Self’s Use of Contemporary Language when Revealing the Contradictory Flaws
of Orwell’s Argument
Self’s criticism of Orwell in “A Point of View: Why Orwell Was a Literary
Mediocrity” is ultimately a convincing dissertation on Orwell’s advocacy for a fixed way
of communication as it embraces the continuous growth of the English language.
Orwell’s position, though valuable, contradicts his own goals by opposing it. Self
supports written English’s positive metamorphosis, explaining that “there are more ways
of saying more things in English than ever, and ... more people are shaping this
versatile instrument for their purposes” (Self). Orwell’s concern with language’s
evolution is meritorious; he fears that language could become manipulative or obscure
meaning. For this reason, he downplays the “belief that language is a natural growth
and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes,” while also advocating
against “stale metaphors, similes and idioms” (Orwell). Orwell righteously calls for clarity
in writing, but language’s evolution is inevitable; attempting to go against its journey is
as futile as trying to freeze time. Language is shaped by diverse individuals and
cultures, and its growth reflects changing realities. Furthermore, writers can pick and
choose which words to use in their works, but no two words are alike in meaning.
Rejecting or not recognizing language’s evolution ultimately stifles originality and limits
new ideas. For example, eighteenth-century English would fail to describe computers
and smartphones, nor would it match today’s informal yet sophisticated texting
language. Orwell’s mentality on conserving language and staying concise thus leads to
the very staleness he seeks to eradicate. By acknowledging language’s fluidity, Self
provides a more progressive stance that encourages acceptance and innovation.
Source:
A Point of View: Why Orwell was a literary mediocrity - BBC News.
No comments:
Post a Comment