If we all took great pains to improve our writing by questioning the deeper meaning of stock phrases like “took great pains,” if we all revelled in the delicious difference between “disinterested” and “uninterested,” if we were as quick to put our ear to the ground of linguistic trends as we are the latest Twitter trends, if we learned how to write active prose but also understood how passive prose was written, if we could pique our own passion for writing and take that first step towards the peak of political reform, we could peek a new world: a world where the power has been plucked from the palms of the perverted, propaganda-puppets we call politicians and returned to the people — the ordinary people.[T]he fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers…In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’.
All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.
A slightly tall, angular, shy, but not unconfident Englishman, with a hollow-cheek look.
A rather dolorous look in some ways, a rather solemn look.
And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity. From this perspective then, it makes sense that a politician who wants to do the opposite — who seeks to elicit unthinking conformity from his audience — would make himself mindless by mindlessly reciting words that were written for him and not by him.
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.Orwell says that if you let them, politicians “will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.” The following seven concepts will prevent this from happening to you., we find a study — of sorts — carried out by a John Hardy Clarke.During the four-month run-up to a 2001 British election, Clarke counted and sorted all the clichés that were said on political broadcasts.Orwell stands out from the other great writers of the 20th century because of his political awareness and opposition to totalitarianism, Stalinism, fascism, and social injustice.By concentrating on essays along with fiction, according to Hitchens, writing in , Orwell was able to take on “the competing orthodoxies and despotisms of his day with little more than a battered typewriter and a stubborn personality.”2But what makes Orwell stand out from the other great humanists of the 20th century, and why he should matter to you, is the way he took that stubborn personality of his and used it to tackle many of his own despotic and prejudicial inclinations.When a high-ranking politician delivers a speech, it can seem as though they’re merely a puppet, a tool, acting as a chess piece in a much larger maneuver, in a much larger game, in which, like us listeners, they are the played and not the player.When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine.The following list provides some insight into the prophetic themes of Orwell’s work: All those themes are somewhat related, but in this article I’ll be focusing on the last listed item: Orwell’s views on language and its corrosive influence on the individual and the state. With Orwell’s guidance, I will show you how politicians distort facts and deceive listeners with their word choices, how our constant exposure to political speech dulls our sensory acuity, and how learning to write well (a subject on which Orwell will soon instruct us) is the best practice for thinking well, and, ultimately, reforming the world.Orwell’s main argument in is that language and thought act much like conjoined twins of the human psyche, and thus, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” If we disregard the health of one twin, we encumber the other.But yet it’s not the look of someone with no sense of humor.It’s the look of someone who’s been through quite a lot and has tried his best.