What is writing? This is a question that is rarely discussed among people. I believe that most people have written something at least once in their lifetime. Yet if asked this question, no one can undoubtedly explain what the word “writing” means. To me, writing is a way to express your feelings on paper. In the articles “Why I write” by Joan Didion and George Orwell, each author expresses a different opinion on what good writing is. Orwell states that a good author should not put his/her personality into their writings, “And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one 's own personality” (Orwell 5). Orwell believes that what makes a piece of writing exceptional is based on how interesting …show more content…
It is interesting how Didion started her article by stating the similarities between the three words in the title; “There you have three short unambiguous words that share a sound, and the sound they share is this: I, I, I” (1). Didion grabs the attention of her readers by starting with a playful but compelling phrase – “I, I, I”. Hardly anyone would notice that the three words have something in common, but Didion noticed it and she incorporated it into her writing. Immediately after reading the first line, I, as a reader got to know the author’s personality. On the other hand, Orwell started his articles by illustrating his childhood to the readers, “From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grew up I should be a writer” (1). From the first sentence of his article, one can interpret that writing is one of Orwell favorite things to do as a person. Orwell confesses that he wanted to abandon writing at times during his lifetime, though later disregarded the idea and went back to writing. It will be a big mistake for Orwell to throw away his special talent and go on to do other things. The two authors started their article in an uncommon way, but surprisingly more readers are attracted by this simple but exclusive way of …show more content…
I was taught that there is only one way of good writing. But as years pass by, I soon realized that there is more than one way to create an excellent piece of writing. I recognized that all famous authors have their own style of writing. Orwell, in my opinion, is an author who writes abstractly, whereas Didion is an author who writes tangibly. In his book Spanish Civil War, he states that he likes to keep his writings political and rigorous; “But among other things it contains a long chapter, full of newspaper quotations and the like, defending the Trotskyists who were accused of plotting with Franco” (4). Orwell mentions that he subsumed a whole chapter of newspaper quotations into his writing, which later on lead to a lot of bad criticism and caused him to regret his choice. From the example Orwell presented, his style of writing is illustrated as political and adamant. On the other hand, Didion’s writing is tangible. She likes to consolidate things she sees in the real world in her writings, in other words, combining reality into fiction. Didion describes herself using pictures in her mind to write, which the reader can see in many of her writings, “About the picture: the first was of white space. Empty space…This second picture was of something actually witnessed”. Didion once wrote a story about a lady in an airport, which is something that anyone could write about. But Didion made it remarkable by using
People write without even realizing. Every step a person takes is another step towards securing a future. When the pen meets the paper a writer is making history, it just depends on how they want to tell the world. By analyzing author's style and purpose, the reader can make a deeper connection with the author. George Orwell, James Baldwin, and Joan Didion are perfect examples of writers that can move a country with just a word, their use of imagery and personal examples are truly masterpieces. But when compared to each other… A whole new world is imaginable.
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.
Between the poem, ¨ No one died in Tiananmen Square¨ by William Lutz and the novel, 1984 by George Orwell there are multiple similarities. Subjects such as their government, their denial of history, and the use of doublethink and re-education are all parallel between the novel and the poem. For instance, both the governments have a highly strict government. Their governments are so controlling of their people that they use brute force in order to help re-educate them. For example, in 1984 the main character, Winston Smith was trying to go against their government, The Party, and because he tries to do so, he is placed in The Ministry of Love and brutally beaten by the man whom he assumed was a part of the Brotherhood, O'Brien. O'Brien claimed
In this day and age, writing is being portrayed through various mediums, such as film and television. Some of those portrayals depict writing as both good and bad depending on the situation that is present. Authors such as, by E. Shelley Reid, Kevin Roozen, and Anne Lamott all write about important writing concepts that are being depicted in films, like Freedom Writers. The film Freedom Writers shows a positive and accurate portrayal of writing in the sense that the writers should have a connection to what they are writing about, writing is a form of communication, and that writing does not have to be perfect the first time.
North Korea, China, and even Cuba are similar to 1984. They try to control their people just the same as in 1984, and just like in Jonestown. The only people who were free in 1984 were the Proles. The community in Jonestown began as everyone wanting to be there, and then as conditions worsened the people wanted to leave. They were not allowed to, much like 1984. The people in both situations are similar, in that they are oppressed by their governments, but only the people in Jonestown are given the ability to think they are even able to
It is fascinating to me to read the articles “Why I Write,” by George Orwell and Joan Didion. These authors touch on so many different topics for their reasons to writing. Their ideals are very much different, but their end results are the same, words on paper for people to read. Both authors made very descriptive points to how their minds wander on and off their writings while trying to write. They both often were writing about what they didn’t want to write about before they actually wrote what they wanted too. In George Orwell’s case, he wrote many things when he was young the he himself would laugh at today, or felt was unprofessional the but if he hadn’t done so he would not of been the writer he became. In Joan Didion’s case she would often be daydreaming about subjects that had nothing to do with what she intended on writing. Her style of writing in this article is actually more interesting because of this. Her mind wandering all over on many different subjects to how her writing came to her is very interesting for a person like me to read. My mind is also very restless on many different unneeded topics before I actually figure some sort of combined way to put words on to paper for people to read. Each author put down in their articles many ways of how there minds work while figuring out what they are going to write about. Both of the authors ended ...
New Historicism will focus on how language produces political hegemony and discourse within the text’s political and historical context. Structuralism will extend these conclusions and will hold the system of language in 1984 “under erasure” to determine how effective it is as an instrument of political hegemony (Derrida 1994). Nineteen Eighty-Four can be interpreted as a dystopian novel. A ‘dystopian novel’ is classified as a genre of literature that explores social and political structures. The features of dystopian fiction present themselves in Orwell’s novel through the creation of a degenerated society that is entirely controlled by the Inner Party. The Inner Party is personified through the ubiquitous figure of Big Brother, whose face is omnipresent in propaganda posters and the telescreens, which monitor the civilians’ everyday actions. The society in 1984 is totalitarian, in that a centralized party state and its bureaucratic apparatus control every area of life from labour, to culture, to thought, to language, to sexuality and everyday functioning. Upon first reading the novel, the grave ramifications of totalitarianism and its threat to human
Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.
When trying to think of a positive writing experience I have had in my lifetime, particularly as a small child, I could not think of any. So I began to ask myself why is it that I do not like writing, what happened in my life for me to have such animosity towards the act. I was finally able to think of an event and realized that it had all begun in the 3rd grade. One day, as a punishment for talking during class, I was kept inside during recess and was forced to write Wise Old Owls until my hands began to cramp. For 45 minutes, I was only allowed to write the same old phrase over and over again; “The wise old owl sat on an oak, the more he heard, the less he spoke, the less he spoke the more he heard, why can’t I be like that wise old bird”. To this day I can still remember that little rhyme and to this day I can remember that same feeling I felt as a elementary school student. From that point on I have always had an aversion for writing, it always seemed like a punishment. I still do not understand how people can journal. I don’t see how someone can sit down and write an entry or a novel just for the hell of it. It seems unnatural to me, but I guess that all of these feelings are just because I see writing as a punishment, an
Orwell’s writing showed he practiced what he preached. His use of metaphors created a picture in the reader’s mind. His essay stated clearly and concisely what is wrong with English writers and what is needed to be done to repair it.
Writing is a tool that is universally known and used as a primary source of communication. It is a process that is taught, practiced, and perfected throughout the course of one’s life. The process of learning to write begins in your early school years and continues to develop all the way through high school, college, and even beyond college. However, once you get to college writing tends to become a little bit more challenging and is typically more articulate. Writing can help you gain more knowledge and also help you to explore and discover new ideas. In terms of college writing, it is the process of being able to express your thoughts and ideas in an intellectual and effective way.
"George Orwell." British Writers. Scott-Kilvert, Ian, ed. Vol. VII. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984. 273-88. Print.
Focusing on the fleeting concept of writer’s motivation, Orwell challenges readers to find the same drive while reading this work, so they can apply it when they read other pieces. Orwell wants his audience to practice the motivation to read, in order for his audience to do justice to authors by digging deep enough in written works to find the message that was so politically, demonically driven. The purpose of this piece was to inform an audience of readers about the struggles of a writer. Since writers and writing are the subjects of the paper, Orwell would not likely be addressing this community because it is probably a struggle they already know. Orwell goes to great depth trying to explain his own writing journey and the general realizations he has gleaned from them, and in doing so, he speaks to an audience of readers who enjoy reading material that has this same depth. Orwell know’s that an author’s purpose is important to his audience because of the detail he goes into, comparing the writing process and the struggle for finding motivation to differing ideas and
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.
“Political languages --- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists --- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 167) George Orwell believed that the decline of a language must have political, economic and moral causes, and such deterioration will ultimately lead to the further corruption of thoughts. The spread and invasion of the abused languages, especially when prompted by political manipulation, can result in political conformity destructive to the people, the country and the truth.