What’s more, Orwell is far from the ideally impartial figure of the scientist. Orwell gave a hypothesis at the beginning and presented evidence, but he was more arguing for the hypothesis than testing it. However, the essay is perhaps deceptively clear and prescriptive, and, after some discussion with another mentor, I realised that it’s not actually scientific. This structuring seemed almost scientific to me. There is a logical progression between sentences and paragraphs: a general point is often followed by an example and a development from that example. The third and final part restates his argument and gives six rules for writing clearly. The second gives five examples of unclear political writing, lists four faults common to all of them, and analyses why people write like this, before finally offering four questions you can ask yourself to help you avoid such writing. The first introduces Orwell's argument and a possible counter-argument to it. I liked the clarity of the essay's structure and its prose.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |