3 ms·

Ah, I just read through it. That’s was a fun read. > This is a parody, but not a very gross one. … So, Orwell wrote the second sentence as a parody of the fir

by esjeon 26d ago

Ah, I just read through it. That’s was a fun read. > This is a parody, but not a very gross one. … So, Orwell wrote the second sentence as a parody of the first sentence, using the modern English that he was criticizing in the essay. > … in the middle the concrete illustrations – race, battle, bread – dissolve into the vague phrase ‘success or failure in competitive activities’. … > … The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. … > … The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its 90 syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. He tried to argue that the second one is worse, but, unfortunately, he successfully simulated one possible interpretation of the original. Sure, the parody has narrower meaning, but it is a valid subset of the original meaning, which is still very significant tbh. This justifies the reduction of “race, battle, bread” into “success or failure”, invalidating one of his points. Also, the parody is not necessarily less concrete. It replaced poetic expressions in the original with words that are bloated, for sure, yet more concrete. It does have awkward expressions, but every word plays a role in the sentence. This basically conflicts with one of his criticisms in the essay — meaningless words. Funnily enough, his another example — “some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism” — also fails to capture the nature of the modern English. He points out the “euphemism” towards the violence as an issue of style, but, no, that’s the whole purpose of it, and his example really just excel at it. Style-wise, again, the writing is very solid. All in all, Orwell simply failed to properly simulate what he was trying to criticize. Good examples of “modern English” can be found in the earlier part of the essay, basically written by other people. Those examples do fit into Orwell’s criticisms.

mpalmer 26d ago
He tried to argue that the second one is worse, but, unfortunately, he successfully simulated one possible interpretation of the original All in all, Orwell simply failed to properly simulate what he was trying to criticize If I was going to read "Orwell was wrong about English" anywhere, I guess it was always going to be HN. The sheer pomposity of your remarks here is the biggest clue that you are not writing them yourself.
- esjeon 26d ago
  No, my view is more like that he was too good at English to write bad English that he was criticizing. The examples he wrote are simply too sharp to fit well into his own criticisms. They are formulated so well that you can just “welp, my intention was different”. EDIT: This kinda reminds me of the musical theory of harmony. There are strict rules to follow in music composition, but when you go against every single rule in major scale, and keep your work sound nice, you eventually get a minor scale piece that keeps every rule that you tried to break through. Same here. He probably wrote a disgusting piece in his standards, but kept the writing sane, and eventually it became a proper prose — simply with disgusting intention in his standard. That’s what I think happened here.
  - mpalmer 26d ago
    No, my view is more like that he was too good at English to write bad English that he was criticizing. Are you sure it's not more likely that we are all way worse at reading compared to the average mid-20th centry reader? The examples he wrote are simply too sharp to fit well into his own criticisms. So he's an overeducated dolt who thinks he's making a good point, and you - and no one else in the hundred years since - found his fatal mistake? They are formulated so well that you can just “welp, my intention was different”. This is not even a sentence.
    - esjeon 25d ago
      > we are all way worse at reading compared to the average mid-20th centry reader? I would say English has changed. Modern English speakers, especially those in academia and technology, prefers explicit styles over poetic and nuanced ones. There are a lot of factors at play (e.g. i18n, the internet, education, literature) but I’m too lazy to cover them here. > you - and no one else in the hundred years since - found his fatal mistake? First, the essay is from 1946 — 80 years ago. Second, why not? Often-times, a different perspective is all that takes to discovers something new in the old. I think you’re trying to make an appeal to authority here — a logical fallacy. You’re basically saying I cannot criticize his essay because Orwell is a great writer. Also, my point is neither fatal nor about mistake. Orwell’s examples still demonstrate his claims in a relative sense, all within the context of the essay. However, when you pull them out of the context and put them out in the wild, it’s going to be very difficult to say those are bad writings right away, because, compared to other bad writings, those examples are very solid and straightforward. > This is not even a sentence. It is informal, sure, but I intentionally made it colloquial with something called bare quotation, a style commonly used in informal conversation. I wanted to avoid being “an overeducated dolt” and send a friendly gesture too, oh, but you chose to put that on a pitchfork. Bravo, clap clap.

by esjeon 26d ago

mpalmer 26d ago

He tried to argue that the second one is worse, but, unfortunately, he successfully simulated one possible interpretation of the original All in all, Orwell simply failed to properly simulate what he was trying to criticize If I was going to read "Orwell was wrong about English" anywhere, I guess it was always going to be HN. The sheer pomposity of your remarks here is the biggest clue that you are not writing them yourself.

esjeon 26d ago
No, my view is more like that he was too good at English to write bad English that he was criticizing. The examples he wrote are simply too sharp to fit well into his own criticisms. They are formulated so well that you can just “welp, my intention was different”. EDIT: This kinda reminds me of the musical theory of harmony. There are strict rules to follow in music composition, but when you go against every single rule in major scale, and keep your work sound nice, you eventually get a minor scale piece that keeps every rule that you tried to break through. Same here. He probably wrote a disgusting piece in his standards, but kept the writing sane, and eventually it became a proper prose — simply with disgusting intention in his standard. That’s what I think happened here.
- mpalmer 26d ago
  No, my view is more like that he was too good at English to write bad English that he was criticizing. Are you sure it's not more likely that we are all way worse at reading compared to the average mid-20th centry reader? The examples he wrote are simply too sharp to fit well into his own criticisms. So he's an overeducated dolt who thinks he's making a good point, and you - and no one else in the hundred years since - found his fatal mistake? They are formulated so well that you can just “welp, my intention was different”. This is not even a sentence.
  - esjeon 25d ago
    > we are all way worse at reading compared to the average mid-20th centry reader? I would say English has changed. Modern English speakers, especially those in academia and technology, prefers explicit styles over poetic and nuanced ones. There are a lot of factors at play (e.g. i18n, the internet, education, literature) but I’m too lazy to cover them here. > you - and no one else in the hundred years since - found his fatal mistake? First, the essay is from 1946 — 80 years ago. Second, why not? Often-times, a different perspective is all that takes to discovers something new in the old. I think you’re trying to make an appeal to authority here — a logical fallacy. You’re basically saying I cannot criticize his essay because Orwell is a great writer. Also, my point is neither fatal nor about mistake. Orwell’s examples still demonstrate his claims in a relative sense, all within the context of the essay. However, when you pull them out of the context and put them out in the wild, it’s going to be very difficult to say those are bad writings right away, because, compared to other bad writings, those examples are very solid and straightforward. > This is not even a sentence. It is informal, sure, but I intentionally made it colloquial with something called bare quotation, a style commonly used in informal conversation. I wanted to avoid being “an overeducated dolt” and send a friendly gesture too, oh, but you chose to put that on a pitchfork. Bravo, clap clap.