In his piece “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell, best known for his allegorical satire Animal Farm and the dystopian novel 1984 (Orwell) , lays out his case that modern English is “ugly and imprecise” and needs to be simplified to be perceived as a necessary dialect. He also adds that many modern pieces have two things in common, one is the staleness of the images and the second is the lack of precision. Next, he provides examples of how writers, especially when dealing with politics, adopt a variety of the same tactics and have led them to “have meaning and not be able to express it.” These tricks include dying metaphors, false operators or verbal arts, pretentious diction, and meaningless words. The abuse of these tactics has led to “vagueness and sheer incompetence.” He goes on to suggest eliminating long words where short ones will do, and to never use passive language because active language will be more effective. Furthermore, one could argue that language is simply an expression of current social conditions and that metaphors such as “exploring every avenue” or “leaving no stone unturned” still serve a purpose, but Orwell claims that these dying metaphors can, and they should be stopped. if there was an interest in deleting them and people had the possibility to choose to change their language (Practical Argument p. 787). In short, if we can simplify our English and change those bad habits, it will lead to active speaking. Throughout his argument, Orwell demonstrates several examples of logical appeal. However, his most compelling argument is laid out at the beginning of his piece. He opens by showing five examples of what he considers to illustrate “the mental vices from which we now suffer” (Practical Argument, p.779). Orwell wan…… middle of paper…… level g”. After reading both topics, it is consolidated that each article mutually reinforces the language point of view. However, Gordon does not appear to be as strong and harsh on the issue as Orwell. While most audiences may feel offended by his criticism, Orwell's argument for simplifying English has a lot of credibility. Despite his heavy criticism and authoritative tone, it is evident that the excessive use of verbiage and meaningless sentences has corrupted much of modern English. Perhaps you need to consider what clearer English might achieve if applied. After all, if we can simplify our language, we free ourselves from the foolish dialect that Orwell perceives as “stale” (p.788). Perhaps, after accepting Orwell's argument, the remaining option is to apply it to everyday life and see the results.