Originally Published 10.03
Revised 11.26
Orwell's How I Write really is a fascinating essay--in it, he explains how the historical context of his youth and adolescence forced him to become a writer, how war politics and the rise/fall/failure of socialism made him into the writer he eventually became-and, most importantly, how a writer uses language.
(Well, not the last one, per se, although it's hinted at; for further writers-writing-about-writing-y goodness, check out Stephen King's On Writing. Truly, truly marvelous. Okay, continuing)
Fascinating, right? Or it would have been, had it been discussed; my contribution to our group presentation was, alas, mostly reliant on a journal article that, due to some confusion, was largely ignored.
Still, I managed a few things, to be detailed thusly; let us set my contributions to history correct!
Most importantly, I actually read the book and watched the film. That was a big day for me. From this, I found, read, enjoyed, and appreciated the Orwell essay I meant to discuss and tie into our journal article; this did not happen. Still, and most fortunately, I managed to talk a bit about the implications of Newspeak during the actual presentation, linking the concepts to Wittgenstein and the basic linguistic philosophy of Todorov.
It was neat, and a good presentation (I, for one, was beyond nervous, and am sure it showed); still, I wish I'd been able to discuss my part in a manner that would have made sense (i.e., in relation to the article). The background we'd acquired, in class and as a group, allowed for a more spontaneous contribution--but, having been so well prepared, I was ever-so-slightly disappointed by this slight.
Still, we were prepared, articulate, and knew what we were talking about, an unlikely (for me, at least) combination that made out presentation terrific.
