Orwells Parody Refutation

: Note: The original author of this refutation acknowledges that OrwellsParody is an essay written in 1946. Most essays have a purpose, usually to persuade (and Orwell's essay is certainly attempting to do that). However, the refutation's author believes that its logic is faulty. Even if Orwell is long since dead, the essay he wrote is still contemporary, and thus, it is reasonable to attempt to refute it.

The first sentence contains six vivid images

The first sentence contained six, initially quite confusing, allegories. I had to read the sentence three times before I understood what was trying to be expressed.

What's confusing about the phrase "the race does not go to the fast" (an alternate translation)? Or "the battle does not go to the strong"?

"I returned, and saw under the sun, ..." -- what does that have to do with anything? What if he didn't return? What if it was cloudy? - The NIV translates the phrase as "I have seen something else under the sun". "Under the sun" is the thematic binding of the entire section, and is a poetic way of indicating "on the entire Earth." Would you like to insist that only literal phrases should be allowed?

This sounds to me like complaining about "It was a dark and stormy night" by asking, "What if the weather was clear?" What does this have to do with the clarity of the writing? The situation presented is the author's basis for his point.

Consider, too, what purpose the allegory had back in early literature. Back in the good ol' days, books and papers weren't published with the mechanical precision that we have today. They were copied by hand, usually by monks, with paper and quill. Anything humans did was prone to error -- missing letters, skipped sentences, etc. It happened rather frequently enough. The allegory was used precisely because it was vague; an error in transcribing an allegory is not likely to have adverse effects, because it contains relatively little information content. Also, many authors of the time used multiple allegories, to help combat the error of skipping lines while transcribing. Redundancy helped ensure the message was communicated even in the presence of such errors. Allegories also put into terms the uneducated readership could understand.

Which time are you referring to? Ecclesiastes was written about 1300 years before Christian monasticism was thought of, and the scribes of the time were both extremely careful and accurate. I don't think that particular author was worried about transmission errors.

We've got a lot more precise publishing equipment today. The readership is a lot more educated than they were. Is there any reason to continue to use the imagery of yore for the purpose of conveying information? Of persuading? Even of simple, honest to goodness literary enjoyment? No.

So, just because we don't have to use powerful imagery, we shouldn't?

Seems to me the complaint is the use of outdated imagery, not powerful imagery. However, literary enjoyment is due to appreciating the aesthetic value of the work, and in that respect, using outdated imagery is no different than using archaic words like "yore", - if it fits the aesthetic, use it.

Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes

Patently false. I would say what's on my mind: There's an element of chance in everything we do. Period. No further discussion is needed.

No further discussion is needed with you, perhaps. Does everyone write with your clarity?

This is surely the fundamental point though. Both sentences are complete waffle compared to the point they're trying to get across. The first is just more pleasant on the ear and reflects a mindset more willing to accept analogy over exactness. The latter reflects a more scientific mindset, which is surely a good thing in a society, even if not when writing artistic works? The Bible is probably a more artistic context than anywhere one might find the latter statement. Probably the best refutation is that the whole notion of context has been completely dodged. --AnonymousDonor

I do not want to exaggerate.

Yet, you deliberately chose to translate the first sentence into a form which no sane modern English author would choose without good reason. There's a skill we call diction which relates precisely to this very effort. Authors with poor diction don't get very far in their careers. Thus, if you find an example like that in some text, there's a pretty good chance that there is a reason for it. Remember that ameliorate (to make better) doesn't mean exactly the same thing as alleviate (to reduce, to relieve), which is again contextually different in meaning than relieve (which according to my dictionary, has 6 times as much definition as alleviate). 100% true synonyms are astonishingly rare in English. I once read that the only exact synonyms in English were 'begin' and 'commence'.

Moreover, referring back to my proper paragraphing point above, examining a single sentence is a futile effort. You must also consider the context in which it appears. That context is, at worst, established by the whole document in which it appears, and at best, by the paragraph it appears in. The context is usually established in between those two extremes (typically at the chapter or subsection level).

I think I will stop here. There are other things I could pick from your paragraph above, but I think I've gotten my point across sufficiently well: hypocrisy dominates the modern era. -- AnonymousDonor

It's easy to find hypocrisy when you jump to conclusions about both the actions and the speech of others. It's no surprise that your (deliberate?) misunderstandings of their speech and your (deliberate?) misunderstandings of their actions don't match.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, ..." -- what does that have to do with anything? What if he didn't return? What if it was cloudy?

This sounds to me like complaining about "It was a dark and stormy night" by asking, "What if the weather was clear?" What does this have to do with the clarity of the logical point?

Umm... I don't think the point here is the weather. "Under the sun" means "everywhere". I'm not sure about "returned" but the quote is surely taken a bit out of context. Viewed in this light (no pun intended) I think that it does contribute to the clarity of the point. The original author of Ecclesiastes is saying that all over the world it is the same.

Exactly so. The clarity of the logical point is identical in both cases. In the latter case it's just not hidden behind a metaphor. -- (yet another) AnonymousDonor