this is an english paper. it's pretty short and (hopefully) funny, too. if anyone feels like reading it and giving feedback, that would rock. but no pressure because yeah, homework=lots, etc. ( orwellian )
6) You might possibly want consider contemplating a period of thinking about forming a focus group to decide if maybe a slightly less wishy-washy opening paragraph is a good idea. Right or wrong you should stick by your thesis.
1) Your treatment of the first rule seems perfectly acceptable and appropriately humorous.
2) I think you have the word indolent in the wrong place. Perhaps it would make more sense describing tendency. You seem to lose the point of the second rule, as your example is not about using a long word where a short one will do; instead it's about leaving out words altogether, regardless of length.
Even if you argue that using shorter words doesn't always help I don't think you can make much headway as this is actually pretty much airtight. If a shorter word will "do" that means it works just as well, if not better. So citing shorter words that do not work just as well as longer words does not break this rule. Now let's try arguing variety: if the shorter has been used repeatedly it will be better to use a longer word because that longer word will break up the monotony. Nope, once again we have a short word that will not "do," so therefore the rule is once again inapplicable.
3) Notice that your response to this rule is identical to your response to rule number two. If I were to attempt an hilarious send-up of “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out,” I would take aim at the word possible. Consider the following sentence: "I am a banana." Which words are impossible to cut? None of them! It is quite possible for one to cut out every single word. Thus Orwell's third rule means "Do not keep a single word you write," which in turn is an excellent excuse for failing to complete this assignment.
However, if you interpret the adage as meaning "Always cut unnecessary words," we can work with it. Then we have things like "I have been in the process of considering" becoming "I have been considering."
4) Did passive voice pick up a new definition when I wasn't looking? The example you give is not, as far as I can tell, passive. Passive voice would be when the subject of the sentence is being acted upon. Your example is certainly ungainly and could easily be improved to "I have been considering," but is not passive under that definition. Similar examples in passive voice would be "The matter has been considered." and "I have been considered by the matter." Of course, you seem to be agreeing with him over the importance of this rule, which is at odds with what I took to be your thesis, especially since you can undeniably fight him on this one.
We can attack Orwell because of his use of the word can. There are no sentences in which active voice cannot be used. Yet passive voice is preferable when the object being acted upon is more important than the object acting upon it. For example, "Pride and Prejudice was written by Emily Brontës" is superior to "Emily Brontës wrote Pride and Prejudice" in an essay about the novel Pride and Prejudice. Neither one is suggested if your teacher knows that Jane Austen write that particular book.
Explaining that "I have been considering" is more similar to "I have considered" than to "I consider" is not exactly a bombshell. I think most readers will be able to grasp that the past perfect progressive is closer to the past perfect than to the present without you telling them (even if they were not able to name said tenses).
5) It can be argued that "everyday English equivalent" means a word or phrase in everyday English with the same connotation rather than a similar one. "Something I can’t quite put my finger on" does not have the (please forgive me) je ne sais quoi of "je ne sais quoi." It is a somewhat tenuous argument, and I don't think it's strong enough to completely annul your argument.
"His rules are good for most situations, but they are not the rules..." This should probably be phrased differently as telling your reader that Orwell's rules aren't rules sounds a bit off.
1) Your treatment of the first rule seems perfectly acceptable and appropriately humorous.
2) I think you have the word indolent in the wrong place. Perhaps it would make more sense describing tendency. You seem to lose the point of the second rule, as your example is not about using a long word where a short one will do; instead it's about leaving out words altogether, regardless of length.
Even if you argue that using shorter words doesn't always help I don't think you can make much headway as this is actually pretty much airtight. If a shorter word will "do" that means it works just as well, if not better. So citing shorter words that do not work just as well as longer words does not break this rule. Now let's try arguing variety: if the shorter has been used repeatedly it will be better to use a longer word because that longer word will break up the monotony. Nope, once again we have a short word that will not "do," so therefore the rule is once again inapplicable.
3) Notice that your response to this rule is identical to your response to rule number two. If I were to attempt an hilarious send-up of “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out,” I would take aim at the word possible. Consider the following sentence: "I am a banana." Which words are impossible to cut? None of them! It is quite possible for one to cut out every single word. Thus Orwell's third rule means "Do not keep a single word you write," which in turn is an excellent excuse for failing to complete this assignment.
However, if you interpret the adage as meaning "Always cut unnecessary words," we can work with it. Then we have things like "I have been in the process of considering" becoming "I have been considering."
4) Did passive voice pick up a new definition when I wasn't looking? The example you give is not, as far as I can tell, passive. Passive voice would be when the subject of the sentence is being acted upon. Your example is certainly ungainly and could easily be improved to "I have been considering," but is not passive under that definition. Similar examples in passive voice would be "The matter has been considered." and "I have been considered by the matter." Of course, you seem to be agreeing with him over the importance of this rule, which is at odds with what I took to be your thesis, especially since you can undeniably fight him on this one.
We can attack Orwell because of his use of the word can. There are no sentences in which active voice cannot be used. Yet passive voice is preferable when the object being acted upon is more important than the object acting upon it. For example, "Pride and Prejudice was written by Emily Brontës" is superior to "Emily Brontës wrote Pride and Prejudice" in an essay about the novel Pride and Prejudice. Neither one is suggested if your teacher knows that Jane Austen write that particular book.
Explaining that "I have been considering" is more similar to "I have considered" than to "I consider" is not exactly a bombshell. I think most readers will be able to grasp that the past perfect progressive is closer to the past perfect than to the present without you telling them (even if they were not able to name said tenses).
5) It can be argued that "everyday English equivalent" means a word or phrase in everyday English with the same connotation rather than a similar one. "Something I can’t quite put my finger on" does not have the (please forgive me) je ne sais quoi of "je ne sais quoi." It is a somewhat tenuous argument, and I don't think it's strong enough to completely annul your argument.
"His rules are good for most situations, but they are not the rules..." This should probably be phrased differently as telling your reader that Orwell's rules aren't rules sounds a bit off.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment