Hollywood: the bastion of sodomy, immorality and anti-American sentiment has released three films this year that have been accused of promoting Pro-Life themes. Despite their stylistic differences Indie hit and Oscar nominated Juno (Diablo Cody), frat-house comedy Knocked Up (Judd Aptow) and the dramedy Waitress (the late Adrienne Shelley) converge on theme of unwanted pregnancy.
Film critics grew suspicious when movies about women keeping unwanted children invaded the porous skin of the box office. Juno and Waitress premiered at Sundance, while Knocked Up had an immediate wide-release. Domestically, Juno and Knocked Up earned around $140 million, while Waitress brought in $18 million.
Several notable critics charged that the films implicitly gave off Pro-Life themes, while acknowledging that not any one of them was made for that purpose.
David Edlestein of Slate and NPR’s Fresh Air, commented that, like it or not, these films made political statements (evidently in the favor of Pro-Life). This motivated his decision to keep Juno off his top ten-list.
Hadley Freeman of The Guardian took a more direct approach and said flatly that the films are, “a product of a generation that has had the luxury of legal and relatively easy access to abortion. The danger is that one forgets what the alternative really meant, and as a result sentimentalises it.”
The alternative film of choice for politically frustrated critics was Romanian director’s (Christian Munguin) “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days”. The film takes place during the last years of dictatorial Ceausescu regime. It follows a pair of college students that seek a doctor for an illegal abortion in a Bucharest hotel. The film has been commended for its gritty realism.
As is often the case, it seemed as if no one actually watched the movies. Only when critics are in the grip of a theory can they ignore the qualitative difference in films.
Out of the three, Knocked Up exemplifies the discontent among Pro-Lifers. The powerful and successful Allison sacrifices her career for the jobless and stoned Ben. The only thing that was clear about Allison is that she is the creation of male writer: she has no depth, no complexity, and no desire.
To add insult to injury, one of the male characters can’t even say the word ‘abortion’.
In a Vanity Fair interview, star Katherine Heigl, who plays Allison in the film, voices these concerns when she describes the film as “a little sexist” and added, “it paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys.”
Juno likewise drew controversy for its portrayal of teenage pregnancy. Screenwriter Diablo Cody has been vocal that Juno is not a Pro-Life film.
In an interview for online magazine suicidegirls, Cody offers her interpretation on the abortion question. “I think she makes a personal choice. I don't know what I would call it and I don't know if that would be my personal decision. But I think her journey is rich and valid.”
While Juno does not choose to terminate her pregnancy, Cody reminds us that her choice should not be invalidated. Although the pregnancy is an essential part of the trajectory of Juno’s journey, it is not the most important part.
But Juno’s choice is inconsistent with her character. Admittedly, the scene when Juno breaks the news to her father and stepmother lacks tension. She remains cool throughout never breaking with her supreme self-confidence. Real teenagers experience more angst and torment for sneaking a Mike’s Hard Lemonade from their Moms.
Despite the absence of any noticeable tension, the bit of dialogue that follows is significant for the arc of the film. Juno’s father tells her that he thought she was the type of girl that ‘knew when was when.’ Juno replies, “I don’t know what kind of girl I am.”
It is these words that establish the trajectory of the film. Before that point, Juno is just a smart-assed, punky teenager that so many critics found nauseating. In this moment, however, Juno is for the first time exposed and complicated. And this remains the question for the rest of the movie: What kind of girl is Juno?
This is deeply disturbing for Pro-choice critics. The answer to the question is inexorably bound with her decision to have the child.
Of the three films, Waitress is the most complicated. Whereas Juno and Knocked Up ignore the importance of class, it is the main obstacle for the protagonist to overcome.
It does a kind of tightrope walk on genre lines, often flirting heavily with romantic comedy.
Jenna (Kerri Russel) is a country gal married to abusive good ol’ boy Earl (Jeremy Sisto).
She makes plans to escape but must keep it a secret from Earl. To do so, she hides money around the house: under couches, in jars and dressers. These moments of deception and calculation threaten to implode the entire structure of the otherwise light-hearted film.
Waitress opens a space for the voice and experience of an oppressed woman. In a kind of quasi-surrealism her thoughts are transposed into pie recipes that channel her desire to rid herself of the child, the husband, her affair and the town. This makes for a disturbingly beautiful motif that undercuts the otherwise conservative tenor of the premise. It is here in this otherwise domestic activity where Jenna finds a ‘room of her own.’
While devoid of the gritty realism of a film like “4 Months” it is commentary nonetheless. Waitress employs the very repressive tropes of this conservative age and injects them with a subtle critique. It is both accessible and speaks to a class of women that both Juno and Knocked Up remain impervious to. Moreover, it expresses this historical moment in the United States in a way that a foreign film cannot.
Despite receiving stellar critical reception Waitress was not nominated for any awards. It is a rare film in both its originality and depth and may very well become an American classic. Unfortunately, it has been lumped together with a pair of unworthy films based on the superficiality of politically oriented critique.
3.17.2008
3.16.2008
Stuff White People Like: Self-Referential Jokes on the Internet
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/
I have had more than one friend e-mail me links to posts on the website stuff_white_people_like.com There is writing on everything from marathon running to having bilingual children to the New York Times. The self-description is the following: “This is a scientific approach to highlight and explain stuff white people like. They are pretty predictable.”
The glaring problem with these posts is that they are about rich white people, which makes me think that the editors are just self-loathing.
In any case, I think the most interesting thing about the website is the responses. For one, smart writing is usually misunderstood. People tend to respond with the following: "I'm white and I don't like X".
There are also those however that take many of the posts literally. For example, many will respond with racial slurs, homophobic and sexist comments. In some twisted sense the posts come off as validating white privilege. Then again, some of these responses are also meant in jest, which seems to make less sense.
Many of the posts receive up to one thousand responses. It will be interesting to see what happens to the website when businesses take notice. For now, it kind of reminds me of South Park on a blog.
I have had more than one friend e-mail me links to posts on the website stuff_white_people_like.com There is writing on everything from marathon running to having bilingual children to the New York Times. The self-description is the following: “This is a scientific approach to highlight and explain stuff white people like. They are pretty predictable.”
The glaring problem with these posts is that they are about rich white people, which makes me think that the editors are just self-loathing.
In any case, I think the most interesting thing about the website is the responses. For one, smart writing is usually misunderstood. People tend to respond with the following: "I'm white and I don't like X".
There are also those however that take many of the posts literally. For example, many will respond with racial slurs, homophobic and sexist comments. In some twisted sense the posts come off as validating white privilege. Then again, some of these responses are also meant in jest, which seems to make less sense.
Many of the posts receive up to one thousand responses. It will be interesting to see what happens to the website when businesses take notice. For now, it kind of reminds me of South Park on a blog.
Semiotext(e) and Foucault
http://www.generation-online.org/p/psylverelotringer.htm
When Michel Foucault died in 1984, he requested there would be no posthumous publications. He even went as far to destroy his own work. Over the past twenty years, however, many of his lectures delivered at UC Berkley and the College de France have been published.
In the past year, Semiotext(e) announced the release of Foucault's doctoral dissertation. It includes a translation of Kant's "Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View" and also his own work "Commentary." Many Foucault scholars have considered this to be of utmost importance for understanding the trajectory his critical project. It has previously been available at the Michel Foucault Library and the University of Paris X library.
Over the summer, the publication has been surrounded by controversy. An independent translator by the name of Dr. Arianna Bove, translated the above work and was solicited by an agent from Semiotext(e) a subsidiary company of MIT Press. According to Dr. Bove, Semiotex(e) encouraged her to make the translation more 'accessible', which to her meant 'disingenuous'. As is the case, Americans cannot get enough of French intellectuals. In this case, however, the distortion of this text would be a waste. Foucault's writing on Kant is one of the least explored and underdeveloped areas of his work.
When Michel Foucault died in 1984, he requested there would be no posthumous publications. He even went as far to destroy his own work. Over the past twenty years, however, many of his lectures delivered at UC Berkley and the College de France have been published.
In the past year, Semiotext(e) announced the release of Foucault's doctoral dissertation. It includes a translation of Kant's "Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View" and also his own work "Commentary." Many Foucault scholars have considered this to be of utmost importance for understanding the trajectory his critical project. It has previously been available at the Michel Foucault Library and the University of Paris X library.
Over the summer, the publication has been surrounded by controversy. An independent translator by the name of Dr. Arianna Bove, translated the above work and was solicited by an agent from Semiotext(e) a subsidiary company of MIT Press. According to Dr. Bove, Semiotex(e) encouraged her to make the translation more 'accessible', which to her meant 'disingenuous'. As is the case, Americans cannot get enough of French intellectuals. In this case, however, the distortion of this text would be a waste. Foucault's writing on Kant is one of the least explored and underdeveloped areas of his work.
3.10.2008
Bastard Boom
The bastion of sodomy, immorality and anti-American sentiment has released three films this year that have been accused of having Pro-Life themes. Despite all their stylistic differences Indie hit and Oscar nominated Juno (Diablo Cody), frat-house comedy Knocked Up (Judd Aptow) and the dramedy Waitress (the late Adrienne Shelley) converge on theme of unwanted pregnancy.
Film critics grew suspicious when movies about women keeping bastard children invaded the porous skin that is the box office. Juno and Waitress premiered at Sundance, while Knocked Up had an immediate wide-release. Out of the three Juno and Knocked Up grossed around $350 million worldwide.
Several notable critics charged that the films implicitly gave off Pro-Life themes, while acknowledging that not any one of them was made for that purpose.
David Edlestein of Slate and NPR’s Fresh Air, commented that, like it or not, these films made political statements (evidently in the favor of Pro-Life). This motivated his decision to keep Juno off his top ten-list.
Hadley Freeman of the Guardian took a more direct approach and said flatly that the films are, “a product of a generation that has had the luxury of legal and relatively easy access to abortion. The danger is that one forgets what the alternative really meant, and as a result sentimentalises it.”
The alternative film of choice for politically frustrated critics was Romanian director’s (Christian Munguin) “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days”. If Juno is a "feminist, girl-powered rejoinder and complement to Knocked Up", as A.O Scott of The New York Times put it, then 4 Months is Schindler’s List to Jakob the Liar.
As if often the case, it seemed as if no one actually watched the movies. Only when critics are in the grip of some of a theory can they ignore the qualitative difference in films.
Out of the three Knocked Up exemplifies the discontent among Pro-Lifers. The powerful and successful Allison sacrifices her career for the stoned, jobless and schmucky Ben. The only thing that was clear about Allison is that she was the creation of male writer. There was no depth, no complexity, and no desire.
To add insult to injury, one of the male characters can’t even say ‘abortion’.
In an interview for Vanity Fair star Katherine Heigl voices these concerns when she describes the film as “a little sexist” and added,” it paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys.”
These comments created a tidal wave of controversy for writer and director Judd Aptow. He, however, had little to contribute, aside from questioning Heigl’s use of ‘shrew’ and sheepishly reminding the public to “buy Knocked Up on DVD and judge for themselves.”
Juno screenwriter Diablo Cody, no stranger to criticism herself for her immodest stint as a stripper and phone-sex operator, has been vocal that Juno is not a Pro-Life film.
In an interview for online magazine suicidegirls Cody offers her interpretation on the abortion question, “I think she makes a personal choice. I don't know what I would call it and I don't know if that would be my personal decision. But I think her journey is rich and valid.”
While, Juno does not chose to terminate her pregnancy for all of the good reasons that a sixteen year old would, Cody reminds us that her choice should not be invalidated. The pregnancy is an essential part of the trajectory of Juno’s journey, which is not to be mistaken with the idea that the pregnancy in itself is that trajectory.
One could argue, however, that Juno’s choice is inconsistent with her character. Admittedly, the scene when Juno breaks the news to father and stepmother lacks the expected tension. She remains cool throughout never breaking with her supreme self-confidence. Having been a teenager myself, I will readily say that I experienced more angst and torment for sneaking a Mike’s Hard Lemonade from mom.
Despite the absence of any noticeable tension the bit of dialogue that follows is of monumental significance for the arch of the film. Juno’s father tells her that he thought she was the type of girl that ‘knew when was when’. Juno replies, “I don’t know what kind of girl I am”.
It is these words that establish the trajectory of the film. Before Juno is just a smart-assed, punky teenager that so many critics found nauseating. In this moment, however, Juno is for the first time exposed and complicated. And this remains the question for the rest of the movie: What kind of girl is Juno?
And I suppose this is deeply disturbing for Pro-choice critics. It would seem that the answer to the question is inexorably bound up with her decision to have the child.
Of the three films, Waitress is the most complicated. It does a kind of tightrope walk on genre lines, often flirting heavily with romantic comedy. There are moments, however, that threaten to implode the entire structure.
Out of the three films it is closest to the conservative motifs of the time. The protagonist is a country gal married to an abusive good ol’ boy. In a kind of quasi-surrealism her thoughts are transposed into pie recipes, making for a disturbingly beautiful motif that undercuts the whole traditionalist motif.
Waitress grossed only around $18 million dollars and despite receiving stellar critical reception was not nominated for any awards. It is a rare film in both its originality and depth. While devoid of the gritty realism of a film like “4 Months” it is commentary nonetheless. If critics could budge from their uncritical dogmatism they would see this and not do it the disservice of grouping it with Knocked Up and Juno.
Film critics grew suspicious when movies about women keeping bastard children invaded the porous skin that is the box office. Juno and Waitress premiered at Sundance, while Knocked Up had an immediate wide-release. Out of the three Juno and Knocked Up grossed around $350 million worldwide.
Several notable critics charged that the films implicitly gave off Pro-Life themes, while acknowledging that not any one of them was made for that purpose.
David Edlestein of Slate and NPR’s Fresh Air, commented that, like it or not, these films made political statements (evidently in the favor of Pro-Life). This motivated his decision to keep Juno off his top ten-list.
Hadley Freeman of the Guardian took a more direct approach and said flatly that the films are, “a product of a generation that has had the luxury of legal and relatively easy access to abortion. The danger is that one forgets what the alternative really meant, and as a result sentimentalises it.”
The alternative film of choice for politically frustrated critics was Romanian director’s (Christian Munguin) “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days”. If Juno is a "feminist, girl-powered rejoinder and complement to Knocked Up", as A.O Scott of The New York Times put it, then 4 Months is Schindler’s List to Jakob the Liar.
As if often the case, it seemed as if no one actually watched the movies. Only when critics are in the grip of some of a theory can they ignore the qualitative difference in films.
Out of the three Knocked Up exemplifies the discontent among Pro-Lifers. The powerful and successful Allison sacrifices her career for the stoned, jobless and schmucky Ben. The only thing that was clear about Allison is that she was the creation of male writer. There was no depth, no complexity, and no desire.
To add insult to injury, one of the male characters can’t even say ‘abortion’.
In an interview for Vanity Fair star Katherine Heigl voices these concerns when she describes the film as “a little sexist” and added,” it paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys.”
These comments created a tidal wave of controversy for writer and director Judd Aptow. He, however, had little to contribute, aside from questioning Heigl’s use of ‘shrew’ and sheepishly reminding the public to “buy Knocked Up on DVD and judge for themselves.”
Juno screenwriter Diablo Cody, no stranger to criticism herself for her immodest stint as a stripper and phone-sex operator, has been vocal that Juno is not a Pro-Life film.
In an interview for online magazine suicidegirls Cody offers her interpretation on the abortion question, “I think she makes a personal choice. I don't know what I would call it and I don't know if that would be my personal decision. But I think her journey is rich and valid.”
While, Juno does not chose to terminate her pregnancy for all of the good reasons that a sixteen year old would, Cody reminds us that her choice should not be invalidated. The pregnancy is an essential part of the trajectory of Juno’s journey, which is not to be mistaken with the idea that the pregnancy in itself is that trajectory.
One could argue, however, that Juno’s choice is inconsistent with her character. Admittedly, the scene when Juno breaks the news to father and stepmother lacks the expected tension. She remains cool throughout never breaking with her supreme self-confidence. Having been a teenager myself, I will readily say that I experienced more angst and torment for sneaking a Mike’s Hard Lemonade from mom.
Despite the absence of any noticeable tension the bit of dialogue that follows is of monumental significance for the arch of the film. Juno’s father tells her that he thought she was the type of girl that ‘knew when was when’. Juno replies, “I don’t know what kind of girl I am”.
It is these words that establish the trajectory of the film. Before Juno is just a smart-assed, punky teenager that so many critics found nauseating. In this moment, however, Juno is for the first time exposed and complicated. And this remains the question for the rest of the movie: What kind of girl is Juno?
And I suppose this is deeply disturbing for Pro-choice critics. It would seem that the answer to the question is inexorably bound up with her decision to have the child.
Of the three films, Waitress is the most complicated. It does a kind of tightrope walk on genre lines, often flirting heavily with romantic comedy. There are moments, however, that threaten to implode the entire structure.
Out of the three films it is closest to the conservative motifs of the time. The protagonist is a country gal married to an abusive good ol’ boy. In a kind of quasi-surrealism her thoughts are transposed into pie recipes, making for a disturbingly beautiful motif that undercuts the whole traditionalist motif.
Waitress grossed only around $18 million dollars and despite receiving stellar critical reception was not nominated for any awards. It is a rare film in both its originality and depth. While devoid of the gritty realism of a film like “4 Months” it is commentary nonetheless. If critics could budge from their uncritical dogmatism they would see this and not do it the disservice of grouping it with Knocked Up and Juno.
2.27.2008
Abstract
It seems these days that pregnancy is all the rave. In popular magazines across the land the gossip orbits around the burgeoning bellies of Hollywood's most famous. Pregnancy is so popular that it has become the plot for several movies.
In the 2007-2008 year of American cinema, three popular movies all navigated the familiar terrain of accidental pregnancy: Knocked-Up, Juno and Waitress.
Pregnancy is not only an issue in Hollywood, but it also informs the political arena as well. That is, the debate between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice rages. The conversative administration of George Bush introduce the Roe vs. Wade decision into political rhetoric once more. More importantly, it has been said that the evangelical constiutency that is such a political force these days, put Busy into office in the 04' election. And it is well known that on the top of their agenda is abortion.
Given these phenomenas, among others, critics of the movies above have gone as far to suggest that whether the filmmakers like it or not are making a political statement with respect to this controversial issue. The purpose of this essay will be to explore each of these films, after situating them in a wider socio-political context, to see if this dichotomy appropriately captures the content of the films.
1) I will review the three films
2) Search for critical commentary on the films.
3) Look at Bush Administration rhetoric
4) Situate these films historically among others with the same topic
5) Draw a connection between these seemingly opposed and contradictory phenomena
In the 2007-2008 year of American cinema, three popular movies all navigated the familiar terrain of accidental pregnancy: Knocked-Up, Juno and Waitress.
Pregnancy is not only an issue in Hollywood, but it also informs the political arena as well. That is, the debate between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice rages. The conversative administration of George Bush introduce the Roe vs. Wade decision into political rhetoric once more. More importantly, it has been said that the evangelical constiutency that is such a political force these days, put Busy into office in the 04' election. And it is well known that on the top of their agenda is abortion.
Given these phenomenas, among others, critics of the movies above have gone as far to suggest that whether the filmmakers like it or not are making a political statement with respect to this controversial issue. The purpose of this essay will be to explore each of these films, after situating them in a wider socio-political context, to see if this dichotomy appropriately captures the content of the films.
1) I will review the three films
2) Search for critical commentary on the films.
3) Look at Bush Administration rhetoric
4) Situate these films historically among others with the same topic
5) Draw a connection between these seemingly opposed and contradictory phenomena
2.26.2008
80th Academy Awards Reflects Hope for Art
This year’s Academy Awards Ceremony offered something completely new: authentic change. Last year’s show was historic because Martin Scorsese won his long-overdue first Oscar, and the show itself went “green.” Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio’s lecture about the environment was a bitter pill to swallow against the backdrop of an event that held fast to its glitz and glamour.
Progressive politics couldn’t do it, but a drawn-out writers’ strike brought the industry to its knees and its biggest event down to size. With very real speculation that the 80th annual ceremony would not take place at all, everyone realized life would indeed go on without the Oscars. As a result, the show didn’t pretend to be the center of the universe.
If not for the writers’ strike then the movies themselves contributed to the glib mood. The two front-runners No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are dark, challenging and nihilistic. The closest nomination to a romance story was Atonement, a film that embodies a kind of hopelessness. Critics suggested that the movies of 2007 and 2008 expressed the complexity of this historical moment: America and Americans are changing; escapism is no longer an option.
The Academy, in turn, reflected this shift in perspective rather than remaining steadfast in their marketable optimism.
While no single film swept the categories, the academy chose not to be defiant in the face of art. The new American classic No Country for Old Men was honored with four awards: best supporting actor (Javier Bardem) as well as best adapted screen play, best directors and best picture (Joel and Ethan Cohen).
Notably, no American actors took home Oscars. Marion Cotillard of France won best actress for her portrayal of the tragic Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose. The superb Daniel Day Lewis won for his complex performance in There Will Be Blood.
The high moment of the night, however, was the result of an error. Czech musician/actor Marketa Irglova of Once was abruptly cut off when accepting her award for best song, but Host Jon Stewart invited Irglova back after the commercial break to applause from the audience. It was that rare moment when an artist who isn’t inhibited by the maintenance of her image says something authentic.
She declared that Once, a small, Irish independent film made on a $100,000 budget, offered hope in its tale of two alienated people who reached each other through song. Hope is for everyone, she said, reminding the Hollywood and television audience that art comes from the imagination of individuals, not studios and industry.
At the end of the night, the results were more or less expected, but this year’s ceremony was anything but predictable. In a year marked by strife, difference, depth and death, the Academy acknowledged the changing face and attitude of American culture. It doesn’t take Al Gore or a political agenda to promote change; art, when given a chance, can and will do that on its own.
Progressive politics couldn’t do it, but a drawn-out writers’ strike brought the industry to its knees and its biggest event down to size. With very real speculation that the 80th annual ceremony would not take place at all, everyone realized life would indeed go on without the Oscars. As a result, the show didn’t pretend to be the center of the universe.
If not for the writers’ strike then the movies themselves contributed to the glib mood. The two front-runners No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are dark, challenging and nihilistic. The closest nomination to a romance story was Atonement, a film that embodies a kind of hopelessness. Critics suggested that the movies of 2007 and 2008 expressed the complexity of this historical moment: America and Americans are changing; escapism is no longer an option.
The Academy, in turn, reflected this shift in perspective rather than remaining steadfast in their marketable optimism.
While no single film swept the categories, the academy chose not to be defiant in the face of art. The new American classic No Country for Old Men was honored with four awards: best supporting actor (Javier Bardem) as well as best adapted screen play, best directors and best picture (Joel and Ethan Cohen).
Notably, no American actors took home Oscars. Marion Cotillard of France won best actress for her portrayal of the tragic Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose. The superb Daniel Day Lewis won for his complex performance in There Will Be Blood.
The high moment of the night, however, was the result of an error. Czech musician/actor Marketa Irglova of Once was abruptly cut off when accepting her award for best song, but Host Jon Stewart invited Irglova back after the commercial break to applause from the audience. It was that rare moment when an artist who isn’t inhibited by the maintenance of her image says something authentic.
She declared that Once, a small, Irish independent film made on a $100,000 budget, offered hope in its tale of two alienated people who reached each other through song. Hope is for everyone, she said, reminding the Hollywood and television audience that art comes from the imagination of individuals, not studios and industry.
At the end of the night, the results were more or less expected, but this year’s ceremony was anything but predictable. In a year marked by strife, difference, depth and death, the Academy acknowledged the changing face and attitude of American culture. It doesn’t take Al Gore or a political agenda to promote change; art, when given a chance, can and will do that on its own.
2.20.2008
Language as Instrument
George Orwell has made a fool of me. Admittedly, the style of writing I have come to take as my own appears within several of his examples. And yet, I’m not offended. After all, Orwell’s classic piece reminds us of the intimate connection between politics and writing.
While there are a few points of contention I have with Orwell with respect to the nature of language and its development, the article nevertheless emphasizes a dimension of language that is rarely discussed. That is, language as an instrument or that thing which can, if used properly, can be manipulated for the clarity of thought.
I particularly like Orwell’s image of ‘meaning choose the word.’ There is a sense that the authorial intent regains the primacy that it was robbed on at the close of 20th century. Despite these insights, Orwell comes off as sounding typically Anglo in his description of language. There is a darker side to understanding language as an instrument. He does, however, make the crucial distinction between language and literary language. In that case, I would be interested to hear what he has to say about the latter.
While there are a few points of contention I have with Orwell with respect to the nature of language and its development, the article nevertheless emphasizes a dimension of language that is rarely discussed. That is, language as an instrument or that thing which can, if used properly, can be manipulated for the clarity of thought.
I particularly like Orwell’s image of ‘meaning choose the word.’ There is a sense that the authorial intent regains the primacy that it was robbed on at the close of 20th century. Despite these insights, Orwell comes off as sounding typically Anglo in his description of language. There is a darker side to understanding language as an instrument. He does, however, make the crucial distinction between language and literary language. In that case, I would be interested to hear what he has to say about the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)