In George Orwell’s, Politics and the English Language, he claims that it is hard to write good pros, without out making major mistakes that could potentially lose the interest of the reader. Through the course of his text, Orwell proves that “Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided” (Orwell 2). With the problems that Orwell identifies as aides in making “Bad Pros”: Dying Metaphors, False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, and Meaningless Words all play a key role in the creation of unscrupulous English writing. Along the next paragraphs I will analyze articls in the style of Orwell that shows his claim to be correct.
Alas, we have APPROCHED the time in which we will …show more content…
As Orwell explains, these two types of syntax are a huge way that can skew the way that the reader understands the MEANING of the text. Writers today, a use these all too often in their writing, many of the time without the knowledge of using these fallacies. An excellent example of how these is applies, is demonstrated in an article written by Ross Douthat, he questions that “ Should we ignore the bluster and macho photo ops, take note of his slumping economy and sanctions-bitten inner circle, and assume that his Syria intervention will lead to quagmire and blowback” (The New York Times, Douthat, Is Putin Winning?). As it was prevalent in Douthat’s Pros it shows how the use of words too large for your writing could very well be the fall of you argument. Thus Douthat using these words, quagmire, bluster and blowback, proves that he is being sesquipedalian in his argument. Along with …show more content…
A huge portion of English pros could be potentially be considered as bad pros because we as humans do not recognize these problems, Dying Metaphors, False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, and Meaningless Words all are substantial in the creation of unprincipled English writing. Thus, the usage of these no matter who the writer is, a columnist for the New York Times, a civil rights activist, a scientist, or even the President of the United States, can fall victim to grips that can constrain the writing, and be classified as Orwell’s examples of bad
Alas, we have APPROCHED the time in which we will …show more content…
As Orwell explains, these two types of syntax are a huge way that can skew the way that the reader understands the MEANING of the text. Writers today, a use these all too often in their writing, many of the time without the knowledge of using these fallacies. An excellent example of how these is applies, is demonstrated in an article written by Ross Douthat, he questions that “ Should we ignore the bluster and macho photo ops, take note of his slumping economy and sanctions-bitten inner circle, and assume that his Syria intervention will lead to quagmire and blowback” (The New York Times, Douthat, Is Putin Winning?). As it was prevalent in Douthat’s Pros it shows how the use of words too large for your writing could very well be the fall of you argument. Thus Douthat using these words, quagmire, bluster and blowback, proves that he is being sesquipedalian in his argument. Along with …show more content…
A huge portion of English pros could be potentially be considered as bad pros because we as humans do not recognize these problems, Dying Metaphors, False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, and Meaningless Words all are substantial in the creation of unprincipled English writing. Thus, the usage of these no matter who the writer is, a columnist for the New York Times, a civil rights activist, a scientist, or even the President of the United States, can fall victim to grips that can constrain the writing, and be classified as Orwell’s examples of bad