The author makes the supposition that all contemporary writers use English carelessly and poorly. Additionally, he assumes that the example authors he cited did not effectively use language. They might, however, merely be experimenting with the literary freedom to use language however they see fit.
What I Support
The comparison between language and politics highlights Orwell's command of the English language. It is true that over time, as individuals change them to fit their own contexts, language and politics both become muddled. Slang and propaganda are the outcomes of this. In both situations, the author emphasizes the importance of having clear reasoning in order to resolve issues. (Orwell 1). The statement that modern English is marked with incompetence and recklessness is outrageous. This may be true to some extent, but is not a complete representation of the situation on the ground. There are modern competent writers, who employ the creative, effective, and appropriate use of the English language. In the same vein, I do not agree with the author when he discourages the use of a long word, where a short one can do. This is highly subjective. When writing jargon from a medical perspective, it is mandatory that the correct professional terms are employed (Orwell 9).
Aspirations
Regardless of the controversies that the text presents, I found the following aspects particularly educational: avoiding the use of meaningless words, improving of the imagery when writing, being concise when writing, and carefully picking words that express the meaning explicitly (Orwell 6).
Connections to the Text
I have been a victim of poor writing. I have often written paragraphs that do not really convey meaning succinctly and explicitly. Additionally, I have read text on the internet and newspapers that are plain and lack substance.
Work Cited
Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. London: Penguin Classics, 1946.
