Orwell writes in the condescending way that so heavily saturates the class of writers that he was once in. His criticisms, while somewhat valid are completely applicable to his writing, even his list of rules found at the end of the piece. His argument that English is falling apart can be backed up, but that idea necessitates that English was at one point not easily fucked up. If you read old English, it appears equally if not more dull than modern bland writing. Orwell's rules are pretty asinine, and suppressing of expression, while his writing is overly complicated. I'm sure if he were to be called out on it, he would either refuse to discuss it, or he would say he was being clever. Regardless, it seems that he's taking a jab at other writers with the snobbish bullshit that is so common in those who have amassed a certain amount of fame.
In terms of his actual complaints, I think that they are good guidelines for certain parts of writing, say, if you're putting out an informative article. However, if you're endeavoring towards creativity, following these rules will make your piece read like a dry, dead thing. Orwell was a great writer, that's undeniable if you look at his success, but now I don't think his writing would make the top fifty. This plays into the underlying theme of this topic; our language is constantly changing and evolving. I think at this point, our acclaimed writers deviate from the formal writing of Orwell's time in favor of more concise, yet emotional literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment