George Orwell’s Politics And The English Language

Argument: English has become decadent because of unoriginal thoughts and our methods of expressing them in order to conceal this. The use of these devices helps deepen and conceal the damage of many unwanted realities.

Irony:

1. "But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely."
   

   We see how here he is being wordy. I could reword this by saying This could cause a positive feedback loop. The former would follow all of the hints for appropriate writing he gives later on. He probably did this on purpose to make the writer get lost on an idea that isn't as complicated as he phrases here. He is using a similar method to the one he is arguing against.
   

2. "Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against."
   

   This is ironical because he is blatantly accepting he uses this type of writing which he is protesting against. The last irony proves this statement. What he is probably trying to say is that even if people aren't perfect and this way of writing never disappears completely it would be infinitely better if we no longer accepted it.
   

Defined Terms:

Dying Metaphors: Overused comparisons that no longer serve their purpose and are used for simplicity or as filler

Meaningless Words: Words that serve no purpose and have no meaning with in a sentence.

Pretentious Diction: Mostly foreign expressions that make a statement apparently say more but in reality only make it vaguer.

Ten Steps To Good Writing:

1. Don't use overly complicated expressions.
   
2. Don't use a figure of speech you are used to seeing.
   
3. Always change a long word for a shorter one if available.
   
4. Remove as many words as possible.
   
5. Always use active over passive.
   
6. Avoid foreign expressions, scientific terms and other jargons, use its English equivalent.
   
7. Always revise before publishing.
   
8. Think what you are going to write before writing it.
   
9. Don't dress up simple statements with complicated expressions.
   
10. Maintain a constant style.

Everything is Nothing

In poem 17 Whitman talks about "thoughts of all men and in all ages and lands" (poem 17). As I read though this poem I was reminded greatly about a cliché. Not that the poem is a cliché but the thoughts he described were clichés. As Mr.Tangen says: "Writing is thinking on paper". If this is true then clichés are thoughts which aren't original, everybody knows them and they are nothing.

The first line of the poem means that everybody has these ideas. They belong to no one and thus they are close to nothing. The third line means that these thoughts don't have an underlying meaning nor are the meaning of something. The last two lines mean that these thoughts are everywhere where there are the right conditions. Even though these kinds of thoughts can germinate in every mind, one must be given a view of the world that won't allow it to fall for these apparently meaningful thoughts. Sadly, these are what the common people (at the time at least) have.

Although Whitman might not be referring to our current concept of cliché he is probably referring to the ideas of the masses that seem to have a meaning and to take you somewhere but guide you to nowhere. He is probably trying to make the point that because these ideas have no owner one should be careful of them because if they were truly so great a person would attempt to claim it. At the time education in the United States still needed more time to be at a comparable level to that of today. Due to this, these types of ideas have plenty of minds to take over and control. This poem captures the image of those ideas without an owner, meaning or even a reason to exist. Maybe, only to differentiate the truly original ideas and people that comes with them.

When You Have Seen It All

In poem 7 Whitman talks about birth and death, two opposites that apparently we should feel equally about. He says this here: "Has any one supposed it lucky to be born? I hasten to inform him or her, it is just as lucky to die, and I know it. I pass death with the dying and birth with the new wash'd babe…" (poem 7) This maxim means that life and death are but event and (taking from the fact Whitman is a transcendentalist) these events are part of a greater scheme that transcends everything. This idea of fate he continues in the following sentence where he said: "and am not contain'd between my hat and boots; and persue manifold objects no two alike and every one good…" (poem 7). This means that once free from earthly constraints he is able to see the greater plan that exists even if he does not completely understand it and thus he sees how earth and everything attached to it is good simply because it is part of this greater plan.

At this point we see Whitman taking the position of a very wise person and from that very high mountain unreachable to many he tells this poem to us. This, is a contrast to the first poem where he says: "…and what I assume you shall assume; for every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you" (poem 1) This means that he is bringing himself to our (the reader) level and this being the first poem in the book can be a misleading statement considering how unreachable he seems in the seventh poem.

Although the position of the author and our ability for him to reach us changes dramatically between poems this is a necessary change. Without this change explaining something like fate would be impossible. Radically different themes require an according change in tone. This reflects the way people learn about different things. Some themes must be told by an equal an others we would rather hear from a godlike voice. When he talks about his position on fate on the seventh poem he uses a voice that uses its experience in order to make itself superior to the reader and instruct him. He probably uses this device because sometimes we need someone that has seen it all to teach us something.

Indirect Style For The French

In class we discussed indirect style and how this was a feature of Flaubert's style. At first I hadn't noticed it and I took it for granted. After I saw it explained in class and tried to implement it in my short story I realized this was a new way of showing things. The beauty of it (I believed) was that it made the reader think rather than give him everything. I decided to go back to the book (in French this time) to experience this in its original language. The style was almost the same and it had a very similar effect on me. I decided to ask my French teacher what she thought about this (what I thought was a "new" and "unique") style. The answer was completely different from what I expected. She explained to me (from her experience) that the French (in what might be a rather harsh generalization) do like to use that style. In fact, she said it was rather common and used in a slightly different way on daily speech. They won't tell you the whole idea but rather expect you to infer it from the clues they give you. I don't expect this generalization to be completely true. Still, their stereotype in Europe is that of Argentineans in South America so it might not be completely false either. Could it be that this style we see in Flaubert's writing be nothing more than a reflection of the general way of expression he saw in the French people at the time?

Lost In The Bridge Between Languages

As I read through A Simple Soul both in French and in English I realized that there were some subtle differences between the original and the translation. These are things I would find very hard to translate and I understand why the person that did this would leave ambiguous. An example of this appears on the first chapter here: " … et elle quitta sa maison de Saint Melaine pur en habiter une autre moins dispendieuse, ayant appartenu à ses ancêtre et placée derrière les halles" (6). This was translated to this: "then she left her house in Saint-Melaine, and moved into a less pretentious one which had belonged to her ancestors and stood back of the market-place" (Chapter 1). The word "les halles" literally means a covered market but it also refers (to an implied level) to a market place where fresh fruits and other recently harvested foods are sold. Although this omission doesn't affect style or the meaning of the sentence greatly, it proves the point that such omissions do exist even in the best translations.

There is however en element in French that is lost once it is translated on to English: the Passè Simple. The first example of this would be here: "Dès la cinquataine, elle ne marqua plus acun âge…" (7) This was translated to: "After she had passed fifty, nobody could tell her age…" (Chapter 1) Although the general meaning of this phrase remains the passé simple (Marqua) is not completely translated. Literally it would be close to using "I went" or "it marked" but in meaning it closer to using "I have gone" or "it has marked" in the sense that the former gives a different stylistic feeling. This explains why the verb in that sentence (and expression) was put as "she had passed" to attempt and give a similar stylistic feeling but passé simple is still very different to that past-tense in English. It is almost completely forgotten in a day to day language and it mostly survives in literature. Not only does using this past-tense give the impression of formality but it can also be compared to the feeling reading Shakespeare gives, by making a modern public like us understand this is a piece from another time. Although this is my attempt at an approximation of an equivalent in English such a thing doesn't exist. I thought this was very important since it made me realize that as translation goes small details like this that add to the writer's style are lost and thus we are only getting a partial idea of what the author's style was even if the meaning of the book remains the same.