English as a language is simply superb as far as precision goes. To begin with, English is an exceptionally laconic language that believes in understatement. Often, hence, very few adjectives are used. Want proof? Read "The Old Man and the Sea" by Hemingway. Adjectives and adverbs are as rare as the ever elusive great find!
Similarly, Orwell's honesty of vision is matched by the cleanliness of his language. A truly precise language, it avoids the fluff of fancy verbosity. May be, the sharp honesty of his vision comes from the stark simplicity of his language, or vice versa.
For many, it would be utmost difficult either to write purely or to think absolutely honestly like Orwell. Yet is it indeed necessary to go to the other extreme, and think, behave, and hence write in a very vapid, banal way?
I would not know it! I would find it in rather poor taste. Can I give you an example or two? Well, yes, i absolutely adore Lord Gajanana as a deity, as a concept, as an art form, too.
Surely though i would not call him Bappa. It suits a child to speak of the Lord thus. Nor would he be Gampu in my blog. Sure, the God-devotee relationship is indeed unique. And, in a democracy, anybody is free to call anybody anything as most people believe, and so speak! Or, rather utter the gutter way. How can the poor deity be an exception to this man-made wor(l)ds?!?
Even then, when in this twenty-first century world of ours, every other way everyone turns adult real fast, why act baby like only when it comes to referring to poor Ganesha as Gampu or Bappa? Such people are otherwise viciousness personified when it comes to cut-throat competitiveness. So the pretentious innocence does not stick neither jells. Really! Childishness is not being child like!!
Pratima@ Simplicity is not simplification. Childishness is not child-like!
No comments:
Post a Comment