From: word_chemist@hotmail.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:1146191891.929091.47560@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > I'm sitting in a computer lab in a dormitory at an Ivy League   
   > university.  The computer I'm using has dozens of papers that students   
   > have saved on it, going back to last September.  My curiosity was   
   > piqued by one entitled "Orwell Response;" I opened it and found that it   
   > was an early assignment for a writing class from last fall.  The class   
   > was designed for upperclassmen, though the description says it was open   
   > to Freshmen who wrote on the level of college students.  It turns out   
   > to be an amusing demonstration of just how low that level can be, so I   
   > thought I'd share it here.  (I should in fairness add that many   
   > students here write very well indeed.)   
   >   
   > ==============   
   >   
   > [A short response to "Politics and the English Language":]   
   >   
   >   
   > Orwell's 1984 shows a society that has degraded totally, there is no   
   > privacy there is no peace, and the language has become overly   
   > simplified.  In correlation with this Orwell writes that in his society   
   > there is far too much focus on prose so the actual point is lost behind   
   > florid language or is not there at all.  People prefer to sound   
   > intelligent by using twenty dollar words when a much simpler one is   
   > available, this is a chronic problem.  There are cases today where the   
   > larger more "elegant" word is in the wrong context which in my   
   > opinion is why a single word can have so many definitions, for instance   
   > rapier, or why new words are created.  In Orwell's time, there would   
   > be no chance of a person think of gruntle as being an antonym to   
   > disgruntle.   
   > In my present writing I sure that there are many times where I have   
   > not followed Orwell's rules of writing; to be clear, concise, and   
   > direct.  I do believe that any one who walks away from reading this   
   > essay will begin to change their writing to fit to the standards of   
   > Orwell. Even now instead of augment, I used the simpler word change   
   > which fits my purposes perfectly.   
   > One point that stands out is the over use of metaphors until their   
   > meanings are lost forever.  Do people understand phrases like the proof   
   > is in the pudding or eating crow do they know the history and the   
   > significance?  If ask some random individual, he or she may correct   
   > saying word is putting not pudding.  Another point is the use of verbal   
   > operators and false limbs, which could be though of as giving the   
   > reader more time to digest what has been written.   
   > Orwell states that a direct approach is the best one. This may save   
   > time for the reader and writer but does it help the reader to retain   
   > the information presented.  I was taught that the words should have a   
   > nice flow and sentences should lead into another then there would be a   
   > better chance at retention.  Choppy sentences leave the reader   
   > questioning what they have just read after each sentence instead of   
   > after a paragraph.  This discontinued thinking causes fragmented   
   > knowledge.  I still believe that flow should supersede brevity.   
   > Before reading Orwell's essay, my writing was like that of some the   
   > examples; always running around, never really touching upon the key   
   > point.  Now I see the error of my ways. Yes there should still be use   
   > of good language but no longer should there hackneyed phrases that have   
   > absolutely no meaning not just to the reader but to the writer as well.   
   >   
      
   He'll end up editor of a national newspaper! It's perhaps a demonstration of   
   what we lost once we lost our aitches.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)