In America, English is the national language. However, with many different cultures and ways of life, everyone doesn’t speak the same English. In the north, people tend to speak clearly and to some this is correct. In the south, people tend to tie their words together and to some this is incorrect. Ultimately, the question is, is what is good language what is bad and what causes the two.
In Orewell’s piece, he criticizes the English language starting from the teachers who teach us on to the authors who entertain us. He emphasizes how bad language begins with those to people and their bad habits. He also stresses that if we “remain strong in this fight against bad English” then we will soon overcome the bad habits and whatnot. Orewell talks about dying metaphors and usage of words that aren’t in layman term. He suggests that when authors use common metaphors and uncommon scientific words, they are writing incorrectly. Consequently, readers and other writers are reading, writing, and learning incorrectly.
In my opinion, Orewell’s essay was not efficient in any way. He was nothing short of a hypocrite doing what they do best. He speaks of creative writing and original methapors, but he uses neither. He speaks of using cumbersome words that nobody relates to, yet the majority of his essay was written as if he spoke old English. He doesn’t follow any of the rules that he strongly suggests will bring us out of this fight of bad English. He’s setting no example for the so-called unrightfully successful authors and novice writers.
The English language has many different meanings, expressions, causes and effects. So many, that there can no be one specific person determining which are the most perfect. As stated before different regions of the U.S. determine how those people talk, so unconsciously people read and write the way they speak. Many authors use metaphors to allow the audience to better relate to the message their relaying. Many authors use scientific and uncommon words to help broaden their readers vocabulary and to expose them to more than they knew before reading their piece. These critical readers pick up dictionaries and thesauruses and begin to further explore the language they’re so familiar with.
Orewell is neither the most qualified nor perfect person to suggest how authors should write. After all, no on is criticizing his piece and how it negatively drew the audience in. If he is criticizing the way English is taught then he’s ultimately criticizing the way people interpret. Many people are doing just fine without Orewell’s negative views of the English language.