myself amongst this political and nationalistic world, which is solely why he has ongoing relevance in our society today.
In conclusion, through George Orwell’s essays Writers and Leviathan, Why I Write, Politics and the English Language, Notes on Nationalism and Sporting Spirit that we are able to witness the literary, political and nationalistic world constructed. Within these worlds, Orwell’s refreshing, concise and methodical craftsmanship, as well as his textual integrity, intellectual honesty and moral courage, in a time when freedom of speech was censored has allowed his audiences to see glimpses of themselves within these constructed worlds. It has also inspired me to become an informed reader of society as well as encouraged me to become a critical thinker. For all these reasons, and many more, George Orwell has continued to having ongoing relevance in past and present societies, but above all for future societies.