Political rhetoric and the English Language

After my first reading, I felt rather dreary and wondered if I had missed the point. I went back over it with a highlighter and feel a great deal better about what he was saying. His argument is unclear at times, but in its most simplest form makes a persuasive call to action. In paragraph 2, Orwell says that, "...it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer..." However, Orwell goes on to suggest that we as individuals play a crucial role in the reform of language. While he downplays the negative influence of the individual, he seems to preach a different gospel of positivity in regards to the ability of the individual to reform for good cause. Without getting caught up in some of the less explicit ideas, we can summarize his argument by saying that the English language is clearly declining as a result of intentionally deceptive political rhetoric, and that the path we are on has not been determined a priori.

The full force of his argument is expressed through the following sentences:

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different...The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

When I was able to adequately frame the discussion within the parameters of political thought, the criticism seemed much more appropriate. He cites specific examples of political speech used to convey impartiality or an air of culture and elegance. Likewise, he shows the relevance of such a discussion to communicating ideas of international politics and discussions of war. If his criticism were confused as an attack on the literary use of language, Orwell would surely be disappointed. In his final paragraph, he states clearly that this discussion was intended not for the literary use of language, but rather in the use of language as an instrument in expressing thought.

Once I finally realized the which target was in the cross hairs, I was more than ready to stand on Orwell's side in the attack. I am a firm believer that one should always be as clear as possible when communicating powerful ideas. He sheds light on many crucial problems such as the intentional ambiguity of language used to deceive listener, and avoid responsibility as the speaker. My only response to him would be that sometimes it is necessary to use more, rather than less, words in order to convey an idea appropriately. Just because I am "unclear" in my language does not automatically deem me to be insincere. However, considering the nature of political rhetoric, I do not find much fault at all in Orwell's inclination to look for the worst.

As Lime In Your Memory

In his exchange with Francesco, Augustine suggests that we intentionally take the time to set aside certain passages in reading, in order that we may readily access them in order to please our minds. This is something that is almost intuitive for me as a reader, at least in the most basic sense of bending the page I would like to return to. However, over the course of these first roughly 200 pages, Manguel sheds light on the evolution of reading, and how the lime tree of the mind finds its roots much deeper than in just modern day note taking.

We are reminded that reading is interpreted differently under different circumstances. In its earliest form, society found the most constraining, and thus most influential circumstances, to be the mere fact that many, if not most, were illiterate. Over a thousand years later, the most constraining circumstance on the reader may be something as simple as physical comfort. Each of these soils will cultivate a different kind of lime.

When culture was largely illiterate, any distinction of literature was memorized and verbally repeated, due to the fact that literature was only revealed to the masses orally. As culture continued to develop, specifically through religious expression, the masses were given a new way to relate to and understand various stories. Artists began to portray stories through imagery so that all may feel connected, and feel an immediate relation to a story, even without the ability to actually read it.

It strikes me as typical to now discover how unappreciative I am as a reader. While workers used to gather in large groups to hear books read aloud, I often times find myself not taking advantage of the privilege I have been given. I do not have to have someone tell me about a book, draw about a book, or do anything that might serve to stand between the book and the reader. Today a book can be immediately personal, and in a profound, almost spiritual way. Yet without the proper framework, it is easy, at least for me, to deprive books an adequate opportunity to produce the most wonderful of limes in the mind.

After having reading put into historical perspective, I found myself able to better define what it is that delights me about reading. Something about the constant race without any apparent finish line. The unquenchable thirst, and the possessive nature of the act both speak deeply to the desire for truth, or at least the desire for something stable. The great irony is in the fact that to achieve such a goal would ultimately undermine any desire to have it.

Whether bound by meaningful chains such as illiteracy, or shaped by something as seemingly insignificant as the reader's physical position; the simple fact of the matter is that reading is infinitely open to new interpretations, reminding us that literature, much like life, will always be an open book. The response is always larger than the text, which gives me hope that maybe the reader today would recognize the possibility of scattering seeds that may one day provide someone else with a lime.

p.s. introduction

Hello all, my name is David Carlisle. I love writing, music, photography, reading, and just about anything that gives my mind something to do. My views may appear bleak at times, but I assure you I am full of only optimism. I look forward to learning with you.

The medium is the metaphor

In his article, Twilight of the Books, Caleb Crain makes the case that both the will and the ability to read are on the decline both in this nation, and in the world at large. He reassures us that reading and writing are not likely to become extinct, but that reading books may once again be reserved for an elite reading class. While I believe his assessment to be accurate, I do not share in his pessimism.

I agree, reading and writing are not likely to become extinct and for good reason. Oral, literate, and televisual cultures transmit information in different ways. Each medium is suitable only for a particular kind of knowledge. The tools responsible for rational inquiry are merely dulled by televised viewing, largely because television places far less significance on the quality of the information than it does on the demands of entertainment.

Rational argument, however, plays an important role in print typography. Reading requires intense involvement on an intellectual level. This involvement is interactive in the sense that truth is reached by means of exchanging viewpoints while applying reason. Conversely, due to the fact that ratings determine the substance of televised programming, the content is thus evaluated on terms of commercial feasibility rather than academic excellence.

Caleb Craig is correct about literacy being on the decline, and that is precisely because written language is more difficult for the aforementioned reasons. It involves exchange of ideas with the application of reason. However, I do not believe all people need this level of intellectual exercise. There is a reason that management positions are fewer than labor positions. There is a reason that leaders are fewer than followers. The reason is that different things are required of different people. The greatest lie ever told was that all men are created equal.

While I very much understand and appreciate the importance of various literature, I simply cannot make the case that all men would benefit from reading it. A man of forty is content to speak a language, while a man of twenty-five boasts of inventing one. A journalist, forced to work on a commercial fishing boat might not last an hour. Likewise, a fisherman who was built to survive, couldn’t tie words together at the newspaper company good enough to feed himself, let alone his family.

Man is of course free to dream, but no amount of will power could make a fifty year old man the youngest golfer to play in the Masters. We must honestly evaluate ourselves and determine what role rational inquiry should play in our lives. It is not immediately evident to me that television and the decline of literacy has been a negative thing. If anything, it may serve as a means of testing ourselves to determine exactly what kind of people we are.