Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Norman Mailer

This is an example of why "influential" is a bad word for this sort of question. Or why this is just a bad question, in the "Who's better? The Stones or Beatles?" sort of way.

What has Orwell influenced? He's made people aware and vigilant, but is 1984 or Animal Farm influencing any writer? They're not terribly complex books.

I'd say his short story "A Hanging" explained more eloquently all the reasons I loathe capital punishment than I ever could. But it hasn't influenced me in any way.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is an example of why "influential" is a bad word for this sort of question. Or why this is just a bad question, in the "Who's better? The Stones or Beatles?" sort of way.

What has Orwell influenced? He's made people aware and vigilant, but is 1984 or Animal Farm influencing any writer? They're not terribly complex books.

I'd say his short story "A Hanging" explained more eloquently all the reasons I loathe capital punishment than I ever could. But it hasn't influenced me in any way.

Actually, Orwell's essay on writing is absolutely mandatory for anyone who would make their living by their words. It may not be as pithy or as well-known as Elements of Style but it's part of the writer's canon in contrast to Strunk and White's popularity with high school english teachers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Some criticism of the Iraqi bonds thing I posted the other day.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is an example of why "influential" is a bad word for this sort of question. Or why this is just a bad question, in the "Who's better? The Stones or Beatles?" sort of way.

What has Orwell influenced? He's made people aware and vigilant, but is 1984 or Animal Farm influencing any writer? They're not terribly complex books.

I'd say his short story "A Hanging" explained more eloquently all the reasons I loathe capital punishment than I ever could. But it hasn't influenced me in any way.

I've not read the book Wonkster mentions, but I will look for it tomorrow. But Orwell is hardly Animal farm and 1984, and move on.

Down and Out in Paris and London is a great read. you would like it, I bet. He has other novels that are quite good, and cover very tiny little things in very simple people's lives.

Keep the Aspidistra flying or Coming Up for Air are examples.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, Orwell's essay on writing is absolutely mandatory for anyone who would make their living by their words. It may not be as pithy or as well-known as Elements of Style but it's part of the writer's canon in contrast to Strunk and White's popularity with high school english teachers.

I'll look for it online. You can find a lot of his essays free for some reason.

BTW, this is a good book on writing:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Art-Throug.../dp/0446691437

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I've not read the book Wonkster mentions, but I will look for it tomorrow. But Orwell is hardly Animal farm and 1984, and move on.

Down and Out in Paris and London is a great read. you would like it, I bet. He has other novels that are quite good, and cover very tiny little things in very simple people's lives.

Keep the Aspidistra flying or Coming Up for Air are examples.

Skip this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, Orwell's essay on writing is absolutely mandatory for anyone who would make their living by their words. It may not be as pithy or as well-known as Elements of Style but it's part of the writer's canon in contrast to Strunk and White's popularity with high school english teachers.

That's an amusing essay. And it stands my earlier comment that his style is simple on its head.

The problem with those essays - and there are many like them - is that they assume language can be captured and made better. They destroy the idea of prose as poetry as they argue in favor of that result.

But it was amusing. I still think he's better doing a simple riff on an Indian walking to the gallows.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's an amusing essay. And it stands my earlier comment that his style is simple on its head.

The problem with those essays - and there are many like them - is that they assume language can be captured and made better. They destroy the idea of prose as poetry as they argue in favor of that result.

But it was amusing. I still think he's better doing a simple riff on an Indian walking to the gallows.

I cannot believe that you, with all your rants on legalese and the way lawyers torture the truth, do not recognize that simplicity in language is a cornerstone of speaking the truth.

Hemingway, Burroughs, John D. McDonald. All these writers and others express themselves with directness and simplicty.

Even politicians, sometimes, embrace this in their communication. Can anyone deny that, whatever else you think of Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is one of the most memorable and enduring quotes of the 20th century?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I cannot believe that you, with all your rants on legalese and the way lawyers torture the truth, do not recognize that simplicity in language is a cornerstone of speaking the truth.

Hemingway, Burroughs, John D. McDonald. All these writers and others express themselves with directness and simplicty.

Even politicians, sometimes, embrace this in their communication. Can anyone deny that, whatever else you think of Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is one of the most memorable and enduring quotes of the 20th century?

You're mixing apples and oranges here, Wonk. Simple language is a hallmark of the truth, but its not necessarily a hallmark of interesting writing. I love Vonnegut and he wrote as simply as one could. He also wrote wild fiction. You can have simple prose in fiction, non-fiction, journalism, etc. And in each of those areas, you can also have poetic prose. Orwell fails to distinguish between the art of writing prose and what he sees as poor, opaque use of language. When writing a simple essay or legal papers, simple writing is good. But when writing something for the reader's enjoyment and entertainment, the "poetic value" of numerous literary tricks and interesting flow or language is important. There's a distinction between "poorly written" and "not written as simply as it could have been."

And for somebody as intellectually pretentious as Orwell to suggest his prose is anything approaching simple is a bad joke. He writes in a deliberately snotty style recently cribbed by Hitchens. I love reading Hitchens and I never think "Wow, this guy should write in a simpler fashion." That would destory the beauty of his work, which to me lies in the prose. But YMMV. Most people fixate on the message, and if that's what Orwell is suggesting we should do, in a simple way, then I'd suiggest, were he alive, he take some of his own medicine before penning anything as dense as that fucking essay.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Burroughs

Burroughs? He is not one of the greatest writers of the last century. And he is not simple.

Oddly, if you want to talk simple prose, Ayn Rand's is among the least complicated. Which might be why I couldn;t stand any of her shit. It's all "see spot run" with a tirade here and there.

And you'd think I'd like that.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And for somebody as intellectually pretentious as Orwell to suggest his prose is anything approaching simple is a bad joke. He writes in a deliberately snotty style recently cribbed by Hitchens. I love reading Hitchens and I never think "Wow, this guy should write in a simpler fashion."

Richard Dawkins did a TLS book review of "God Is Not Great," which is kind of like Ty doing a book review of Gravity's Rainbow. Still, even he had to blush over the controversy of Hitchens's line about the Catholic church's policy on child abuse being, in the Latin phrasing, "No child's behind left." The point being that sometimes Hitchens's wicked style gets in the way of his point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Richard Dawkins did a TLS book review of "God Is Not Great," which is kind of like Ty doing a book review of Gravity's Rainbow. Still, even he had to blush over the controversy of Hitchens's line about the Catholic church's policy on child abuse being, in the Latin phrasing, "No child's behind left." The point being that sometimes Hitchens's wicked style gets in the way of his point.

Being a grandstanding class clown most of my life, I appreciate that. And the book is highly readable. It's filled with great little tricks like that, which, IMO, you need to lighten an otherwise vicious polemic.

I think Hitchens knows he gets in his own more than any rebuttal to his usually well grounded arguments. My suspicion is that he does that on purpose for amusement.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Richard Dawkins did a TLS book review of "God Is Not Great," which is kind of like Ty doing a book review of Gravity's Rainbow. Still, even he had to blush over the controversy of Hitchens's line about the Catholic church's policy on child abuse being, in the Latin phrasing, "No child's behind left." The point being that sometimes Hitchens's wicked style gets in the way of his point.

if you respond to someone commenting on Orwell, when he has clearly not read Orwell, then you are as much the fool. of course, i realize that you haven't even read the guy you're talking about, so you get a pass, but I don't want others to start responding when Sebastian goes into troll mode.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you respond to someone commenting on Orwell, when he has clearly not read Orwell, then you are as much the fool. of course, i realize that you haven't even read the guy you're talking about, so you get a pass, but I don't want others to start responding when Sebastian goes into troll mode.

Troll? Jesus, do you masturbate to photos of Orwell or something?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you respond to someone commenting on Orwell, when he has clearly not read Orwell, then you are as much the fool. of course, i realize that you haven't even read the guy you're talking about, so you get a pass, but I don't want others to start responding when Sebastian goes into troll mode.

I read Animal Farm in eighth grade.