Freedom, Liberty, and Rights

This week we read Freedom, Liberty, and Rights: Three Cautionary Tales by Aryeh Neier and Neier mainly made the point about Bush's use of words, or as Orwell would call them, "meaningless words." He notes how many times Bush uses the words freedom, liberty, and rights and how he does not define these terms that are used almost everyday. Neier believes that rights serve as a limit on powers and that we are free because we exercise these rights. Later in his essay, he talks this term, rights, and says how it is just used any ol' way. Neier says there is such a "promiscuous use of the term rights" and we even have third generation rights, such as the right to development. I love the way Neier ended his essay, because I believe he made a great point! He said that "both sides diminish the value of these words in expressing the need to limit power, question claims to virtue, and foster debate." I think this is a point Orwell was trying to make when we mentioned meaningless words in his essay and this is a very important point that everyone should take into considerate when they write essays.

Reporters and Rhetoric

Reporters and Rhetoric, an essay written by Geoffrey Cowan, goes in a different direction from the other essays we have written. This essay shows that Orwell was correct when he talked about his six rules and how language matters with whatever you are talking about. By choosing to say two simple words that everyone is scared to mention or afraid to admit, such as "civil war," it opens everyone's eyes to a different perspective. As one of his main points, he says that "reporters 'do words' for a living. There are times when it is as important for the press to be as accurate about the use of language as it is about the reporting of facts." I definitely agree with Cowan when he talks about reporters. I do believe that their job is to report news honestly and correctly, using their language cautiously. Reporters do not have to repeat everything they hear. They have the choice to listen to whatever they hear and figure out what is the truth and what is false. Once they have the whole story, the reporters can write about the honest conclusion they came to.

The Limits of Language

Nicholas Lemann wrote the essay The Limits of Language describing how 60 years later, George Orwell was still right about the English language. Lemann's thesis states that "intellectual honesty about the gathering and use of facts and data is a riskier and more precious part of a free society than is intellectual honesty in language." He says that the information and facts that are gathered are valued more than in this society than the language that is used. He refers to George Bush's speech and the language that he uses. Bush is unspecific, using words such as "enemies of freedom" and "freedom" (freedom being a word Orwell felt had a cloudy meaning, but one that means something good). He, Lemann, moves on to politicians and their slogans. He mentions that politicians focus more on playing with the audiences emotions than clearly stating what the activity will do. Lemann gives a great example of this when he says that "the war in Iraq" is a good name to give it (since that is what the activity is) rather than the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" because that is only the feeling the government wants to trigger. I agree with Lemann in that today's society cares way more about the information and the amount of people following their information (I think that is the reason they play on the audience's emotions, just to get more supporters) than the language that is used to convey these messages.

Harris Chapter Five

In Rewriting, Joseph Harris discusses the different approaches that a person should take when attempting to write an essay based on another text. In chapter five, Harris covers the topic of revision and shows that revision is more than looking for mistakes such as misspellings and grammar errors, but asking a series of questions that not only allows you to edit but also add on. He says that when revising, the writer should not just focus on editing the misspellings and style (the bad things about your essay) but build to the areas that are well written to make your essay stronger. Harris wants the reader to come to terms (figuring out what your topic is asking of you), forward (decide what works best and add on to), counter (determine what else can be said), and looking ahead (what is something you haven't said yet that you could close strongly with). I feel this is an important chapter to read because it has such valuable information about ideas on how to improve your essay. Harris tells its reader that they worry about the little editing mistakes more than what works best in their essay, which is critical in the revision process. I have to admit I am guilty of committing this same act that he talks and I'm glad he mentions it because it helped me realize that I should build on my good parts and not just tear down the bad parts. The section he wrote about looking ahead really affected me because I have trouble with my conclusion paragraphs and he gave me tips on how not to be repetitive. Harris asks his readers to consider questions to ask themselves, such as what else could they add to the conclusion to make it sound new and how can the writer "develop a new line of thinking." I believe that Harris really understands the English language and what it takes to not just write an essay well, but to write any piece of text well. Not only dos he give examples of what to do, but he explains the common thought of people (such as the revision points he made) and how these are not the best way of going about creating a strong, well written text.