So (my favorite article)
Late last week, a New York times article pointed me to George Orwell's great essay on "Politics and the English Language." (1946) Although the name of the article escapes me, the New York Times reporter pointed out that political speech is deteriorating in this current presidency. And he quoted from the Orwell article on how a laziness with the English language reflects both the author's contempt for the truth, as well as their subterfuge.
Reading the original essay has opened my eyes. I, like so many English speakers today, am quite lazy with the language. I use non-Saxton words when an English one will suffice. (Although I do wonder whether a German word like "Subterfuge" is technically Saxton or not.) And the meaning behind my speech, my truth as it were, would be more evident to you the reader if I thought more about what I said and how I am saying it. If we used metaphors and similes to create a visual image, our own truths would be as self-evident as, well, I'm not quite good at metaphors. I was thinking of the old-hat metaphor with the light-bulb going on, but I'm still too lazy to think of another one.
Of course, you can pick out many mistakes in these few paragraphs and point out which sentences need shortening, or which words are better suited for my truth. But hey, I'm just picking this up, it takes a while to sift through!
Either way, it IS a good essay; one that is particularly relevant to our modern political climate. While it is tempting to further butcher his prose like a kosher deli, a more effective and persuasive tactic would be to let you peer at his words directly:
Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
This passage, while a parody, is particularly prescient. Reflecting how our news and media perpetrate-- inadvertently or purposefully-- many misconceptions about domestic and international politics in the context of Orwell's essay, brings about fresh new ideas that eek out from the clouds like sunshine on a humid July evening in Massachusetts. (Phew!)
As someone who's always made their living with words, politics or sales, this idea of obfuscating an oblique truth/maxim really sings. I think about this fundamental problem a lot: Am I being too clear, or not clear enough? Questioning my own motives, I wonder (not usually aloud, but still), why am I not persuasive as I want to be?
The last part of Orwell's essay, which I just started to read, is how a laziness with language corrupts the thought process. If you aren't sure which language is appropriate, then you also don't understand the main thought or argument.
And that's something I question. What do I understand? What do I believe in? And why the devil can't I communicate that?
And I thought math was hard...
