Something I’ve noticed about the small crowd of writers that I’ve met, is that they hardly find time to read anything other than literature. What I mean is that the normal person will read that World of Warcraft book or that new space exploration book being made into a movie, but the person who considers himself a writer will only read the fields he concerns himself with. Like for instance it’s natural for a literature writer to only read literature, or for a science fiction writer to read mostly science fiction.
But the major downside to this is that they’re isolating themselves from learning to look at things a new way; this goes for everybody. If I had stuck to what I knew five years ago, I would only be reading books about WWII and video games but I branched out. I started to read literature, science fiction, and nonfiction, really anything I could find. And as a writer and as a person that made all the difference.
Now directly towards the writers. You can read as much as you want and from all different genres but you aren’t getting the most out of it. You have to consider that what you are reading is the final draft of a text that could have been edited for hundreds of hours. It was so meticulously created that it does help to study it, but you also need to study the raw form of the text as well.
The best way to do this is to find other people’s writing that are looking to be critiqued. There’s resources all over the internet of this, and even in the community with writing groups. What you find with critiquing writing is that you learn to look for inconsistencies and pieces of the text that just don’t work together. Then after learning this school it transfers over to editing your own writing and searching for the same things. In the beginning it’s easier to dissect another person’s writing and then use those skills on their own.
So you finally you find a piece that you’re ready to sit down and critique, what do you look for? There are a few features you need to look at when critiquing:
Minor Mistakes. This is things like grammatical issues, spelling mistakes, maybe some formatting issues. Things that can be easily fixed.
Fluency. Look for how well the text flows. Look for words that are out of place, choppy sentences, things that can be cut, superfluous sentences, things that could have been overlooked by the writer. This is mostly things concerning style. I’ve noticed this is what most writers look for when having a piece critiqued.
Story. Find parts of the story that don’t work together, characters that aren’t believable, scenes that are a little too long or two short, things like that.
Usually when critiquing a piece of writing it’s courteous to offer a suggestion of how to fix it but of course it’s always the author’s decision what to do. You can already begin to see how scrutinizing someone’s writing for those criteria will help you do the same for your own.
There’s also two types of critiquing done. Line by Line, and just general. Line by line suggests that you will go line by line in the story and make a comment about each sentence, improvements that could be made, good and bad and all that. This takes much more time but is more thorough. The other is general, this focuses on the more big picture aspect of it. This is more quick and to the point but also loses a good amount of the small details that need fixing.
The last important detail about this art is to find pieces outside of your comfort area to read and experiment with. The point is to expand your range and to better understand how all types of writing work. A few good resources to critiquing is on Reddit and a few subreddits, which I always recommend, and finding groups on craigslist, newspapers, flyers or different places in the community for creative writing groups. If you’re out in the country it may be difficult but if you’re in a larger city there’s most likely one nearby. And it’s just good etiquette always critique someone else’s writing if you’re looking for a critique of your own.
In my previous post I focused on analyzing the different techniques politicians will make when giving speeches. It’s fairly easy to spot the speaker when they are avoiding the question or using shady techniques, as long as you know what those techniques are at least. But one way that people are commonly influenced by that we don’t think about as much is our source of news. If it is a talk show then it’s a little easier, if it is a news anchor it becomes trickier, and if it is a written text it is even more difficult. This first article will be from Reuters about the plane that recently crashed in the Papua region of Indonesia.
One reason that I like Reuters is because they readily give a list of facts about the initial incident, gives quotes from various sources to better explain the incident, and then go into background information about the story. That’s the basic structure I’ve noticed from their articles. It is usually a paragraph such as this that are a give away:
The airline has been on the EU’s list of banned carriers since 2007. Airlines on the list are barred from operating in European airspace due to either concerns about safety standards or the regulatory environment in their country of registration.
This occurs midway through the article. This isn’t part of the immediate story because it isn’t about the plane crash, but it is relevant to why the plane crashed in the first place. The article noticeably gets more political when shortly after it follows up with:
Trigana has had 14 serious incidents since it began operations in 1991, according to the Aviation Safety Network. Excluding this latest incident, it has written off 10 aircraft.
Airline officials were not immediately available to respond to enquiries from Reuters.
Indonesia has a patchy aviation safety record and has seen two major plane crashes in the past year, including an AirAsia flight that went down in the Java Sea, killing all on board.
See now the story doesn’t focus on the crash, it now focuses on Trigana. It’s important to ask what the relevance of this is. To me this is one of two things: the first to make a statement about the quality of Trigana and prompt them to fix it, and two for people to consciously decide to stop using the airline for safer means of travel. So in this instance an event was taken that was relatively unpolitical, being the plane crash, and made sem-political by putting part of the blame on the airliner.
In any news piece you can ask yourself: What relevance to the story does this have, and what would be the intent of adding this to the story? By doing this it’s easier to think about how a story is contorted to fit some kind of message. In this case it’s alerting people to bad airline safety.
And now just for fun we can look at a piece from FoxNews.com. This piece I found today is on the new regulations set by the EPA on the gas industry. I will say I chose not to use an article from the FoxNews opinion section because not only is it awful writing, but it is the most pandered opinion writing out there and I didn’t feel like getting that frustrated today. So I chose the news side of the site.
Consider just the name of the article:
EPA hits oil and gas industry with new methane emissions regs
Just by reading the title you already know what their opinion on the matter is. The most crucial thing when analyzing any writing is to look for the verb. The verb gives it all away. In the title the word ‘hits’ carries a lot of connotation to it. You don’t necessarily associate hitting with being a good thing do you? Here’s an alternate title, “EPA enacts new regulations on methane emissions for oil and gas industry.” It’s simpler that way and you don’t envision slapping the sacred oil industry in the face. Another thing is the use of ‘reg’ as slang instead of just saying regulation. Are they trying to appeal to a specific audience? Probably yes. What kind of audience would that be? Well the main audience for Fox News, from what I have observed, is usually white right-wing conservatives. The use of the word ‘regs’ could be to pamper to younger audience or somehow make the article more fun to read for the audience they already have.
The very second paragraph reads as:
The proposal, though, looked set to face stiff opposition from energy groups and Republicans lawmakers, who accused the administration of pandering to “the fantasies of the environmental Left.”
So again we see another bias. The phrase in quotes is obviously against the environmental left, but it is appropriate why they put that in at all. Objectively, it would have been more useful to just say it was a victory for the environmentalists instead of calling it the fantasies of the environmental left. Where did this quote come from? It isn’t exactly relevant so we can assume this was a way of Fox to insert their own opinion in the story by hiding behind some unnamed person who has no purpose at all. The quote says it’s pandering to the fantasies of the environmental left, but essentially it’s not the person saying that at all, it is just Fox News.
So Fox News is using the method of hiding behind quotations to push their message. If you notice even the first quotation in favor of the regulation, given by Administrator Gina McCarthy, is immediately followed up by the economic trouble this regulation gives by citing the cost being between $320 million and $420 million. It also adds it takes a toll on healthcare and worker benefits (As if Fox is at all worried about this outside the oil industry.) The positive quote is followed up by why the regulation is a bad thing so it especially sticks in a reader’s head all the negative aspects.
It’s also important to note that there are 3 quotations obviously against the regulations compared to the 1 that support it. This is the act of stacking the evidence against the opposition. They aren’t worried about giving the regulations a fair spotlight. They use the statistics and quotes that they pick out to prove their point while giving minimal evidence to the opposition. This is more of an opinion article than anything else.
Reading the right Fox News article will make a good day go sour for me. By asking what purpose each information has, what agenda is being pushed by the information, what connotation each verb has, and asking if the evidence is stacked, we can analyze the rhetoric behind a news story. Really it’s about finding a news source that works for you by covering the stories you find interesting in a way that suites you. My personal preference is Reuters but each source has a different strong point.
One thing I’ve discovered is that words truly do have power. There are two things that give words power: 1) The meaning behind its use, 2) the way the words are used. It’s a crude example but consider this. Nobody likes hearing a derogatory phrase in daily life, like the N-word. I don’t have to explain the meaning behind the word, the hate and the history that goes with it. That is the meaning behind its use that makes it unpleasant. But say you’re watching an old west movie and a character mentions it because that’s just how they spoke, then its use is understandable. In today’s world that would be unacceptable and rightfully so, but in the movie it is the context of it that counts. That’s what confused so many people about Obama’s use of the N-word last month, the word itself is obviously full of hate but the President of the United States using it in a non discriminatory way took people by surprise.
We’ve been told since elementary school the phrase “If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all,” which for the most part nobody follows. What that phrase leaves out is that our silence can have as much power as our words do. Think about the controversy this summer with the confederate flag, how did the story play out? Well the same way as every major news story. First there was an incident that sparked it, then the blame falls on somebody. In this case it was the confederate battle flag, at the Aurora shooting it went to how much ammunition people could buy, after Columbine it went to violent media. Often times these accusations are justified but regardless the blame has to go somewhere. After blame was placed there was an immediate backlash of people defending the item being blamed. The controversy grew and other stories were spawned from it, and suddenly the whole thing disappeared. People got tired, they stopped talking about it and moved on to something else.
Considering that practically every major news story plays out like that, what’s the most effective way to make it go away? Just simply don’t talk about it. If there is a bigger kid in school making fun of you, if you don’t respond he’ll get bored and go away. This bully metaphor is easily replaced with Donald Trump. Half the country loves him, the other half despises him. If the other half of the country stopped talking about him and giving him the attention that he wants, he wouldn’t be a big deal. It may be the trend to write about Trump’s candidacy but with every word you write, good or bad, you are contributing to his campaign by simply spreading his name. In that way there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
The best reason to consistently write about a subject is to spread the message. Think of it as a battle, if you are rooting for Bernie Sanders to win the election then only write about Bernie Sanders, don’t respond to Trump because the rest of the country has already done that. The same goes with Rand Paul, if you want him to win keep spreading his name and try to let the other names disappear. It’s all like a game of chess.
I also realize that just by writing this I’m going against my own lesson, which is why these will be the only words I write about Trump for the time being. I’ll see a lot of other writers touch on the trending controversies when I prefer to stay out of them, because if I don’t like the topic I won’t say anything to make it go away faster instead of voicing my opinions and fueling the fire.
I mentioned briefly in my article The Purpose of Writing that people should become familiar with the rhetoric used by politicians and news sources as a defense mechanism. The logic was that if people were able to clearly identify the ways in in which speakers try to sway them, the people would be more critical instead of passive about what they are told. The first way we can analyze this, and probably the easiest way, is to look at your average politician.
For this I’ll take a speech Hillary Clinton made about economic change. I’m only going to do the first ten minutes since the entire thing is nearly an hour, so to follow along you can either watch the first ten minutes and then read the analysis or you can follow along by the time markers I provide.
So following the basic structure of a speech, the first few minutes briefly touch on a couple issues just to give the idea of what the speech is about. Clinton mentions going to school without drowning and debt, ways to favor the middle class, and goes as far to mention trickle down economics, but that’s it.
Starting at 3:26 in the video Clinton says, “I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can’t have one without the other. We can’t create new jobs and new businesses without more growth, and we can’t build strong families and support our consumer economy without more fairness.” At this point one begins to suspect that she’ll actually bring up some sort of issue. It’s odd how in a speech it seems as if she is saying something of importance, but in writing it’s clear how mundane her words are. I believe the easiest way to break through any uncertainty of a politician is to, after every statement they make, simply ask ‘how?’ Clinton says she wants a fair economy with new jobs and new businesses, but how? This is the act of bringing up an issue without proposing any sort of solution.
At 3:51 in the video it is stated “Because while America is standing again, we are not yet running the way we should.” This has been used by every single politician. It is that idea of the American dream, that idea that we used to be great but now we aren’t. Or here it can be broken down to “Things could always be better.” Well of course because the people will never be happy with the government simply because how diverse the opinions can be. No matter what your politics are you can always agree that things could be better. Instead this is used as a transition phrase leading into the next issue.
This leads to 4:10 in the video when Clinton begins to talk about family wages. This section can be simplified to “Things cost too much and people don’t have enough money.” It really does help to simplify every statement to it’s core meaning. Then at 4:30 she gives a real world example of a single mom with three kids, a job, and school. What’s interesting is she says that she talked to this person, and just on our good faith and her authority we assume that this actually happened. That event could very well have been fabricated to make a point, but either way it doesn’t matter. The point is she is using an example that is more likely to connect with people. These emotional stories of people in the struggle are enough to arouse people’s sentiment towards action. Once the audience is heartbroken and guilty enough to listen, it is the speaker’s job to tell them what to do about it. That’s exactly what Clinton does at 4:45, she softened them up with the story and then she states “But if she got a raise, everything wouldn’t be quite so hard.” Which makes her purpose more effective.
At 5:38 she says “Families that work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and stay ahead. The defining economic challenge of our time is clear: we must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle class life.” Again this statement goes back to the American dream of ‘if you work hard you’ll be successful,’ which is largely untrue. There is a contradiction in the first sentence however. If the hardworking deserve to stay ahead does that mean that the super wealthy deserve to stay where they are because they worked hard to get there? She already briefly mentioned income equality but how does that make sense at all? The second sentence is just pampered to the American people. She aims it towards the ‘hard working Americans’ but what is a hard working american? Isn’t that everybody with a job? Because no functioning person is going to say “Well yeah the hard-working Americans deserve a raise, but I’m not a hard-working American.” Because everybody is going to consider themselves a hard-working American. Does that mean raises for everyone? How will you make that happen? This is just the kind of thing people want to hear with no real value to it.
At about 5:59 she says “We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up families and lifts up our countries.” Just more glittering generalities. Income growth sounds amazing, but are we supposed to take it on good faith she can make that happen? Surely if you are so dedicated to this issue you must have some kind of plan to accomplish this. Clinton knows exactly what she wants to do, but she is apprehensive about saying it because that would cause people to disagree with her. As long as she keeps talking about issues without solutions people can agree with her.
Around 6:14 she states “And that will be my mission from the first day I’m president to the last.” This is seemingly a small statement but actually has some interesting motives. Clinton’s word choice is precise, she doesn’t say “If I am president,” she means “When I am president,” as if it is an inevitability.
Starting around 6:30 she talks about her background with her father providing a middle class life. This is supposed to connect with people by letting them know that she went through the same thing everyone else did. As if saying that she’s one of them. It also puts the idea out there that she really will fight for the middle class because she used to be one.
At 6:52 “And I will as your president, take on this challenge against the backdrop of major changes in our economy and the global economy, that didn’t start with the recession and won’t end with the recovery.” That’s a lot to take on for just a single president. It’s interesting she doesn’t say what changes those are, and yet she’ll fight for them anyway. We could ask how, but she can’t possibly know how because she doesn’t say what changes there are. And there’s just the phrase “that didn’t start with the recession and won’t end with the recovery” which almost suggests the system as flawed as a whole. How is she supposed to take on these enormous changes, when she doesn’t know what they are, and the system is flawed from the beginning? Not only is it a monumental promise, but it’s an empty promise. It’s a complete contradiction.
Clinton says at 8:34, “The choices we make as a nation matter, and these choices we make in the years ahead will set the stage for what the American life, in the middle class, in our economy, will be like in this century.” This is another statement that really has nothing to say. It means our choices have an effect on the future. Oh really? Who would have guessed? This is a transition phrase to set the stage for her next statement.
Around 8:55 Clinton says, “As president I will work with every possible partner to turn the tide, to make these currents of change to start working for us, rather than against us.” Notice how she says neither what change that is, what partners that is, or what goals she has to make it work for us. It’s empty in the sense she isn’t saying a damn thing of value.
At 9:09 she states “Because I think at our best that’s what Americans do, we’re problem solvers not deniers. We don’t hide from change, we harness it.” This is nothing more than pampering to the American people again. Americans are very vain, we like knowing that we’re Americans. This is basically a compliment to the American people with a somewhat liberal message about using change. But again, change is an extremely vague term.
And finally at 9:59 Clinton says “We’re not going to find all the answers we need today in the play books of the past. We can’t go back to the old policies that failed us before, nor can we just replay the successes.” This has a somewhat progressive message in the sense she means we can’t just go back to the past. This is so broad of a statement though, what old policies that failed us? What successes? Do we need something that has never been done before, and if so what?
This was a little longer than I intended it to be, which is why I only did the first ten minutes of the video. You can go through the entire 45 minutes of it but Clinton is an awful speaker. The whole time the audience is left wondering who programmed her before the speech. Anyway the rest of the talk is full of the same glittering generalities and empty rhetoric, without ever saying anything.
If you do decide to watch the rest, pay attention to a few small details. For one whenever Clinton uses studies or statistics she uses them to prove that there is a problem, she never uses them to propose a solution. She begins to respond to members of the Republican party, such as Jeb Bush. This is such a common method I probably don’t have to mention it, but basically trying to defame them and point out a flaw in their campaign.
So even past all the meaninglessness of it, there’s a few important things we can take away. 1) After every statement made by a politician, ask how? and 2) Break down their statements to their core meaning. I watched the entire speech, and I don’t know Clinton’s stance on anything any better than before I watched it.
On the surface, philosophy is irrelevant and boring, it holds no real meaning. A person can ponder if there is a god, or if humans have free will, but what does it matter? Say a person discovers he has free will, well then good for him. He still goes to work every morning, eats at the same restaurants, and watches the same shows but only now he knows it’s all his own will to do so.
This can be applied to other philosophical questions. Everyone has heard the Marx quote “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” But very few have done this. It also seems very few have desired to do this. In many ways it seems like philosophy is just back and forth between philosophers and isn’t relevant for the vast majority of people at all.
Quotations from the Greek philosopher Epicurus. Credit goes to Buzzquotes.com
Philosophers have often told people the way they’re supposed to live their lives. This can be useful to people in many ways. For instance Epicurus tells us what it is that makes us happy. This is an example of a useful form of philosophy. Epicurus has broken his wisdom down into a few simple methods for people to live a happier life. Although most of his writing was lost, the bulk of his writing was on this subject. But then you have philosophers that deal with things like metaphysics or interpretations of history. Things that really only matter to other philosophers. To anyone else it looks like an intellectual pissing contest.
Philosophy does have some relevance in the fact that it helps us understand ourselves better, which is one of the best things you can do for a person. Although many of the things philosophers fuss over seem important, it’s on a more superficial level than you would think. My best advice would be to find a philosopher or a branch of philosophy that holds some meaning to you. There really is something for everyone; themes that deal with love, happiness, sorrow, government, nature, feminism, death, and life. You don’t have to suddenly devote your life to this or read every book you can about it, just a single book can open your eyes and allow you to look at the world in a different way. After that you can start developing ideas for yourself.
So back to the example of the man going to work and shuffling through life. The knowledge of free will might not make a difference to him, but theories on what makes a good relationship might, or lessons on how to find meaningful work. The things that could help him to improve his condition is what has meaning.
So what stops people from diving into philosophy? There is a portion of it that has relevance to the normal person so why not? Well I think it’s the same reasons that people don’t read books in general: 1) Don’t have the time 2) Don’t know where to start 3) It’s too daunting. These are all valid reasons actually.
A person can say they don’t have time to read, but what they really mean is they’d rather be doing something else. That’s a fair thing to say. If you would rather be watching T.V. or browsing Youtube then go right ahead if you truly enjoy it, but I implore just ten minutes a day. Ten minutes a day devoted to reading without the distraction of texting or noise from the T.V. It can even be before bed so you’ll fall asleep easier. It’s a little change such as this that can improve your life.
Not knowing where to begin is justified in the fact that most people don’t know where to start either. The first thing you can do is ask yourself “What do I want to understand better?” and go from there. For instance say a person picked the subject of happiness. All you have to do is google “Philosophers that deal with happiness” and the first result is a wikipedia page with a full list of names and summaries of their beliefs. It’s as simple as that. Anything that has meaning to you can be explored.
The actual text itself being too complicated is another issue. Even if you do find a philosopher you’re interested it doesn’t do much good if you can’t understand their writing. This is where it begins to seem more like a chore than a beneficial experience. It seems ridiculous to have to start from the beginning in the history of philosophy and read onward just to understand a single person. You can find a way around this with a few internet study guides and a dictionary. There are tons of resources on the internet ready to help you understand ideas and terminology. Off the top of my head there is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the School of Life. School of life doesn’t go into much detail and often has inaccuracies but it’s a good place to start and understand ideas. And for the meaning of specific terminology another quick google search is the remedy.
So as always it’s best to know yourself and know what you want. A good majority of philosophy is irrelevant but that doesn’t discredit the whole profession. Philosophy shouldn’t be for the uptight college professors or the snobby people that read it to say they have. It should be aimed for all people because that’s who it will benefit.
Sanders has been gaining more crowds in Iowa, and polls show him to be anywhere from 34 to 45 points behind Clinton. I don’t think I really need to detail Trump coming in from the right and mixing things up a little, although some polls have shown him to jump to first place. It doesn’t take much investigation to see there aren’t many moderate republican candidates running right now, and we’re starting to see a spread in the democrats.
The republican party no longer accepts anyone that is socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. We now see people like Clinton, who is at best a moderate and in no way a radical, and we have people like Sanders who is a radical compared to the spectrum of American politics. So basically it’s all conservative radicals in the republicans and a battle for control in the democrats. Obviously this can be seen as a good and bad thing.
After going through the least productive congress in our history, people are tired of moderates. The people want action but their being attracted to strange sources. I honestly can’t tell if Trump is a joke or not. Some of his remarks seem like pure satire but somehow he has a large following.
In the two party system there has always been a necessary amount of bipartisan to get acts passed through both party, that way the government is effective. But each party is so gun-ho about this it seems like they’re denying acts out of spite of the other party. We’ve reached the limit of bipartisanship and we’re seeing a fundamental split. What that could lead to could be the an even less effective government, or less likely the complete take over of one party. I don’t mean revolution or anything, but the unfair stack of one party in the government.
I don’t likely expect the party take over to happen, but it’s always one possibility. So, in this case of an even less productive congress, what would that lead to? Well if the country is deeply divided in that sense there will most likely be more protest activity depending on which party is leading. I can see a lot of the younger generation out protesting and petitioning, or at the very least revving up their online banter about it. When there is that much of a split between the two front-most ideologies in the country there is typically one solution.
If both parties are at extreme non-productivity, one will eventually have to assume dominance. This would be in the same manner that there was a cultural revolution in the 60’s. I don’t mean the reemergence of hippies, I mean the finding ourselves as a nation, and when that happens the nation will lean a certain direction and we will continue the cycle. The cycle of party domination and then slip into bipartisanship, then eventually stagnation.
A battle of radical politics: mass activism, cultural evolution, social rethinking. One can’t be completely sure when something like this will take place, but we can be sure it will happen. It could very well be a conservative shift like in the 80’s, or a liberal shift such as in the 60’s. Maybe we’ll have two as a response to one another, this is all speculation. The point is things are changing and people are obviously not happy with the way things are, especially after going through events like the government shut down. The people want somebody to blame and everyone will stick harder to their beliefs than before.
How would this all come about? Ideas spread quicker than ever before thanks to the internet and it’s easier for people take sides and right what they think about the subject. They no longer have to be in a room with someone talking about politics, they can now say it and everyone they know will read it. Organizations and activities can get more publicity from the internet and grow more in numbers, people can get information on nearly any activity they desire. And it’s not just teens like everyone seems to think, it is all generations using the internet for this purpose. If there was going to be cultural change, it would start on the internet and translate over to the real world, not vice versa.
Not to mention that this is the logical conclusion. If you add angry people plus unproductive government that equals change in the government. I seriously doubt people are willing to take the full measure and tear down the construct of our government all together. Change on a massive scale, that’s what the people want.
The purpose of writing has always been for the writer to convey a message to the reader, but I think this escapes many writers today. The majority of writing is not focused on what it says rather how it says it. Many political writers will spice up their writing with sophisticated language and complex terminology to attract the higher educated crowd.
The most obvious problem with this is that you’d be ignoring the main audience of the piece, which happens to be the largest demographic. If the average person reads a piece with a needlessly large and obscure vocabulary then he may conclude that the writing serves no purpose for him, then he will shy away from all writing like it. If you write for the every day person not only will you have a larger audience, what you write will be more effective.
Orwell said it better than I ever could in his essay Politics in the English Language. He analyzes many things about political writing, such as how writers will purposefully blur their meaning for a political purpose. For instance Orwell says:
“Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements”
A powerful passage. The essay goes on with more detailed examples. The first thing any reader needs to understand political writing is to educate themselves on rhetoric and the devices writers use. By doing this you can defend yourself from false and overtly biased statements in the media. We can see in the quote that effectiveness is not a substitute for honesty. The phrases writers use may be easy to understand but they don’t serve the best interest of the people if their meaning is hidden.
Obviously if a person has to sugar coat their meaning they are afraid of the reaction. So what would writing look like if it was as candid as possible? Take for instance the famous gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. In 1972 he was hired by Rolling Stone to cover the presidential campaign of George McGovern, and in the process he revolutionized the way political writing was done. He was a brutally honest writer, never even attempting to conceal his meaning. Here’s a quote of his about Nixon’s funeral:
“If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.”
Of course that quote is nothing but name calling, but Thompson makes many great points about it. There is nothing dry about his writing, it’s candid as all hell and gets the point across. A modern political writer may say “Nixon was a heartless autocrat that left an enervating stain on the country that can never be cleansed. His legacy will be one of deceit and crookedness that reminds the people of a darker time in our nation’s history.” Both quotes say pretty much the same thing but the first one was much more entertaining and can be more easily consumed.
The simpleness of writing applies to all of it’s forms. If a book is so full of pretensions and complications that it is difficult to read then why read it? The author failed in the purpose to smoothly convey their message to all people. Instead they are keeping the knowledge for the highly educated and serves no purpose for the common man. Orwell mastered this art. It also has historical background. Take Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Part of the influence of this pamphlet is that it was easy for the common man to read and therefore the ideas spread more easily than the other pamphlets of the day. In fact Washington had it read to every man in his army, which considering the condition of the day is significant. Paine’s writing was honest and to the point. This document encouraged the Americas to rebel against England and succeeded, something a more frivolous document couldn’t have done.
So when writing Orwell gives a list of things that every writer should consider about each sentence:
1. What am I trying to say?
2. What words will express it?
3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
And he will probably ask himself two more:
1. Could I put it more shortly?
2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
These are things every writer should keep in mind when writing a piece. Purposefully making your writing sound sophisticated does nothing except guarantee most people won’t read it. There is nothing wrong with sounding simplistic. People forget that education is not only meant for the higher classes, but that ideas are meant for all people of the earth. The point is not to shy people away from your message but to spread it. More messages should be written as so. Honesty and clearness are the true traits of effective writing.
