Over the years, writing has been used as an art form, allowing people to write their thoughts. Though, the most torrential puzzle of writing is the reasoning behind the words on a page. The logic behind any piece of literature falls into categories of wants and needs. There are three essays to which these categories are explained in further detail with more depth. Firstly, “Not So Deadly Sin” which focuses on the act of lying and exaggeration. Secondly, “A Place to Stand On” an essay of assimilation and connection to the past. And finally, “Why I Write” a composition on how writing grows along side the author. Each of these essays relays the proposition of writing being more than an escape, but less than an accustomed piece of work. Barbara Kingsolver, author of “Not So Deadly Sin” allows herself to …show more content…
This essay is distinctly about how life experiences alter the way in which your writings travel. The ups and downs of life will determine the perspective you see of your life, in turn, determining how you feel or express yourself. Orwell states, “his subject matter will be determined by the age he lives in – at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own” (265). This statement proves how writing develops with age and how through different time periods, has evolved. Orwell's essay focuses on the indirect wants. Every person wants to become successful, or grow older, and admittedly, with those wants, your writings grow. In this composition, Orwell states that there are four great motives for writing, which are: sheer egoism, the desire to remembered; aesthetic enthusiasm, to gain pleasure; historical impulse, to find the hidden truth; and finally, political purpose, to persuade people's thoughts. These motives are proof of Orwell's wants in life, he indulges in swaying people's minds and getting them to think in a predetermined
Orwell himself is the one who coined the term of political purpose, and because of this, he seems to be the best person to compare other writers to when discussing political purpose. Orwell defined political purpose as, “Desire to push the world in a certain direction,” and he writes, “…no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude” (3). Orwell, therefore, believes that art is ultimately political in purpose whether that was the intention or not. He believes that no work can be “free from political bias.” He seems to be of the opinion that art must have political purpose or else it will be “lifeless,” much like his earlier writing. Alternately,
The purpose of Baker’s essay and its placement in The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers is to encourage young writers to realize that writing truly is a privilege. It is also placed in the book to show college English students that writing does not have to be a grim task and that thinking of it in that manner will only make the student average.
“I write because I love. I write for the survival of self, my children, my family, my community and for the Earth. I write to help keep our stories, our truths, our language alive”. (qtd. in Anthology 396.)
The time frame of this article is in 1946, a year after World War 2 has ended. Orwell takes the current situation into consideration when he appeals to his audience. Therefore, he addresses areas of politics in combination with recent events to try to persuade his audience while inducing a connection between the reader and his article. Orwell writes, “Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face…”. The reader makes a connection with the article because they can remember the previous experience of the topics in their time frame. However, Orwell uses pathos to finally convince the audience of his argument when he writes “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, and the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets”. This technique is highly effective because readers automatically feel a sense of pity and sadness which in turn persuades the audience of the argument and convinces them to agree with Orwell’s
I frankly confess that I have, as a general thing, but little enjoyment of it, and that it has never seemed to me to be, as it were, a first-rate literary form. . . . But it is apt to spoil two good things – a story and a moral, a meaning and a form; and the taste for it is responsible for a large part of the forcible-feeding writing that has been inflicted upon the world. The only cases in whi...
This is an important example of the foolishness of writers that do not understand the metaphors, similes, and symbolic expressions to help the reader understand their ideas in the writing. I also agree that writers do not use words “precisely”, which can confuse the reader. Many writers are not fully aware of the meaning of the words they choose, which Orwell breaks down in the writings he is analyzing. Clarity in the writing process is conveyed with great accuracy by Orwell to make this second point.
Although the greater picture is that reading is fundamental, the two authors have a few different messages that they seek to communicate to their audiences. “The Joy of Reading and Writing” depicts how reading serves as a mechanism to escape the preconceived notions that constrain several groups of people from establishing themselves and achieving success in their lifetimes. “Reading to Write,” on the other hand, offers a valuable advice to aspiring writers. The author suggests that one has to read, read, and read before he or she can become a writer. Moreover, he holds an interesting opinion concerning mediocre writing. He says, “Every book you pick has its own lesson or lessons, and quite often the bad books have more to teach than the good ones” (p.221). Although these two essays differ in their contents and messages, the authors use the same rhetorical mode to write their essays. Both are process analyses, meaning that they develop their main argument and provide justification for it step by step. By employing this technique, the two authors create essays that are thoughtful, well supported, and easy to understand. In addition, Alexie and King both add a little personal touch to their writings as they include personal anecdotes. This has the effect of providing support for their arguments. Although the two essays have fairly different messages, the authors make use of anecdotes and structure their writing in a somewhat similar
Upon my reading of the 1984 novel, I was fascinated by George Orwell’s vision of the future. Orwell describes a world so extreme that a question comes to mind, asking what would encourage him to write such a novel. 1984 took place in the future, but it seemed like it was happening in the past. George Orwell was born in 1903 and died in 1950; he has seen the horrific tides of World War II and. As I got deeper into this novel, I began to see similar events in world history built into 1984.
The two essays, Splintered Literacies and Writing in Sacred Spaces, both revolve around the inherent “why” of storytelling. Each addresses a different facet, with the former delving into how the types and varieties of writing we experience affect our identities. Meanwhile, the latter explores the idea of thought concretization. Humanity developed writing as a tool to capture the otherwise intangible. Whether belief or abstract concept, the act of putting something in writing creates a concreteness, trapping the thought in a jar like a firefly. The thoughts and ideas we manifest onto the page or into the air give life to our knowledge, perpetuating its’ existence.
A successful writer is he who is able to transmit ideas, emotions, and wisdom on to his readers. He is cable of stirring emotions and capturing the reader's attention with vivid descriptions and clever dialogues. The writer can even play with the meanings of words and fuse reality with fiction to achieve his goal of taking the reader on a wonderful journey. His tools are but words, yet the art of writing is found in the use of the language to create though-provoking pieces that defy the changing times. Between the lines, voices and images emerge. Not everyone can write effectively and invoke these voices. It is those few who can create certain psychological effects on the reader who can seize him (or her) with inspiring teachings, frightening thoughts, and playful games with the language. These people are true writers…
Brown, and Oldsey. ed. Critical Essays on George Orwell. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1986.
The works both titled “Why I Write” by Joan Didion and George Orwell each aim to inform an audience of an obvious topic, their reasons for writing. These essays are written 30 years apart so there is a difference in time period besides the contrast in each writers’ personalities that could affect their motives to write. Orwell wrote his essay first while Didion’s essay served as a response to Orwell’s ideas. Although these essays share a title, they are different in multiple ways. In addition, they do have many similarities as well.
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell: Critical Essays. London: Harvill Secker: 2009. 270-286. Print.
Questions on Writing Strategy 1. A major purpose of the first two paragraphs of the essay is not only as an introduction but to set the mood. Orwell explains some of the hardships he goes through daily only because he is connected to the British Empire. For example, while officiating a football game, a Burman tripped him and the other ref just completely disregarded him and laughed. Events like these happen on a daily basis for Orwell and he is fed up with it.
Based on the two essays, George Orwell is a vivid writer who uses a unique point of view and strong themes of pride and role playing to convey his messages. His writings are easy to pick out because of the strengths of these messages. Just like politicians in government, people with power turn corrupt to stay in power and keep their reputations. Anyone who takes on power must be prepared to live with the consequences of his actions. Orwell knows this challenge well and conveys this principle in his writing. After all, his narration is based on real life experiences and not fictional fantasies.