He also talks a little about politics and writing and that his view of "political writing is bad," but gave a detail of where political writings is not bad which is nice because not only does he gives us facts he backs it up with supporting evidence, same goes with his view he backs his views up with supporting evidence. Then he also gave 4 questions that writers think about:"1. What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?" these questions are very good questions that I will consider when writing my paper.
All in all he states that "language can be curable" if you follow the step he states. If you follow his steps then definitely your paper will become a good argument paper thus making the reader know what your point and what your trying to get across.
I felt confused reading the reading because he gave many word examples that threw me off. But overall, I felt that the point he was trying to get across is that good language is been gone for a long time and that we should get back to that old writing were we don't use so much big words and metaphors to try to get our points across. Soft subtle words I think would do the trick but you should do it in a way that you are clear on your point and don't go off subject because your mind says so. I also felt that I have a good knowledge as to how to go about writing my paper and what not to do and what to do in writing. I also now know that I should carefully choose my words and I should also think about those questions when writing this paper.
Sometimes it is hard to get beyond the "bad" or confusing writing samples that Orwell (purposefully)gives to demonstrate his point, but, despite that, I think you did a nice job of analyzing his argument.
ReplyDelete