![]() A pivotal argument arises when he explains the implications of abstract, meaningless language. Here we come to understand his view on the implications of the poor language he’s been discussing (a view that-consistent with his thesis-he refuses to obscure). ![]() Orwell’s political position begins to emerge at this point, as he says that political speech and writing have become largely a “defense of the indefensible” (255). He compares the political speechmaker to a churchgoer, reciting litany. ![]() He says that when certain political phrases are repeated, the speaker of these phrases has gone out of their way to render themselves into a form of dummy, curtailing their independent thought so as to reiterate accepted party line. ![]() He develops an image of a political speaker pantomiming the party line. have a commonality between different parties: this is that they never have a “fresh, vivid, homespun turn of speech” (255). The cause of this has to do with writers being a mouthpiece for a general party line and not expressing their autonomous “opinion.” He claims that to do this in political writing is a rebellious act. He opens with the claim that political writing is bad writing. ![]() In the second section of the essay Orwell moves on from the politics of writing to focus specifically on political writing itself. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |