.gif)
I don't normally review essays, but I thought this particular one was very insightful and still holds true today. I realized towards the end that this post had become an opinion piece rather than a book review, but I feel I needed to get these thoughts off my shoulders.
"Politics and the English Language", by George Orwell, was written in 1946. It addresses the topic of modern English, especially how it has corrupted our country. The gist is this: Orwell believes that writing, especially political writing, has evolved to include "ready-made phrases," usage of typical metaphors, a lack of brevity, and a need for sounding presentable. He expands, giving examples of carefully phrased political statements that shroud the truth (for example, a genocide) with a multitude of metaphors and professional sounding language intended to thoroughly obfuscate the reader into trivializing the matter at hand. Orwell proceeds to list his guidelines for better English, and concludes the essay. However, it brings a lot to light for me especially, as I am guilty of an extremely formal writing style.
The main reason as to why my writing style is as such, is due to my education system. Starting from the elementary level of education, children are encouraged to use big words and compound and complex sentences. Run-on sentences are frowned upon, but brevity is not welcomed. English at the high school level gears one towards the use of metaphors, formal structure, complex vocabulary, and hundreds of rhetorical strategies, all of which are known to be helpful on the SAT and other important standardized tests. I followed that very path, and needless to say, I'm not unhappy with my writing style, but only rather curious as to how it would have evolved following Orwell's guidelines.
Another point to bring up is the American election of 2016. I shall do my best to remain unbiased here. Two characters, with totally different English. On one hand, you have a man who speaks quite crass, oftentimes using made-up words. However, he is straight to the point and brief. On the other hand, you have an experienced politician who speaks eloquently, polished, and formally, much fitting Orwell's description of bad political language. I do not think that English was the main reason that Clinton lost, but I do think that language is a factor. Orwell wrote that "language corrupts thought," which is why it is a necessity to maintain good English. To me, it is clear that the language of the two candidates did play a role in what the public opined, although the results are still shocking.
Thus, considering present day modern English and its effects, it may not be terrible to take a page out of Orwell's book and maybe cut back on English that is flamboyant...or should I say showy?
Okay. I know it's been a while. Well, more than a while. But I really want to pick this back up. Especially because after two years, my writing style has changed a lot (hopefully for the better). So I'm going to try my hand at this again. Wish me luck!
Usually I never have time to get to the books I'm recommended. I haven't especially, as high school has kept me on my toes. But when I saw this book at the store, I decided to pick it up. And I'm definitely glad I did.
If I had a nickel for every time I have been told to read Michael Crichton, I wouldn't need my college fund! I finally got to one of his best works, Timeline. Crichton's writing style kept me engrossed the whole book, and I realized I have a "thing" for science fiction. This book is about time travel, so I can assure you that if you liked The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, you're going to like this. It's about a company that creates a device that will allow a sort of time travel. When one of Yale's professors gets stuck in 1357 trying it out, three of his graduate students travel back to try and rescue him. It seems like a simple enough plot, but the twists and details that Crichton implements weave an elaborate and captivating story arc.
Crichton has mentioned that since historical fiction isn't his usual forte, he had to extensively research the details of the fourteenth century. Obviously there were some inaccuracies, but as this book largely falls under fiction, glitches are totally acceptable. Another aspect of the book I really liked was the science part. Concepts like quantum physics, generally tough to understand, were explained well enough for most people to easily grasp.
This was a very logical book. Having read other books on time travel, I can say that this one will appeal to those not just reading for a story, but also for a good theory and explanation. A curious incorporation I liked was that there were small illustrations throughout the book. Maps, diagrams, and pictures helped me visualize the setting and make sense of the physics explanations.
Crichton's writing style interests me. He isn't P.G. Wodehouse, but he also isn't Stephanie Meyer. Okay, Stephanie Meyer is a terrible compared to any writer. Maybe Glenn Beck surpasses her though. Ooh. I'm walking on the edge here. But you get my point. I like his style, because it means that readers of all levels will be able to follow along.
Something else worth mentioning about this book is that it gets pretty gory in some parts. Set in the fourteenth century during a troublesome period, it is quite understandable that the book doesn't portray a rosy picture. However, there are some especially gruesome scenes which gave me shivers. The gory parts were a good addition though, as it gave the book a more realistic touch.
In this book, nobility and the hoi polloi are mostly portrayed as downright savages. And this was set in France, which gave me a new perspective on Europe. When we think of Europe and it's history, most of us picture strict etiquette, fancy and proper attire, refined speech, and the like. However, this book depicted Europeans as barbarous and merciless towards the weak, speaking in crude English and uncouth and uncultured. Even the nobility, who were rich and resided in large establishments, were such descriptors . I do not know how historically accurate these portrayals are, but I liked the refreshing change from the usually Elizabethan-type depiction of Europe.
In conclusion, I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a good science and historical fiction read. It does provide with much insight (at least it did for me) and plenty of plot twists! I can't wait to read another book by Michael Crichton!
Dear Viewers,
You might wonder why I'm posting a review on a book that is pretty old. Well, I want to start posting on classics, partly because I want to see what they are all about, and also because its high time I started reading them. So if you find classics boring for whatever reason, don't open this blog for a while. But if you just LOVE classics, keep checking, cause I'll keep posting! Read on!
Jonathan Livingstone Seagull is a book written by Richard Bach (no, another Bach) in 1970. It is about a society of seagulls, in which one particular seagull (Jonathan Livingstone) wants to be different. While the lives of the other gulls include only eating, sleeping and fighting, Jonathan loves to fly. He loves to experiment with speed; how fast he can go, how many tricks he can do, etc. Due to his unworthy experiments, he is banished and made an outcast. So, he goes to a reclusive hilltop where he can practice in peace. Then, suddenly, he goes to heaven, which he learns is NOT a place...
I won't give anymore away, since the book by itself is extremely short, only 28 pages! All I can tell you is that this book is suitable for 10+ (only simple English) and that though its size is small, it is quite touching and inspirational. A must-read!
