Orwell

Message no. 239
Posted by Dr. Suellyn Winkle on Monday, March 17, 2003 6:24pm
Subject Questions for Class Discussion

1.  Choose a piece of political writing from a current

publication and analyze its misuses according to Orwell.

 The piece should be only one paragraph.

2.  Write a paragraph in which you explain to your

audience what the principles of good writing are.  You

may or may not refer to Orwell.

3.  In a short paragraph, analyze your own writing

style, using Orwell's criteria.

Message no. 240[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by SHERRY M ISLER on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:13pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1)  I just recently read an essay called "Oil and The

Economy: Inextricably Linked" by Stephen Leeb and Donna

Leeb.  I think Orwell would actually be impressed with

the writing.  It is certainly not passive or full of

"fluffy" words.  They do not use a long word where a

short one will do, nor do they use foreign phrases etc.

Although, the topic and their concept may be considered

"barbarous" to conservative people.  (It's a great paper

I think.)

2)  In my opinion, (not Orwell's) a good writer: -knows

his/her audience -writes according to the audience

intended to be reached -uses a balance of emotional

appeal as well as relavent content to relay the goal of

the writing -maintains the balance of effectivly

relaying his/her message without offending or putting

the reader on the defense and closed the idea being

presented -organizes the structure of the writing to

lead the reader to his/her message and open them to the

perspective presented -effectivly inform the reader of

the content in writing I think a good writer captivates

the attention of the reader, entices them into the

reading, maintains the reader's interest, and leaves the

reader with either new knowledge or a new perspective

that at the very least gets the reader thinking.

3)  Gosh, that's hard to catagorize my writing style

(never give it much thought, I just write.)  I guess I'd

be a cross between "Operators or Verbal False Limbs" and

"Pretentious Diction" according to Orwell.  I do like to

use phrases and I like to use words to "dress up simple

statements and give an air of scientific impartiality".

Yet, I do not use these words or "give an air of

scientific impartiality" unless they are truly words

that are in fact based on facts and scientific

knowledge, etc.  I am impartial if that is the nature of

my writing for that particular aim or audience and I am

biast if it is a perswasive type of work.  I guess I

don't like classifying myself as any particular type of

writer or conforming to meet anyones "rules" that

restrict my creative or academic development.  I like

input and guidelines to apply to and learn from, but I

don't like being told there is only one way or "never"

without being open to interactive discussion and

learning to further develop as both a writer and a

reader.

Message no. 242[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:57am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.   The New York Times, March 18, 2003

    “The 4.5 million residents of the city had little

official information about the outside events that made

war appear imminent, notably President Bush's

announcement in the Azores on Sunday that he was calling

a halt to months of United Nations diplomacy over Iraq's

banned weapons and Saddam Hussein's government.”

    Orwell says that one mistake of modern language is

“instead of using single word … a verb becomes a phrase”

/577/. If he were given the chance to edit this excerpt

from the New York Time’s article, probably he would

change some phrases for one word. For example, he might

have replaced “had little official information about”

with “knew little about.” Orwell might have also reduced

“that he was calling a halt to months of United Nations

diplomacy” to “which ended months of United Nations”.

Moreover, since the word “imminent” comes from Latin

immin ns, imminent- present participle of immin re, to

overhang – he would consider the use of this word as a

pretentious diction and might have substituted it with

the word “probable” or “likely”. If Orwell had to cut

out some words, he would probably take out “appear” and

“and Saddam Hussein’s government”.

   Thus, here is what we would have:

   “The 4.5 million residents of the city knew little

about the outside events that made war very likely,

notably President Bush's announcement in the Azores on

Sunday which ended months of United Nations diplomacy

over Iraq's banned weapons”

2.   First, you should define and consider your

audience. Then you can start with some free writing from

which you can choose one main idea and write a clear and

specific thesis. After writing the first draft, you

should forget about the essay for a few days; thus, when

you read it again he will be able to look at it as a

neutral reader who is a better editor than the biased

author. Things that seemed fine may be detested in three

days. Finally, if you have a friend who will read and

comment on your essay, get into a discussion with him:

you can only benefit from it. Here’s a link with some

rules similar to Orwell’s:

http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/good_writing/general_.principles.html

3.   I pretty much try to stick to Orwell’s criteria for

good writing. My writing style is still in process of

transition, probably because of different logic and

syntax rules in Bulgarian and English language. One of

Orwell’s principles to which I don’t completely agree is

“never use a long word where a short one will do” /583/.

If I have to mention one thing in the same paragraph

several times, first, I would use the simplest word but

after that I would look for a synonym and I will use

even if it’s longer. In English people would use the

same simple word all the time, while in Bulgarian people

would use different synonyms. In Bulgarian literature

using the same word is considered repetition and poor

vocabulary of the author. Bulgarian writing has its

impact on me; that’s why I work a lot with thesaurus.

  I also disapprove Orwell’s urge for not using foreign

words and forming words using prefixes and affixes.

Probably, if we have to obey this rule the English

vocabulary has to be reduced to half, including only

words with Anglo-Saxon origin. Many of Old English and

Middle English words have their origins in foreign

language. Probably, if we listen to Orwell we will

achieve a real staleness of English language: it will

never enrich itself with new words, it will be stuck in

one place and it will use only one word for each object,

perception or idea.

Message no. 243[Branch from no. 242]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:40am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Daniel,    I think that you did an excellent job of

analyzing that paragraph in response to Mrs. Winkle's

first question.  Not only did you choose a very

appropriate paragraph to review but you also went into

detail using not only one but many of the critiques that

Orwell used in his piece.  You even criticized the use

of a word that contained a Latin root, which showed that

you put a lot of thought into your response.  Plus, I

liked the fact that you included the revised version of

the paragraph you chose, just like Orwell did in his

essay.  Also, your link added more depth to your answer.

 Good Job!

Message no. 257[Branch from no. 242]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:48pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Daniel,

I have to agree with you when it comes to not wanting to

use the same word repeatedly in a paragraph.  I

constantly find myself looking in a thesaurus to not

only find another word to use, but one that will help me

express what I want to say more clearly.

Great post!

Selena Riess :o)

Message no. 266[Branch from no. 242]
Posted by SHERRY M ISLER on Friday, March 21, 2003 12:41pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

   I agree with the process of drafting, leaving the

work for a little while (I usually only leave it a

couple hours or so), and having as many (credible)

people read and "proof" it as possible.  You are

absolutly correct that it is necessary to take a break

every so often from the writing in order to get a

refreshed perpective to editing and catching mistakes

that we tend to miss after working on the same thing for

a long period of time.  It also helps me to print out my

writing after I've edited it a couple times on the

screen; I find that I catch even more on the printed

page that I somehow overlook when editing in the

computer.    Hmm, about your last question...I also

disagree with "never use a long word..." because I

myself like to use larger words as they are an

indication of vocabulary and appear more intellectual.

I think using short words repetitivly is appropriatly

simple for things such as newpaper articles that must be

brief and to the point, children's books where

simplicity is key, newsmagazine editorials, etc.  That

type of stuff requires simplicity without extensive

lengthy words or wording in order to get the required

message across to the reader in a set discipline.  I

also think that in general, we Americans like to keep

things as simple and as easy as possible for ourselves.

Which is one of the reasons why we have so many simple

words and use them frequently for the same description.

It depends on the audience, the reason for writing, the

message beying conveyed, etc as to what type of

vocabulary and to what extent I will exercise an

expanded vocabulary--I'd like to think this is what

every writer considers when composing their writing.

Message no. 268[Branch from no. 266]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Friday, March 21, 2003 2:15pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Just like you, Sherry, I also like to proofread and edit

my essays after I print them.  You brought up an

interesting point that in general "Americans like to

keep things as simple and as easy as possible." In my

english language school in Bulgaria we often compared

British and American use of words and spelling -

Americans will often choose the simpler and the easier

to remember.

Message no. 244[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:57am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  When I found the following passage, I was certain

that Orwell would have had a great time criticizing it

thoroughly.  It was sort of funny reading this paragraph

because Orwell really points out some bad yet common

flaws that are very evident in this passage.  It's not

that it's a horrible paragraph, but it's just that it

seems, in some aspects, pompous.  On the topic of human

rights in Iraq, Mr. Max van der Stoel, the Special

Rapporteur, writes, "In assessing the veracity of

information received, the Special Rapporteur considers

its source or sources, its detail, and its context and

then seeks corroborative information. While the Special

Rapporteur is not able to determine definitively the

veracity of all reports and allegations received, his

accumulated experience leads him to conclude that it is

important to report serious allegations which are prima

facie credible insofar as they are consistent with past

events and the established pattern within the country."

I think that Orwell would say that the writer used big

words when he could have chosen smaller words, or in

Orwell's words, he uses "pretentious diction."  For

instance, Mr. Stoel includes the following words in his

piece of writing: "veracity, prima facie, allegation,

and corroborative."  All of these words could easily be

replaced with smaller words: veracity with truthfulness;

prima facie with obviously; allegation with claim; and

corroborative with confirming.  I do understand that for

some writers big words come just as easily and naturally

as smaller words, but when one is trying to write a

political piece of writing, he should try to minimize

his words and make his piece as concise as it can get

while keeping the point intact.  This is what Orwell was

saying and what I have learned throughout my schooling

days in English class.  Plus, in this passage, the

writer uses "verbal false limbs" and unneeded adjectives

in place of correct or more precise verbs and

adjectives.  For example, he says, "his accumulated

experience" and "leads him to conclude."  These verbs

and adjectives take away from the overall clearness and

concision of the paragraph.

2.  There are many aspects that should be considered

while examining good writing.  From my past experiences

and lessons, I have found that a good piece of

literature should be as concise as possible.  Leave out

the fluff and extra details that don't really add to the

overall message.  Stay focused on answering the question

asked, if there is a question asked, and only include

outside examples if they are relevant to the topic.  Use

correct syntax to make your statements clearer to the

reader.  And like Orwell says, "Never use the passive

where you can use the active."  Be interesting and

include unique phrases or remarks to state your opinion

so that you can keep the reader involved and awake.

Don't be too vague, but don't be too precise in your

responses.  These guidelines are hard to follow, and

thus, they are very easy to break.  However, these

principles shouldn't be too hard to follow, so do your

best to keep inline with them.

3.  I'm not too sure if my writing is fantastic or

horrible, but I think that it is somewhere in between

the two.  I follow a somewhat organized pattern for

writing essays.  I use topic sentences, titles, about

four to five paragraphs, an introduction, and a

conclusion.  I usually use the active voice instead of

the passive voice, which I think is the norm.  Plus, I

try not to use "pretentious diction" but sometimes I

really like some big words, so I will use them in place

of a smaller word.  I don't know why I like some words

better than others, but I guess that it is a flaw that I

need to correct.  I usually don't use dead metaphors or

meaningless words, but sometimes, I feel like I am

fluffing up my essays when I shouldn't be.  I don't know

whether it is fluff or just detail that I feel that

needs to be included, but again, I will work on that

too.

Message no. 264[Branch from no. 244]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Friday, March 21, 2003 11:03am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Diction depends entirely on your audience. For example,

for TOEFL and SAT 1 textbooks taught me to use many

words I had never heard. Actually, SAT has its own

vocabulary of 5,000 words most of which are “big” and

“pretentious” words which often are with foreign origin.

While the journalist you cited, Angela, discriminates a

great part of his audience. These are words which you

don’t use in conversation and people who don’t read a

lot might not know them. And they will be frustrated by

this diction and sometimes reluctant to look them up in

a dictionary.

Message no. 245[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:58pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Is it ironic that an author proposes laconic over

loquacious? (excuse the pretentious diction)

1. From BBC News, March 19, 2003

"This war is a test of the concepts behind the theory of

"effects-based warfare". This is the new "in-phrase" in

military circles - the idea that you can achieve

military goals by carefully selecting critical groups of

targets whose destruction could effectively collapse the

regime and disorientate its armed forces, thus avoiding

the need to defeat the Iraqi military unit by unit."

Filled with glitzy catch phrases it's not entirely clear

what this paragraph has to say.  It uses the self

proclaimed "in-phrase" as one of Orwell's "Verbal False

Limbs".  There is prodigious use  (oops, I did it too)

of pretentious diction.  War has been waged simliarly

for thousands of years without the frilly words to ease

the barbarity.

I think the metaphors used here are not dying but are

certainly stagnant, at least in the circles I read in.

This articles whole crutch is based on Operators.

Re-written it could just as easily say:

"...you can achieve military goals by destroying

stategic targets, thus destroying the command structure

of the armed forces..."

2.  Good writing is enormously subjective.  As one once

said, "you can please some of the people some of the

time..."  I think there should be a focus to any work

and that it should appeal to a certain sub-set of

people.  That is of course if one is accorded the luxury

of writing as an art form.  Orwell references political

writing in particular and thus should it be subject to a

different set of guidelines. Political writing is not

necessarily written for those with the time to read for

pleasure, it should therefore be written simply

concisely and accurately.  Written as it were for the

lowest common denominator. (Now I sound like everything

that Orwell despises!!)

3.  I make no bones about it, my writing is flowery,

omni-directional and verbose.  I don't like to say the

same thing the same way twice if it can be avoided.

Does this draw adverse comments about my writing and

even my speech? Yes, it does.  I take pride in my

vocabulary and use it at if I can.  I can be concise

when it is necessary and try to steer away from cliches.

 That being said, cliches (and Bolter would love this)

are like icons.  They immediately bring to a mind a

specific thought.  Are they the easy way out? Sure, but

we live in an age of convenience and expediency.  It is

interesting to note that Orwell wrote this article in

1950.  Imagine the things he would have to say about the

political rhetoric and doublespeak that came out of the

Vietnam War.  He also pre-sages Bolter when he writes,

"Probably it is better to put off using words as long as

possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can

through pictures or sensations."(583)

Message no. 265[Branch from no. 245]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Friday, March 21, 2003 12:36pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I like your comparison of cliches with computer icons,

Mark. Metaphors and icons are interesting and

fascinating when you first see them. Then they both

become symbols which, as you said, "immediately bring to

a mind a specific thought." At the end of their life,

they are dull and boring: they have to be changed.

Message no. 283[Branch from no. 245]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:26pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Wow. I think you have made some really good points that

I agree with you on. Especially when you said that one

should keep in mind the audience as to whom the piece is

written for. I also agree with you on using the same

words or phrases. It makes the piece less tedious to

read if it has different words in it. I like the Bolter

references, especially coming from you. Hehe. :)

Message no. 253[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Thursday, March 20, 2003 3:29pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  Choose a piece of political writing from a current

publication and analyze its misuses according to Orwell.

The piece should be only one paragraph.

You guys don’t know how hard it was to find some

political writing I could use,… it’s not like there’s a

war going on or anything! ;)

I love the distinction between the language journalists

and reporters use compared to that of anyone from the

government or military. In an article, “Cruise Missiles

Slam into Baghdad” says just that; “US cruise missiles

slammed into the center of Baghdad on Thursday night,

shaking the city with a series of massive explosions.”

Now that’s pretty straightforward and I believe Orwell

would be pleased with its direct, concise information.

The article was very gory, very journalism-like

second-by-second reporting. Ok, so now go to the nearest

government official and you will hear him drone on and

on and on about how the “strikes were aimed at military

installations and communications facilities” and how

they are “prepping the battlefield to clear a path for

further air strikes and ground operations.” Orwell would

have a hay-day with “military installations” and

“communications facilities” pointing to Rule II: “Never

use a long word where a short one will do.” And this

“prepping the battlefield” thing, just call it what it

is! We’re bombing for the sake of making roadways so our

troops can move; obliterating whatever is in our path.

But of course, is that “politically correct?” I bet

Orwell hates that word.  Ok, I’ll get off my soapbox

now. Can you tell I want to be a journalist?

2.  Write a paragraph in which you explain to your

audience what the principles of good writing are.  You

may or may not refer to Orwell.

Good writing?? In my opinion good writing is not taught

in any English class by writing five paragraph essays

with three drafts a piece and analyzing Emily Dickinson.

I think analyzing your audience and formatting one’s

writing to fit that audience is the biggest part of good

writing. A good writer knows how to shift his ideas and

information to fit the wide range of opinions and

knowledge of a specific audience. In discussion

messages, the class is fairly laid-back and we type as

if we are talking to classmates in regular everyday

language. In our journals to Dr. Winkle, I believe

everyone may shift their style just a bit, and even more

so in formal writings. It’s like changing the way you

act and talk from your friends to your grandmother. You

say things in front of your friends you wouldn’t dare

say in front of Dear Grandmother, and vice-versa. Also,

I think readability is a great part in good writing. If

it is filled with big, meaningless words and unknown

meanings, then one is hardly going to pull anything

worthwhile from that, but more so from something written

like everyday language. A good writer pulls emotion out

of their readers and makes them want to read more and

believe what the writer is saying. Organization of

information is also important to be able to clearly

understand the information.

3.  In a short paragraph, analyze your own writing

style, using Orwell's criteria.

 I don’t have the most extended vocabulary or the most

overall knowledge, but I am a good writer. I hate topic

sentences, I despise five paragraph formats. My best

writings are not about a certain topic, but whatever I

am motivated or inspired to write about. I write to

people. I don’t write for textbooks. I write the best

when I write in everyday language. No big words or

complicated messages for me. I like to write as if

everything is a conversation between me and my reader. I

don’t format very much (in the writings that I am great

at), I just write. I am inspired at random moments and I

don’t like to write about other people’s stuff. I want

to make my own. Orwell might like my conciseness, and

use of everyday language, but that’s about it. I lack

formality, in more than one aspect in my life which

directly falls over into my writing. Then again, he

might like me because I don’t use pretentious language

and I don’t use big words. I don’t beat around the bush,

unless I need to extend a two page essay into a three

page essay, I don’t use metaphors very much except for

my own humor, and I don’t use typical phrases. I enjoy

writing and I believe it will be the greatest part in my

career path, so hopefully I’m halfway decent at it!

Some of my work I like from previous classes can be

found at: http://www.westga.edu/~stu35683 Note the

similarities to my current web page in this class!! ;)

Message no. 258[Branch from no. 253]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:06pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Natalie,

FANTASTIC POST.  I feel like I'm the one who is totally

out of touch with these questions.  Not only was the

paragraph I chose not based on this country's current

war, I certainly didn't express myself as eloquently as

you and everyone else thus far.  Your analyzation of

good writing makes perfect sense.  If one doesn't evoke

some kind of emotion from the reader, leaving them

wanting more, then one's point is lost. I always enjoy

reading your posts and this week's was exceptional!

You'll make a great journalist.

Selena Riess :o)

Message no. 260[Branch from no. 253]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:02pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Natalie,

I always find your pieces the most interesting and

entertaining - you have such good humor when you write!

Excellent job, and I agree that you are a great writer.

I like the point that you made about good writing not

being taught in an english class with five-paragraph

format, Emily Dickinson and drafts - I hate that stuff!

The best writing comes out when the writer's thoughts

are allowed to flow. Have a good night!

~Anne

Message no. 269[Branch from no. 253]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Friday, March 21, 2003 4:18pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Thanks guys! I'm blushing! ;)

I try to bring humor to my writing and lighten up

regular everyday assignments. I am a rebel against

format and typical English, which has found trouble for

me in some classes with "typical" teachers. (That's why

I chose this class over regular ENC 2301!)

Hopefully I'll become famous enough that people will

remember me as being the one that made them laugh in

class back in college! :)

Have a great weekend.

Message no. 256[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:34pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  The political writing that I analyzed comes from the

March 20, 2003 edition of the paper I used to work for,

“Gilchrist County Journal.”  It is from a column called

“Streetwise” written by Lauren Rudd and discusses the

stock market as it is today. “The unfortunate outcome of

late is not so much the decline in stock prices.  Over

time, that problem will right itself.  It is the rapid

eradication of investor confidence.  For many of you

there is no guarantee that Wall Street will ever gain

your full trust” (pg. ii). From Orwell’s standpoint,

this writer is guilty of using at least four negatives

in forty-six words.  In addition, this writer actually

says nothing with this paragraph, plus he is guilty of

those big words Orwell is strongly against.

2.  It is really hard to say what the principles of good

writing should be since everyone has their own unique

style.  The main objective, I feel, is to make one’s

point clearly and quickly as possible.  One should state

facts relevant to the subject matter and provide any

necessary supporting information.  Moreover, good

writing should be interesting.  It needs to draw the

reader in, for without gaining the reader’s interest,

one’s writing would be empty.  One’s wording should be

such that the majority of readers will understand it.  I

like it when I read writings where the author has

included a footnote with a brief description of an

unfamiliar word, event, or person.  Another great

feature of good writing is when the reader comes away

from it with the feeling of having learned something.

3.  I like to be descriptive and occasionally am guilty

of using the “long word” (583).  I tend to write freely,

trying to capture what comes to mind as quickly as

possible.  I tend to cut words out or find ways to say a

point in a more concise manner each time I proof

something I wrote.  I am guilty of using a few metaphors

in my writing.  As I read Orwell’s first rule, “never

use a metaphor…” (583), I was reminded of an essay I

wrote where I the metaphor used “children should be seen

and not heard.”  I would have to say in my writing, I

frequently break all of Orwell’s rules except for the

last one, “break any of these rules sooner than say

anything outright barbarous” (584).  Where would the fun

in writing be if one couldn’t express herself freely?

Message no. 259[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:58pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  I found a piece that my comparative politics teacher

actually sent me for class called "Dependency Theory and

the World Systems Approach". The author is unspecified,

but whoever he is seemed to do a pretty decent job

according to the "laws of Orwell". Never once does he

use a big word where a little one would suffice, never

uses a metaphor, never uses more words than he should,

lacks in the use of foreign phrases... the only flaw I

could detect was the use of passive instead of active

tense.

2.  I believe that good writing consists of an outlined

and to-the-point agenda of what one is trying to

address. The extras and back-up information should be

left out. Leave it to the facts and cite them, that way,

if the reader wants the extra tid-bits, he may go look

it up at his own accord. I also believe that good

writing should be short, not lengthy in an attempt to

inform the reader of every fact the writer knows of

pertaining to his thesis.

3.  According to Orwell's standards, I believe that I am

a bad political writer... or just a bad writer in

particular. I even defy my own standards! It takes me a

long time to get to the point, I am infatuated by the

thesauraus and bigger words substituting for smaller

words. However, I can't stand the concept of dying

metaphors and meaningless words.

Before I sign off, I would like to quote Orwell. This I

found particularly interesting and true: "In our time,

political speech and writing are largely the defence of

the indefensible" (581). Dr. Winkle brought that one up

in class, but I thought it was interesting and should be

addressed again.

Message no. 261[Branch from no. 259]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:03pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Here's my article, I forgot to attach it!:

Dependency theory arose from two major sources, which

helps explain the confusion as to what it represented.

One strong influence was Marxian thought. Marxism was a

small minority current in comparative politics, and for

a long time it had wielded little influence because of

the overwhelming dominance of the political development

approach. However, with the U.S. military intervention

in the Dominican Republic in 1965, the Vietnam War, and

the student protests of 1969-1970, the Marxian approach

began to attract more attention. It focused on the

contradictions between U.S. interests in the developing

nations and the interests of the developing nations

themselves, as well as on the contradictions and

conflicts within these countries. In contrast,

development theory had stressed the peaceful,

evolutionary process of modernization and the harmony

between U.S. interests and those of the developing

nations. An early statement of the Marxian dependency

alternative and approach to development was Andre Gunder

Frank's book Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin

America, a book published at the height of the Vietnam

War protests in 1969 and one that, while often

misrepresenting facts and making erroneous

interpretations, nevertheless set forth a strong Marxian

position.1

Message no. 267[Branch from no. 259]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Friday, March 21, 2003 2:04pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely

the defense of the indefensible.” I would rather say

that political writing often tries to conceal the truth;

thus, governments and presidents keep their people calm

and often on their side, but as a consequence we have

deceived citizens who are unaware of the situation. For

example, you will hear politicians talking about “a slow

down of the economy” when in fact it is a recession.

Moreover, they will name a war “Operation Iraqi Freedom”

– a war where Iraqi civilians will die. Probably, you

would say that America has the best technology that

never makes mistakes and good guys in Iraq won’t die.

But Bill Clinton, CNN, FOX News, and most newspapers

told you nothing about the inaccuracy of American

missiles in the war in Kosovo. You listen about the

invisible STELT that cannot be caught on radar, but you

didn’t see the leftovers of the STELT which was shot

down in Yugoslavia.

You may have been less concerned than me for the war

against Yugoslavia, since it was 12,000 miles away from

you, and only 30 miles from me – I lived in Sofia, the

capital of Bulgaria, which is very close to Nish, a city

in Serbia – so close that you could here the explosions

almost every night for the continuation of the war. I am

going to give you just two examples. First, one American

missile launched from F-16 was supposed to hit a

military base in Serbia; instead, it flew all the way to

Sofia and landed racking one house; it did not detonate,

and thanks God, it did not hurt anybody. We were

supporting America in this war, so our government did

not spread the news about it. Another missile which was

supposed to destroy a bridge in Serbia hit a civilian

bus full with men, women and children. After the scene

of relics on National Serbian TV, how do you think

Serbians will feel about Americans, even if it’s in the

name of liberation from communism? It is hard to

explain. Actually, my country was communist till 1989,

but there was no need of war for it to become a

democracy. So, should we wage war or wait till despots

die? Your opinion is very influenced on what you hear

from your leaders and from the media in your country,

which are different in other countries.

Message no. 289[Branch from no. 267]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Monday, March 24, 2003 2:32pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Easy turbo... I think Anne was just quoting something

Dr. Winkle pointed out that Orwell wrote!

I disagree with your definition of "Operation Iraqi

Freedom" being something that kills Iraqi civilians. I

have been glued to the news and internet doing a little

research of my own, mainly because I am obsessed with

war journalism, but also because this war intrests me.

If you pay attention to fine details US troops have been

going to great measures to make sure civilians are not

killed or wounded. The whole reason in spending millions

of dollars in precision guided bombs was to try to

ensure the safety of civilians by narrowing the margin

for error when dropping the bombs. If you have watched,

Iraqis are holding our Prisoners of War in inhumane

conditions, executing several POWs, violating the Geneva

Convention, while their people are being fed and clothed

with medical attention. Is this killing Iraqi

civilians??

I do realize that the information has been seen through

the rose-colored glasses of what the media presents, but

I have been watching this war, far before the first

bombs were dropped. I have looked outside of normal TV

addresses and internet articles, and still the facts

remain the same. This war was inevitable, and needed to

be taken care of before America could suffer another

terrorist act, much worse than anything we have ever

seen or imagined.

This is simply my opinion, but know it is an educated

one at that.

As you speak of the war in Kosovo, I am saddened by the

civilian lives lost, but I do not see the connection in

Anne's simple statement (quote really) about political

speech during war time.

Message no. 294[Branch from no. 289]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Monday, March 24, 2003 4:25pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Natalie, I do pay attention to fine details, and I agree

that “US troops have been going to great measures to

make sure civilians are not killed or wounded.” Of

course, they don’t mean to kill civilians on purpose.

But mistakes happen and civilians die.

My point here is not to defend one side or another but

to show the difference between how people here perceive

the war and people in other countries see the war.

About Iraqi’s inhumane treatment of American POWs - I

know that you can see this on your TVs. I wanted to say

something that you would not get from your TVs. Anyway,

Iraqi government promise that this will not happen again

and they will let Red Cross in their territories to make

sure POWs are treated well. I hope, they will do it.

I started this because, like you, I like sometimes to

diverge from what we talk about or from what the

quotation is.

Please, read my last post, which was a response to

Mark’s post.

Probably, we should tell Dr. Winkle to make this

discussion public locked, so I won’t post anything more

on the topic :)

Powered by “turbo” Totev

Message no. 295[Branch from no. 294]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Monday, March 24, 2003 5:09pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I agree 100% that you were trying to show all sides of

how people in different countries percieve the war and

how different each country handles themselves. I, like

you, was just trying to defend the US and their actions.

I have deeply looked into war journalism, farther than

most. I don't just pull my information directly from the

TV. I have spoken to many friends who are out of the

country, along with some relatives and spoken with

several journalism professors about their take on our

situation. I have friends who are fighting in this war

and who are close to the action.

As it goes for Iraqi personnel saying the treatment of

their POW's "won't happen again" well, it shouldn't have

happened in the first place. Too little, too late. Even

POWs from the Gulf War have spoken out talking about the

"inhumane" treatment they recieved while captured. This

is no one's fault but the Iraqis and goes to show what

the Americans and British are up against.

I enjoy hearing your views and criticisms, and I think

you have a wealth of knowledge about your country and

people. I was interested by the things you said, even

though I didn't happen to agree with all of them. I

don't wish to see the topic locked, I would love to

discuss this, but maybe not perhaps in this discussion

area. I'm always up for a challenging conversation!!

As you know, I love getting on my soapbox and sharing my

views, wether anyone cares or agrees with them! :)

Message no. 271[Branch from no. 259]
Posted by JAMES ANDREW FOGLE on Friday, March 21, 2003 8:13pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I agree with you when you say that you love the

thesaurus, and you also have writing standards for

yourself.  Although I love to get right to the point, I

sometimes have a hard time getting there.

Message no. 279[Branch from no. 259]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:33pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I think you're absolutely right in bringing up Orwell's

quote.  Words are used to soften the blow of things that

are distasteful to us.  WIth judicious wordsmithing it's

possible to make almost anything seem like something

else, or someone else's fault.  All one needs to do is

look around this country that now bases itself on

litigation.  Take the example of the bar owner, held

responsible for someone drinking too much and hurting

someone else on the way home.  By using words, we are

effectively not even responsible for our own actions.

It's all in the delivery.  Joesph Goebels was pretty

good at that.  I think it's fair to say that a whole

nation did not want to commit genocide.  Rather it's

more likely that the nation was convinced of the

necessity of its government's actions, or not told at

all.  Which raises another point.  The misuse of words

includes the things we are not told as well.

It may betrue that the pen is mightier than the sword.

As no-one fights with swords anymore what competition is

left?

Message no. 281[Branch from no. 279]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:51pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

   I hope you don’t mind, Mark, if I cite you: “The

misuse of words includes the things we are not told as

well.” If we have to compare CNN, FOX News and MSNBC to

the Spanish UNI on channel 40, we easily can see what

American TV don’t show us and we can guess what it does

not tell us. Actually it’s pretty convenient: without

showing injured civilians, one gets a perception of the

ideal war, where technology will never let good guys to

be killed. Yesterday, I was changing channels to see

what is on for the war and I came up on Primer Impacto.

Well, I don’t know Spanish but it was enough for me to

see some wounded Iraqi civilians in the hospital to get

a better notion of the war.              They don’t tell you also

that in a several-month war against dictatorship die

about the same number of people as the number of killed

during an authoritarian regime – sometimes it might be

more.                They don’t tell you why other countries

support your country. For example, Bulgaria is on the UN

Counsel this year and was one of the first to approve

the war on Iraq. But why is that? Is it because

Bulgarians believe in the good cause of “Iraqi

Liberation”? I don’t think so. Bulgaria is a small

country with economical problems. That’s why the

Bulgarian government is happy that it sold what it

could: we signed a contract with Bush for using

Bulgarian airbases for 1.6 million. How cheap is that?

For Bulgarians it’s a lot of money, while for Americans

it’s nothing. And yesterday Denmark declared war on

Iraq, and sent a submarine in the gulf. It’s interesting

that this is the same day when forces of the coalition

took control of more than 500 oil wells in Southern

Iraq.         They don’t tell you that conflicts do not end

when they seem to end. After the “liberation” of Kosovo

in 1999, in Serbia there was a new democratic

government. Two weeks ago the Serbian prime minister was

assassinated /prime ministers have more power than

presidents and monarchs in some countries like Serbia,

Bulgaria, Britain/. In Kabul, Afghanistan, there ware

several assassinations and a few attempts to kill the

new leader put by America. As a result, both in Kabul

and Kosovo there are UN soldiers who are called

“peacekeepers” but who are armed and risk their life by

being there. So, is there still war going on in these

countries?

Just a few more interesting facts:

   We still here about how precise are the new

intelligent missiles – “they can be directed by

Satellites through which window to hit a building.” And

at the same time we here Iran government reporting three

missiles landing in their territory. Well, it’s not that

bad – just 40 miles off their targets.

   When something happens to an American plane or

helicopter, American media always says “crashed” because

of misfunction or friends’ fire, while Russian media

always says “shot down” by the enemy. Well, one thing is

for sure: somebody is lying.

Message no. 285[Branch from no. 281]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:50pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

This topic really has struck a chord with you. I enjoyed

reading what you had to say. I think you brought some

information and perspectives to our attention that many

of us would not have known about otherwise. I can tell

that you are very passionate in your beliefs. The media

and the press do lie, in a sense, because they "tell the

truth" in a way that appeals to their audience and

supports their cause. Facts are not facts anymore. Who

is telling the truth is a good question. It depends on

who you ask. Thank you for bringing up so much. You have

given a different perspective and I appreciate that.

Message no. 293[Branch from no. 281]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Monday, March 24, 2003 3:12pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Daniel, I'm reading an exceptional book right now called

"Bias" by ex-CBS corespondent Bernard Goldberg... it's

actually for extra credit in my POS2041 class, but

nonetheless... he was "ran out" of the business for

exposing the American media for their lack of

conservatism and their habit of liberally buttering up

their information. Also, they're biased and don't ever

address both sides of an issue. Therefor, I agree with

you that the American media pretty much sucks (I hope I

don't get in trouble for that one!) but during this time

of war, can you blame them for not wanting to address

the set-backs, defeats and injuries of our own troops?

Think of the families who have brothers, sons, husbands

and relatives in Iraq right now... they watch CNN 24/7

dying to hear reports of our status in Iraq, dreading

phone calls from officials and the Pentagon reporting

that their loved ones are killed or injured. They don't

need or want to hear the negative information. It's not

necessarily a matter of lying (although I do see your

point, and the truth will emerge eventually), but more

of saving the American morale. Of course America will

show coverage of captured Iraqis, but not dead

Americans... and vice-versa in Iraq. The Iraqis don't

want to see coverage of their own killed/injured. It's a

sensitive subject and a great debate. I don't mean to

argue with you on it, but only to give my opinion on our

biased media as well as why being biased at this present

moment might be saving the sanity of Americans. I, for

one, have been trying not to involve myself too much for

fear of becoming obsessed... I have friends in Iraq,

Kuwait and other countries right now and know that

losing sleep won't prevent them from injury or death.

However, if we hear the negative information there would

be chaos, much more than already exists.

Message no. 296[Branch from no. 293]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:47pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Anne, I think that Bias is an excellent book and believe

that it is very appropriate to read during these times.

It helps readers to see just how bad the media really

are and helps them to realize that they may be seeing

only half of the story from one perspective, and this is

not a good thing.  We need to keep this in mind and

always be aware of the missing part of the story.

Daniel, It's nice to see college students as informed

and educated as you are on such subjects.  I think that

you included good details and relevant facts, which

helped to back up your argument.Thanks for expressing

your opinion and helping others to see your standpoint

on the subject.

-------Angela

Message no. 284[Branch from no. 279]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:43pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading what

you write and this was another very incredible post. I

like the way you say things and the points that you

make. It makes me think. Thank you.

Message no. 270[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by JAMES ANDREW FOGLE on Friday, March 21, 2003 8:10pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

In message 239 on Monday, March 17, 2003 6:24pm, Dr.

Suellyn Winkle writes:

>1.  Choose a piece of political writing from a current

>publication and analyze its misuses according to Orwell.

> The piece should be only one paragraph.

>I was looking at the newspaper and reading the articles about the current war with Iraq.  If Orwell read the same article, he would of had a heart attack.  In the first sentence, "If only she could hold him for real," shows how Orwell would have complained about using verbal false limbs.  Also, farther along in the excerpt the line "With loved ones at war, relatives fight quieter," exemeplifies how Orwell would of felt about using meaningless phrases and using metaphors that aren't very creative.

>2.  Write a paragraph in which you explain to your

>audience what the principles of good writing are.  You

>may or may not refer to Orwell.

>To me, I feel that a good paragraph is a paragragh that is very percise and makes sure that all of the points of interest are clear and thought out.  I also like the writer to use some words that show intelligence, such as describing another word with a "fancy word."

>3.  In a short paragraph, analyze your own writing

>style, using Orwell's criteria.

My own writing style would be a very direct and to the

point writing style.  According to Orwell, he would

probably really like my style of writing because i dont

use a lot of metaphors (unless i can think of something

truly original) and I also dont use a lot of large

words.  I love to get right to the point and be as

direct as i possibly can.

Message no. 282[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:18pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  Choose a piece of political writing from a current

publication and analyze its misuses according to Orwell.

 The piece should be only one paragraph.

March 23 —   As Iraqi television continued to show

undated video of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, U.S.

officials all but dared him to prove he’s not seriously

injured. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz took

up the taunt Sunday: “He may be dazed or wounded or

disoriented. And, he may be the man they display in

these TV pictures, although I must say those have a very

artificial-looking quality to them.” SADDAM MAY HAVE

narrowly escaped being killed Wednesday when his family

compound was bombed. Sunday, even Mohammed Al-Douri,

Iraq’s U.N. ambassador, sounded unsure of Saddam’s

whereabouts:        “I don’t know where our president is

right now, but the Iraqi people will keep resisting,”

said Al-Douri.         While the United States continued

to bomb Saddam’s strongholds in Baghdad, the Iraqi

Defense Ministry has been left untouched. A senior

official told NBC News that’s because of ongoing talks

with Iraq’s military to negotiate surrender.

This is an excerpt from an article I found online from

MSNBC News. As far as Orwell’s rules and list of

no-no’s, the first paragraph appears to follow them and

seems concise. I do not see any blatant errors that

Orwell would reprimand the writer for. The only foreign

words in the piece are names of quoted people. The

writer does use a little too much passive voice, for

example “his family compound was bombed” when he or she

could have stated that U.S. troops bombed his family

compound. I think the writer chose to use the passive

voice so he or she would not be directly saying that the

U.S. bombed Iraq. It is very easy to use the passive

voice rather than think of a good verb to use in a

sentence. But I think the writer was choosing to do so

for an affect on the readers.

2.  Write a paragraph in which you explain to your

audience what the principles of good writing are.  You

may or may not refer to Orwell.

I agree with Orwell’s rules to some extent. He rallies

for more original, fresh, direct and clear writing. Many

writers do overuse certain metaphors which causes them

to lose their effect. And when someone throws in

millions of large words, she has to remember her

audience. If the writing is aimed at the general

populous, she wouldn’t want to use too many fancy words

so that the majority of the readers would understand her

point. If the piece is for a journal of colleagues it

would be more appropriate to use words that would be

more specific to the topic that laymen might not

understand. I definitely agree with Orwell on the

eliminating passive voice. Like I said in class,

throughout my English career, especially my 11th grade

English class, we were told to reduce our usage of the

passive voice. I think it definitely depends on what

affect the writer attempts to make, but in general, we

depend on the passive voice because of how easy it is to

use. Orwell just asks us put more thought and effort

into our writing so that it will be more refreshing to

read.

3.  In a short paragraph, analyze your own writing

style, using Orwell's criteria. I think I do try to

follow his rules. Many of them are similar to what I

have learned in my English classes. I definitely try to

watch my usage of the passive voice. I don’t think I use

too many large words or foreign words. As Daniel pointed

out, a lot of the American English language borrows

words from many languages, so I find it funny that

Orwell uses that rule. But that is really just arguing

specifics. I think each rule should be kept in mind on a

case-by-case basis, but they are good to think about

while you are writing. Oh yeah, I’m supposed to be

talking about MY writing! I think I do tend to ramble

sometimes. It might take me a while to get to a point

and I can probably eliminate some of the “thinking”

sentences, but it’s the flow of my thoughts that got me

to that point. Anyways, I’m sorry that I posted this so

late.

Message no. 286[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by SUMMER A SMITH on Monday, March 24, 2003 12:52pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.) Robert Kaplan's, "The Coming Anarchy," is a

politically charged essay asserting that disease,

overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources,

refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of

nation-states and international borders, and the

empowerment of private armies, security firms, and

international drug cartels are all slowly leading the

global community into a state of chaos. By Orwell's

qualms with modern language, the piece seems

significantly merky, as far as clarity. Take for

instance, the following sentence from the essay:

"A pre-modern formlessness governs the battlefield,

evoking the wars in medieval Europe prior to the 1648

Peace of Westphalia, which ushered in the era of

organized nation-states."

From studying this topic, I know what Kaplan is refering

to, but this sentence in its context (which

self-contained) hardly explains the condition by which

the African states referred to in the essay were left.

What Kaplan means by "pre-modern formlessness," is the

state of government left in Africa once the states

became independent of France. Words like "pre-modern,"

Orwell would call meaningless. Words like formlessness,

would leave Orwell demanding for more imagery.

2.) The best writing provides the most vivid image in

the least amount of words. Someone...can't remember who,

once said, "I'm sorry I've written such a long letter; I

hadn't the time to write a shorter one." The real

challenge is in consolidating thoughts/visions/theories,

without losing distinct imagery. Innovation, is another

essential factor in constructing imagery. Orwell's

thoughts on overused metaphors articulate this need

quite perfectly.

3.) By Orwell's standards, my writing style needs work.

My metaphors are seldomly original. If in some rare

occurrence they are, they're recklessly formulated, and

hardly precise. I've caught myself using operators and

verbal false limbs enough times that I'm ashame of

myself for it. I do use excessive pretentious diction. I

love.. pretentious diction. I see no point in expanding

one's vocabulary, only to be scolded for using words of

more than 2 syllables in complex and compound sentences.

I also quite frequently use "meaningless" words, but I

believe I do so safely. If I were to call something

"romantic," I'd most certainly follow that so-called

meaningless word up with examples of some sort. If I

were to make the accusation that someone/something was

"fascist," I might compare it to other things widely

considered to be fascist. My writing needs lots of

improving, I'm CERTAIN of that. What kind of pompous

jerk would say otherwise?

Message no. 290[Branch from no. 286]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Monday, March 24, 2003 2:55pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

"The Coming Anarchy" was such an awesome read!! Don't

you LOVE Bob? LOL. I wish I could put him in my pocket

and carry him with me to all my poli. sci. classes and

into the future, wherever that may lead me... hopefully

somewhere with law or politics. :-)

Message no. 292[Branch from no. 239]
Posted by KELLY ANNE PURCELL on Monday, March 24, 2003 2:59pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1. I apologize for not answering this first question,

but I am doing it for good reason.  I am answering this

question in my textual analysis paper, so stay tuned!

2.I believe the principles of good writing are

different, considering what type of writing one is

thinking about.  When writing a fiction, imagery is

utmostly important in describing your story.  The reader

should be able to create the story within his or her

imagination and live the story throughout the duration

of the novel. Fiction literature is really a work of

art, and in being art should have the quality to be

interpreted differently.  Meticulous description is fun,

keeping in mind that the average reader should be able

to understand and stay interested.  Sometimes creativity

can be a little too much.  Poetry demands a special type

of rhythm.  Journalism takes honesty and unbiased

writing.  Business writing requires short, to the point

writing.  Academic writing is, in my opinion, probably

the hardest type of writing because in order to be good

it must be accurate, intelligent, unbiased, and hold the

reader's attention.  It must be so appealing that it

captivates and pushes the reader to want to read and

learn.  There are so many different types of prose that

I could go for pages decribing what I think is good in

every type.  The most fun thing is to create a piece of

writing and then  have other people analyze it,

constructively of course!

 My writing style is something that I have never really

analyzed before.  It is actually kind of hard for me to

analyze my style as I really do not enjoy writing and I

don't know if I have a certain style.  I would much

rather do anything other than writing! I always end up

feeling so pressed to spit out some kind of super

intelligent, clear, great prose.  It is sometimes very

hard for  me to find the right words for what I am

trying to say.  I do feel that I have good business

writing skills in that I am very good at stating a point

firmly but nicely, and short and to the point.  My

grammer skills are good , I am very creative, and I can

edit pretty well.  I still am not completely confident

in my  writing, like long essays, but I usually tend to

do pretty well.  My professors have thus far made me

believe that I can write!