It's Orwell, Baby, Orwell

[twelveoone]

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever." --from Nineteen Eighty-Four
Orwell's reputation rests not only on his political shrewdness and his sharp satires but also on his marvelously clear style and on his superb essays, which rank with the best ever written. "Politics and the English Language" (1950), which links authoritarianism with linguistic decay...Richard A.Johnson http://www.levity.com/corduroy/orwell.htm

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein advised readers to attend to the use of a phrase in order to determine its meaning. Adopting that suggestion, one regularly discovers that terms of political discourse are used with a doctrinal meaning that is crucially different from the literal one. - Noam Chomsky, The Crimes of 'Intcom'; Foreign Policy, September, 2002 http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200209--.htm

What prompted this is the introduction to the "The Poetry Reader's Toolkit" , by Marc Polonsky. In the first paragraph he draws a distinction between advertising, political slogans, jargon, propaganda and poetry. (I object) His point is well taken by the rest of the book in that it promotes a subjective critical thinking. But the first paragraph in itself is propaganda.

So Bullshit, or bovenal fecal spreading if you will. They spring from the same roots, use the same devices, (repition, manipulation of langauge for emotional effect) and at times it becomes hard to draw a distinction between what is one or the other. Ah, but poetry is beautiful, and truth is beauty, do I hear in the distance a reshuffling, beauty is truth, because Keats says so.

Bullshit, or bovenal fecal spreading if you will. Do I hear in the distance, that that is the problem with 1201, he doesn't know the difference between advertising/ propaganda and poetry. As examples:
Song of Roland - composed during the crusades, when the historical antecendant was the Franks where slaughtered by the Basques, when the Franks invaded.
Ezra Pound - too numerous, but this may be an interesting link
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/utq/672/672_review_munk.html

Now I have no problem with the manipulation of langauge for emotional effect, that is the whole idea of communication, and at times I wish my life may be a little closer to beer commericals than it is. What I have a problem with is a lack of awareness of that manipulation, a subjective critism on the part of the manipulated. The great questions unasked, What? Why?

For your amusement:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

 

[PatCarrington]

For your amusement:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

i'm trying to pull a moral from this article.....

.....i guess it is that we should just keep writing until there is no one left who understands.

then we should shut up.


and.....from the article:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.


i think if everyone took that advice, there would be a lot more great poets in the world.

 

[Angeline]

i'm trying to pull a moral from this article.....

.....i guess it is that we should just keep writing until there is no one left who understands.

then we should shut up.


and.....from the article:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.


i think if everyone took that advice, there would be a lot more great poets in the world.

It's something we all strive for, but the road to writing great poetry--or anything, imo--involves emulating what we love from our personal favorite writers and letting the mix simmer until one's unique voice emerges.

And long or short word doesn't matter--right word does.

 

[PatCarrington]

It's something we all strive for, but the road to writing great poetry--or anything, imo--involves emulating what we love from our personal favorite writers and letting the mix simmer until one's unique voice emerges.

And long or short word doesn't matter--right word does.

we will have that short word/long word debate.....another time.

good morning, angel.

 

[Angeline]

we will have that short word/long word debate.....another time.

good morning, angel.

You want short?

Remember my zen poem?

B

To everything there is a season.

Mornin'

 

[twelveoone]

i'm trying to pull a moral from this article.....

.....i guess it is that we should just keep writing until there is no one left who understands.

then we should shut up.


and.....from the article:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.


i think if everyone took that advice, there would be a lot more great poets in the world.

Well, Pat, I suspect you read that along time ago, and that may be one of the reasons you are so good. I remember you paraphasing #2 often.

Also from Orwell:

It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a "good prose style."

 

[PatCarrington]

You want short?

Remember my zen poem?

B

To everything there is a season.

Mornin'

you're not floating onto that goofy mountain now too, are you?

and quit getting biblical on me.....(or Byrd-like.)

 

[Angeline]

you're not floating onto that goofy mountain now too, are you?

and quit getting biblical on me.....(or Byrd-like.)

just making my point.



And I wrote the zen poem over two years ago. so there.

 

[PatCarrington]

just making my point.

here's another point....we are hijacking 1201's thread.

speaking of which - i have a very hard time buying the "death of the English language" argument, 1201. i just don't see any logical steps to get from the points made to that potential conclusion.

 

[twelveoone]

here's another point....we are hijacking 1201's thread.

speaking of which - i have a very hard time buying the "death of the English language" argument, 1201. i just don't see any logical steps to get from the points made to that potential conclusion.

#1 I ment to stick up the 1950 essay. not the 1946 essay. The 1950 essay is better and has good examples also. (i'm sorry I lost that link)
#2 I'm not making the "death of the English language" argument, although, I may think it is headed there, unless more attention is paid to people like Orwell, and Chomsky. I do think there is a serious lack of critical thinking, a lack of looking behind the words and between the words.

 

[PatCarrington]

I'm not making the "death of the English language" argument, although, I may think it is headed there, unless more attention is paid to people like Orwell, and Chomsky. I do think there is a serious lack of critical thinking, a lack of looking behind the words and between the words.

i agree, but why do you suppose that is?

could it be perhaps a general decline in the intelligence of the masses, due to socio-economic factors, or some other reason?

the language of our pillars of cummunication ( the New York Times, for instance ) is certainly watered down. read the front page of the paper from 1960 for instance, and then read this morning's. i would estimate there has been a 4-grade level drop in the complexity of the writing. is this intentional ( if no one understands the paper, they won't buy it ), or do the writers no longer possess the skills needed to maintain the old intellectual levels? ( and never mind the fact that OPINION is now laced throughout its news articles, most of which seem a disgrace to journalistic integrity to me. )

 

[The_Fool]

I don't usually engage in these discussions because I am too foolish to know what I'm talking about.

From observation, it appears to me that the average American that is capable of writing has had a significant decline in vocabulary over the past century. I submit this by a contrast of letters written by normal people that I have read as compared to letters that I read today or have written. I must include myself in this. However, in contrast, I think if one were to research, that the literacy rate, the number of people that can read and write, has dramatically improved. That being said, have we watered down our ability to speak and write in order that more might do so? Or is this instead a case of changed writing styles, a movement from Dickens to Hemingway?

On a separate, but related note, I used to write technical manuals, some of which were used by the armed forces. For them, the lowest level maintenance manual had to read a certified level of a fifth grade reader.

Finally, in listening to interviews on TV, it appears to me that the English appear to have retained a much higher and broader vocabulary than the Americans. Once again, this is entirely subjective.

 

[My Erotic Tale]

well this was a bit deeper than this country boys river
but by god I dove into it several times, if I am correct
this theroy is based on an educated guess! History has
shown that language changes and varies geographicly <?
the day of shakespear to now we don't talk like thee and thou
but we understand it and a few hundred years from now it will
be a mix of all languages combined so that the world can
communicate better, a new language of multi languages combined?
were the monks who wrote books and bibles for king james
any different than the hebrew <mentally superior> for their
way of literature? reguardless does the future mean the same?
the young are taught what the land uses and perfection is
almost always strived by a few. Write a book and plant the seed
of your fears and open the eyes of the futures path <grin>

me, I'm gone fishin~
I do that better than language stuff and it swallows better <grin>
have a great day twelve, just wanted to play in your thread
and back pat ya for all ya do~

 

[twelveoone]

Touching base on a couple of points, I am not arguing against change, regionalisms, although it adds the stress of confusion.
Hemingway may be easier to understand here and now than Dickens.
Rather a lack of critical thinking, although, in thinking about thinking, one uses words in thought, have the tools been so hopelessly degraded that one can no longer think straight?
Everybody do their taxes? Anybody read the forms, the instructions?
Anybody recieve a memo or an annoucement recently from someone you know isn't doing anything close to resembling what they make. A bit overblown and incomprehensible isn't it. Instictively we know its bullshit. But the seed is planted, "I am nothing, because I don't have the ability to spread the bullshit as well as this "credentialed" jerk. The imposed fear of asking questions because it either shows my ignorance or it embasses and creates hostility from the person who can't explain it.

"If you can't explain it to a seven year old, it's because you don't know it" , a little overstated, but I recognised the truth in it. When my kids where seven, I began to understand how dumb I was, and fooling myself for many years, with words, the vocabulary of knowledge.

Look at the words Orwell uses, Chomsky uses, rather direct, understandable
I can understand both, but not my tax instructions.

 

[Tathagata]

I was watching a documentary on FDR the other night.
It struck me, listening to his speeches, that if they were given today about 40 percent of the public wouldn't understand more than half the words.

My theory has always been that
1) Children aren't read to / encouraged to read.
They are plopped in front of a TV which, of course, has " dumbed down" it's content so that everyone is included and no one feels left out.
So we are fostering a " lowest common denominator" mentality from day 1

2) The idea od speaking english, correct english, has some how become oppressive and racist.
To suggest to someone that they are speaking like a 5 year old isn't taking into account their economic background, heritage, possible mental anxieties and traumas etc etc etc.

We are so concerned with everyones " rights, that the community, as a whole, must compensate by learning to deal with chat speak, slang, pidgin etc etc until all that's left to use to communicate are the basic words of thought.
And if a society doesn't have the tools to express complex ideas...soon the ideas fade also.

Just my opinion.
I was read to and encouraged to read.
I still read 3 or 4 books a month.
I read a newspaper.
I think that basic fact is a huge part of the decline in language and intelligence in this and other countries

 

[Angeline]

I was watching a documentary on FDR the other night.
It struck me, listening to his speeches, that if they were given today about 40 percent of the public wouldn't understand more than half the words.

My theory has always been that
1) Children aren't read to / encouraged to read.
They are plopped in front of a TV which, of course, has " dumbed down" it's content so that everyone is included and no one feels left out.
So we are fostering a " lowest common denominator" mentality from day 1

2) The idea od speaking english, correct english, has some how become oppressive and racist.
To suggest to someone that they are speaking like a 5 year old isn't taking into account their economic background, heritage, possible mental anxieties and traumas etc etc etc.

We are so concerned with everyones " rights, that the community, as a whole, must compensate by learning to deal with chat speak, slang, pidgin etc etc until all that's left to use to communicate are the basic words of thought.
And if a society doesn't have the tools to express complex ideas...soon the ideas fade also.

Just my opinion.
I was read to and encouraged to read.
I still read 3 or 4 books a month.
I read a newspaper.
I think that basic fact is a huge part of the decline in language and intelligence in this and other countries

You're a very smart boy.

Turn off the tv and read--that's my mantra. I haven't watched much tv at all in about ten years--when I do it's news/weather (or Seinfeld, ok I like Seinfeld).

When you watch tv it's all sound bites--no time to consider what's said before it moves to the next talking head. When you read you have time to consider what it means and what it means for you.

I was very lucky to grow up in a house full of books and was given a library card (at a very young age) as if it were a precious gift--which, of course, it was.

Namaste' T.

 

[Tathagata]

You're a very smart boy.

Turn off the tv and read--that's my mantra. I haven't watched much tv at all in about ten years--when I do it's news/weather (or Seinfeld, ok I like Seinfeld).

When you watch tv it's all sound bites--no time to consider what's said before it moves to the next talking head. When you read you have time to consider what it means and what it means for you.

I was very lucky to grow up in a house full of books and was given a library card (at a very young age) as if it were a precious gift--which, of course, it was.

Namaste' T.

I spent hours in the library
The woman in the " kids" section would have to go " upstairs" to get me books I wasn't old enough to check out...But she'd let me sit downstairs and read them.

In the past few years i've started collecting some of those books I read as a kid.


Namaste' mein neshemoleh

 

[The_Fool]

I remember as a child, riding my bike to the library. Checking out my limit of eight books. Going home and reading. Repeat as necessary, usually almost daily. Kind of funny, I remember a children,s section on biographies that composed one full bookshelf. Dated, because this was a small town library, but certainly spurring my love of history. Then turning the corner and starting on children's fiction. Despite his many faults, I have to bless Andrew Carnegie for at least that one gift.

 

[PatCarrington]

i think the dominance of television and computers over print text is a serious problem now, because it is multi-generational, as ingrained in society as coffee in the morning and sleep at night.

i don't see how it can reversible (other than in individual homes) on any meaningful level now that it has become so widespread and culturized.

and the additional aspect of valuing a child's feelings more than his or her production and character develpoment, as if they are made of crepe paper or tears might melt them, makes that reversal impossible, in my opinion.

some problems just do not have a viable solution, no matter how badly one might be needed.

doesn't it happen to all "great" societies, sooner or later? their abundance makes them complacent and soft, and thus less fit for survival.

i think this is Rome, with more toys.

 

[flyguy69]

i think the dominance of television and computers over print text is a serious problem now, because it is multi-generational, as ingrained in society as coffee in the morning and sleep at night.

i don't see how it can reversible (other than in individual homes) on any meaningful level now that it has become so widespread and culturized.

and the additional aspect of valuing a child's feelings more than his or her production and character develpoment, as if they are made of crepe paper or tears might melt them, makes that reversal impossible, in my opinion.

some problems just do not have a viable solution, no matter how badly one might be needed.

doesn't it happen to all "great" societies, sooner or later? their abundance makes them complacent and soft, and thus less fit for survival.

i think this is Rome, with more toys.

I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag
With Latin written on it that says
"it's hard to give a shit these days"
Manhattan's sinking like a rock
Into the filthy Hudson what a shock
They wrote a book about it
They said it was like ancient Rome

-Lou Reed, Romeo Had Juliet

 

[Angeline]

i think the dominance of television and computers over print text is a serious problem now, because it is multi-generational, as ingrained in society as coffee in the morning and sleep at night.

i don't see how it can reversible (other than in individual homes) on any meaningful level now that it has become so widespread and culturized.

and the additional aspect of valuing a child's feelings more than his or her production and character develpoment, as if they are made of crepe paper or tears might melt them, makes that reversal impossible, in my opinion.

some problems just do not have a viable solution, no matter how badly one might be needed.

doesn't it happen to all "great" societies, sooner or later? their abundance makes them complacent and soft, and thus less fit for survival.

i think this is Rome, with more toys.

The solution is if you're a parent be a model for reading yourself. Turn off the tv and read. Take your kids to bookstores and buy them books or order subscriptions to magazines that dovetail with their interests. Read to them. Talk to them about the difference between information that flashes by too fast for them to think about what it all means versus the opportunity to be thoughtful and derive your own opinions over time by taking breaks from words on a page and thinking about them.

It is multigenerational and ingrained, I agree. I did all these things--read to my kids every day, made up stories with about the things they love, let them read to me, played word games, never said no to a request for a book. And know what? They still watch tv and play videogames, but they both like to read and they both write, too.

 

[PatCarrington]

The solution is if you're a parent be a model for reading yourself. Turn off the tv and read. Take your kids to bookstores and buy them books or order subscriptions to magazines that dovetail with their interests. Read to them. Talk to them about the difference between information that flashes by too fast for them to think about what it all means versus the opportunity to be thoughtful and derive your own opinions over time by taking breaks from words on a page and thinking about them.

It is multigenerational and ingrained, I agree. I did all these things--read to my kids every day, made up stories with about the things they love, let them read to me, played word games, never said no to a request for a book. And know what? They still watch tv and play videogames, but they both like to read and they both write, too.

happy monday, you.

i agree, on an individual basis it can be dealt with.

on a larger scale though, i think the story is different. and as more and more tv/computer-only children become adults and parents themselves, the snowball gets bigger and faster, and the chances of defying the anti-intellectual gravity of our society, of shrinking abilities and therefore intelligence, grow smaller.

it has become the shovel against the tide.

the sea wins.

 

[Angeline]

happy monday, you.

i agree, on an individual basis it can be dealt with.

on a larger scale though, i think the story is different. and as more and more tv/computer-only children become adults and parents themselves, the snowball gets bigger and faster, and the chances of defying the anti-intellectual gravity of our society, of shrinking abilities and therefore intelligence, grow smaller.

it has become the shovel against the tide.

the sea wins.

Hi Patrick.



(And I thought you were gonna say I'm getting fired up about teaching. lol.)

Oh yeah. And PS--

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Rage, rage against the darkening light.

 

[PatCarrington]

Hi Patrick.



(And I thought you were gonna say I'm getting fired up about teaching. lol.)

i know you'll do your part.

and, after all, there is something very romantic and brave about being inside the walls of the Alamo.

the difference is Crockett and Bowie knew there was hope for Texas.

 

[Angeline]

i know you'll do your part.

and, after all, there is something very romantic and brave about being inside the walls of the Alamo.

the difference is Crockett and Bowie knew there was hope for Texas.

You just love arguing with me. And you know why? Because you want me to bitch slap you.

Admit it.