Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Against the ruin of the world, there is only one defense -- the creative act."
About Me
Followers
Links of Interest
- Apocalypse Mambo
- Bukowski's "A Little Atomic Bomb"
- Desk Space
- Duotrope's Digest
- Fogged Clarity
- Hit and Run Magazine
- How a Book Gets Published (Ha Ha)
- Jacob Riis Photo Gallery
- Literary News Blog
- litmags.org
- Outside Writers Collective
- Places for Writers
- Tomorrowland
- Vonnegut on Style
- Walker Evans' Photos
- Writing Routines
19 comments:
Throughout different parts of George Orwell's piece "Marrakech," instead of using the traditional first or third person points of view, he uses the 2nd person point of view. This is the main reason why his essays, or at least this one, has a "you-are-there" documentary feel. Orwell actually puts his reader into the scenes. In a "do it yourself guide," it tells you each step of how to do things, it uses the "you" to demand you to complete the process of whatever objective you have. In Orwell's case, he tells you each step where you are and what you're doing. As you read it's almost as if he's giving you commands. You don't have a choice of what you will see, but as long as you're reading the piece, you're there automatically by the words that he's providing you with.
Like Liz said, the first thing I noticed about Orwell's writing is that he uses second person point of view, a form that is not widely used in traditional writing. Using the word "you" and framing it with descriptions and statements that enhance the reader's ability to feel as if they're actually there make the "Marrakech" more realistic. While depicting a part of the world most readers have not experienced and do not know how to visualize, Orwell's use of this story-telling technique puts the reader there.
In addition to using second person point of view during much of the piece, many of the passages flow in a way that almost let me hear a narrator in my head. As I read I could imagine certain passages being the voice over of the very scenes Orwell was describing.
The reason Orwell's style of writing works is because it immediately stands out to readers as being a rarely used form. This form places the reader in the story and lets him or her experience the scenes as they happen, almost as if we were walking along beside Orwell as he viewed the Jewish ghettos and walked over skeletons. Readers feel like they're in the story through his use of phrases like "you see how the people live" or "difficult to believe you are walking among human beings" and things that suggest you the reader are having the same reactions as Orwell to the situation.
I attribute Orwell’s “you-are-there” feel mainly to his use of metaphors and similies. Marrakech is literally a story of comparisons; it is the structure of the story and is also contained within each graph. He does so in order to give us a connection to the “other”. He associates things that are common in our world to the hardships of the unknown. He closes the gap. For example, he compares a race of people to the physical land and animals (aspects of the earth that are universal). So, we can get a sense we are there because we can actually relate to what he is talking about.
Within the graphs themselves he uses very specific/detailed comparisons to give visuals. Some that I highlighted were: Comparing the land under which bodies were buried and land where trees and animals can’t survive as being “like broken-up brick”/ over-crowded Jewish neighborhoods as being “like clouds of flies”/ Comparing the popularity of Jews to witches/ Moroccan woman’s postures as being “like inverted capital L’s/ boots that looked like “blocks of wood/.
He was also very descriptive in terms of measurements. “an inch or two”/ “four inches”/ “four feet tall”/ “a couple of sizes too small.” Again, precise, visual details.
And, of course, as Liz and Alyssa mentioned, second person point of view lends to the sense that Orwell is addressing us directly.
I encourage everyone to examine Orwell's syntax -- how complexly or simply are his sentences structured? Also look to his language or word choice -- is it formal? informal? literary? conversational? What's the affect on what might be called the "documentary" feel of his prose?
Orwell uses lots of repetition to drive home his point and make the reader see what he is seeing. The first thing I noticed was that the idea of the soil as "broken up brick" was used numerous times. It made me understand how dire the situation was and just how hard (and futily) people of color had to work just to eat. Orwell also repeats how the people are "invisible"--"People with brown skins are next door to invisible", "...what is strange about these people is their invisibility"-- and supplements the idea with anecdotes such as the women carrying loads of back-breaking weight.
As for syntax, Orwell's sentences are simple yet powerful. One that struck me in particular was used when he was explaining about the man he encountered while feeding bread to the gazelles: "I tore off a piece and he stowed it gratefully in some secret place under his rags. This man is an employee of the Municipality."
A part I particularly enjoyed and that I thought was effective in displaying the ignorance of those mistreating other races was when Orwell writes of a conversation had with another about Jews. While I found it humorous that someone could say such stupid things, it was also sad. I probably jumped all over the place but there's so much to say about this piece.
The sentence structures and the exposure of a greater point through dialogue--like the Jewish conversation--are what got me in Orwell's piece. His sentences are incredibly detailed, but his vernacular is not advanced. His writes simply and conversationally. Through the details and story telling, we understand his points. For example, he told the story of how he paid attention to the old woman and how she nearly screamed in shock. He told a simple story, but with enough detail and enough of his conscious thought, we got that the elderly women are not respected and treated as dirt.
As said before, Orwell's use of the second person helped enhance this you-are-there mentality. However, it is his ability to thoroughly depict every aspect of the daily lives of these people that allowed me to feel like I was in the scene. Especially shown when discussing the Jewish ghettos, Orwell spends time taking you through every detail of the surrounding environment, down to the apparent stream of urine in the street. His ability to create a scene allows you to get fully
immersed in the story. From the description of the streets to the daily routine of the Jews, Orwell takes you through the scene as if you were there next to him watching these people work.
To me, the whole story has a sort of "film noir" touch all throughout. Like, if it were a movie, it would be played in one of those art house-type theaters were people smoke jazz cigarettes and drink black coffee. Then again, that's just me.
The magic behind Orwell's ability to make the audience feel they are inches from the scene is choice of description for something. For instance, "In the bazaar huge families of Jews, all dressed in the long black rob and little black skull-cap, are working in dark, fly-infested booths that look like caves" (435) He could have very easily just mentioned they they were working in booths, forcing us to imagine what the booths looked like. However, the complete-ness of his detail creates a fuller image, adding information like "fly-infested" that a casual reader probably would have not thought of.
I agree with Liz, who wrote that George Orwell use 2nd point of view which gives very "you-are-there" kind of feeling.
I like the way he describes groups which are socially invisible:
“(...)it is generally owing to some kind of accident if one even notices the old woman under her load of sticks”
It gives me this feeling like someone is grabbing my arm and pointing finger at then.
I also like the fact that Orwell gives plenty of details and descriptions in his sentences without using very complicated and complex words.
Orwell’s sentences are simple, but his word choices are deliberate. They dance on the border of ornate and ordinary—written like that one person we all know who uses truly, pretty simple words, yet ones that are still not found in every day conversation. “When the friends get to the burying-ground they HACK an oblong hole a foot or two deep, DUMP the body in it and FLING over it a little dried-up, LUMPY earth, which is like broken brick.” These careful word choices make the whole piece more active, allow you to see the body literally dumped, not placed, in the hole. There is no mistaking the scene when Orwell describes it as such.
His sentences are like those any person would write upon seeing what he sees. They’re not pretentious, and they give you exactly what’s happening. While he is writing about the plight of the natives, he does not attempt to stand in oppressed solidarity with them. He knows he is better off than they, and his writing never tries to deliver something that he is not feeling. He frankly says that it is “difficult to believe that you are walking among human beings.” He calls the people “primitive” and readily admits that “though they had registered themselves on [his] eyeballs” he could not say that he had actually seen nor paid much attention to them.
The description never teeters into obsessive. It gives enough of a picture that the reader can fill in the missing gaps easily, like we were there too, seeing some things and missing others. One thing that lets you feel the heat of the country, the filth and “wretchedness” that Orwell describes and an almost irritation is the repetition of the flies. “As the corpse went past the flies left the restaurant table in a cloud…”, comparing children to flies, noting that both are in unbelievable numbers, “dark fly-infested booths”. It is a constant, and the reader can hear the buzzing, smell what they’re swarming. It is a small item that gives just a pseudo-understanding of the dismal conditions.
Like everyone else has said, I saw Orwell's use of second person point of view throughout "Marrakech." Yet I don't think that this device alone creates the feeling of "thereness." The way Orwell uses it, is how it becomes effective. I found that he uses a lot of quick language in his narrative. He uses the word "you" and throws you onto the North African street, but he doesn't simply leave you there. He tells you what's right in front of your face - the flies, the corpses, the poverty. You literally feel as if you are in the Jewish Quarter, or as if "you see a labourer plowing a field." The words, ideas, juxtapositions and descriptions are constantly coming at you.
I found that Orwell's language was highly engaging and effective at achieving the goal of placing us into scenes of such rich imagery.
It's already been pointed out as one of the most obvious techniques of "you-are-there" writing, but using second person point of view is definitely what stood out to me first. Usually readers come across "I" or "one" or "he or she" but in Orwell's writing it's the "you" that engages readers. It puts us in the story, which is the purpose, hence "you-are-there."
For example, Orwell writes "sometimes, out for a walk, as you break your way through the prickly pear, you notice that it is rather bumpy underfoot, and only a certain regularity in the bumps tells you that you are walking over skeletons." And this quote makes me kinda feel something under my feet. I know I'm not walking over skeletons but his words reflect such a vivid imagination, causing me to have one too.
"Marrakech" is a very clear example of the "you are there" documentary feel that is described in the blog. Orwell uses various techniques to make this possible. He uses the first person to describe instances and does so in a very detailed fashion. He describes his experiences in the active tense, which make the reader feel as if they are there. He stats: "I was feeding one of the gazelles." Such an action doesn't necessarily need to be addressed so bluntly and can be understood from following details. The fact that Orwell includes this detail immediately places the reader in the situation and has their minds picture him feeding a gazelle. This also points out that Orwell was very close to the gazelle and sharing an intimate and personal moment with the gazelle. The gazelle must have trusted him enough to eat out of his hands, which make Orwell's statements credible.
Another aspect of Orwell's first person technique, which he uses is the use of "you." He does so to further engage the reader and make them feel as if he is speaking solely to them. The third graf of the piece begins with "When you walk through a town like this…” It immediately grasps the reader and puts them in Orwell’s shoes. Orwell further engages the reader by using rhetorical questions. They paint the scene and address concerns that are running through the readers’ minds. All of these techniques contribute to Orwell’s style that he is well known for.
Orwell was incredibly descriptive throughout Marrakech. He didn’t just want to tell you what happened — he wanted to show what happened. The first great description, I feel, comes with the flies swarming the dead bodies that are carried through the street. You could simply wrap this up in one sentence, but Orwell decides to paint the scene with as much of the vibrant colors that words can provide. The second thing Orwell uses, which others have pointed out, is a simple vocabulary. There is a very “common-man” language to his writing. This helps you fall more into the scene. Since an intricate vocabulary is avoided you can glide through the piece with ease. Orwell simply doesn’t try to overstate or understate anything — he just shows what happened. This is why I feel he has a documentary feel.
I have to say, I agree with pretty much everybody and what they have to say about Orwell. His use of 2nd person point of view, he does insert you in the scenes. In one sentence, he says "When you go throught the Jewish quarters you gather some idea of what the medieval ghettos were probably like." He plants you right into the action and setting of the story, which is powerful and definitely documentary-like. I also agree whole-heartedly with what Tarez said, "Orwell’s sentences are simple, but his word choices are deliberate." She was dead on with that, that his sentences are really easily read and simple, but they're heavy-hitting and meaningful.
As a side note, I really liked his description of the corpses being wrapped in rags, and how people do not even know where relatives are buried. It was definitely a documentary-like scene that I think was written very well.
Orwell needed to be deliberate in forcing the reader to feel like they were in the scene, because the scenes he was describing were so foreign to his readership base. Using the second person you is an excellent way to do this. He also describes the scene in great detail. so as to funnel the reader into the scene
The way Orwell has added metaphors like restaurant table and flock of cattle has made the reader know the similarities and differences among the slaves in Morocco. Every word of Orwell's Marrakech proves his poetic skills even in an essay.
شركة رش مبيدات بجدة
شركة شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
شركة شراء اثاث مستعمل بجدة
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالخرج
شركة تنظيف مسابح بجدة
Post a Comment