george orwell politics and the english language thesis

A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

‘Politics and the English Language’ (1946) is one of the best-known essays by George Orwell (1903-50). As its title suggests, Orwell identifies a link between the (degraded) English language of his time and the degraded political situation: Orwell sees modern discourse (especially political discourse) as being less a matter of words chosen for their clear meanings than a series of stock phrases slung together.

You can read ‘Politics and the English Language’ here before proceeding to our summary and analysis of Orwell’s essay below.

‘Politics and the English Language’: summary

Orwell begins by drawing attention to the strong link between the language writers use and the quality of political thought in the current age (i.e. the 1940s). He argues that if we use language that is slovenly and decadent, it makes it easier for us to fall into bad habits of thought, because language and thought are so closely linked.

Orwell then gives five examples of what he considers bad political writing. He draws attention to two faults which all five passages share: staleness of imagery and lack of precision . Either the writers of these passages had a clear meaning to convey but couldn’t express it clearly, or they didn’t care whether they communicated any particular meaning at all, and were simply saying things for the sake of it.

Orwell writes that this is a common problem in current political writing: ‘prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.’

Next, Orwell elaborates on the key faults of modern English prose, namely:

Dying Metaphors : these are figures of speech which writers lazily reach for, even though such phrases are worn-out and can no longer convey a vivid image. Orwell cites a number of examples, including toe the line , no axe to grind , Achilles’ heel , and swansong . Orwell’s objection to such dying metaphors is that writers use them without even thinking about what the phrases actually mean, such as when people misuse toe the line by writing it as tow the line , or when they mix their metaphors, again, because they’re not interested in what those images evoke.

Operators or Verbal False Limbs : this is when a longer and rather vague phrase is used in place of a single-word (and more direct) verb, e.g. make contact with someone, which essentially means ‘contact’ someone. The passive voice is also common, and writing phrases like by examination of instead of the more direct by examining . Sentences are saved from fizzling out (because the thought or idea being conveyed is not particularly striking) by largely meaningless closing platitudes such as greatly to be desired or brought to a satisfactory conclusion .

Pretentious Diction : Orwell draws attention to several areas here. He states that words like objective , basis , and eliminate are used by writers to dress up simple statements, making subjective opinion sound like scientific fact. Adjectives like epic , historic , and inevitable are used about international politics, while writing that glorifies war is full of old-fashioned words like realm , throne , and sword .

Foreign words and phrases like deus ex machina and mutatis mutandis are used to convey an air of culture and elegance. Indeed, many modern English writers are guilty of using Latin or Greek words in the belief that they are ‘grander’ than home-grown Anglo-Saxon ones: Orwell mentions Latinate words like expedite and ameliorate here. All of these examples are further proof of the ‘slovenliness and vagueness’ which Orwell detects in modern political prose.

Meaningless Words : Orwell argues that much art criticism and literary criticism in particular is full of words which don’t really mean anything at all, e.g. human , living , or romantic . ‘Fascism’, too, has lost all meaning in current political writing, effectively meaning ‘something not desirable’ (one wonders what Orwell would make of the word’s misuse in our current time!).

To prove his point, Orwell ‘translates’ a well-known passage from the Biblical Book of Ecclesiastes into modern English, with all its vagueness of language. ‘The whole tendency of modern prose’, he argues, ‘is away from concreteness.’ He draws attention to the concrete and everyday images (e.g. references to bread and riches) in the Bible passage, and the lack of any such images in his own fabricated rewriting of this passage.

The problem, Orwell says, is that it is too easy (and too tempting) to reach for these off-the-peg phrases than to be more direct or more original and precise in one’s speech or writing.

Orwell advises every writer to ask themselves four questions (at least): 1) what am I trying to say? 2) what words will express it? 3) what image or idiom will make it clearer? and 4) is this image fresh enough to have an effect? He proposes two further optional questions: could I put it more shortly? and have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

Orthodoxy, Orwell goes on to observe, tends to encourage this ‘lifeless, imitative style’, whereas rebels who are not parroting the ‘party line’ will normally write in a more clear and direct style.

But Orwell also argues that such obfuscating language serves a purpose: much political writing is an attempt to defend the indefensible, such as the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan (just one year before Orwell wrote ‘Politics and the English Language’), in such a euphemistic way that the ordinary reader will find it more palatable.

When your aim is to make such atrocities excusable, language which doesn’t evoke any clear mental image (e.g. of burning bodies in Hiroshima) is actually desirable.

Orwell argues that just as thought corrupts language, language can corrupt thought, with these ready-made phrases preventing writers from expressing anything meaningful or original. He believes that we should get rid of any word which has outworn its usefulness and should aim to use ‘the fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning’.

Writers should let the meaning choose the word, rather than vice versa. We should think carefully about what we want to say until we have the right mental pictures to convey that thought in the clearest language.

Orwell concludes ‘Politics and the English Language’ with six rules for the writer to follow:

i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

‘Politics and the English Language’: analysis

In some respects, ‘Politics and the English Language’ advances an argument about good prose language which is close to what the modernist poet and thinker T. E. Hulme (1883-1917) argued for poetry in his ‘ A Lecture on Modern Poetry ’ and ‘Notes on Language and Style’ almost forty years earlier.

Although Hulme and Orwell came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, their objections to lazy and worn-out language stem are in many ways the same.

Hulme argued that poetry should be a forge where fresh metaphors are made: images which make us see the world in a slightly new way. But poetic language decays into common prose language before dying a lingering death in journalists’ English. The first time a poet described a hill as being ‘clad [i.e. clothed] with trees’, the reader would probably have mentally pictured such an image, but in time it loses its power to make us see anything.

Hulme calls these worn-out expressions ‘counters’, because they are like discs being moved around on a chessboard: an image which is itself not unlike Orwell’s prefabricated hen-house in ‘Politics and the English Language’.

Of course, Orwell’s focus is English prose rather than poetry, and his objections to sloppy writing are not principally literary (although that is undoubtedly a factor) but, above all, political. And he is keen to emphasise that his criticism of bad language, and suggestions for how to improve political writing, are both, to an extent, hopelessly idealistic: as he observes towards the end of ‘Politics and the English Language’, ‘Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.’

But what Orwell advises is that the writer be on their guard against such phrases, the better to avoid them where possible. This is why he encourages writers to be more self-questioning (‘What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?’) when writing political prose.

Nevertheless, the link between the standard of language and the kind of politics a particular country, regime, or historical era has is an important one. As Orwell writes: ‘I should expect to find – this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify – that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.’

Those writing under a dictatorship cannot write or speak freely, of course, but more importantly, those defending totalitarian rule must bend and abuse language in order to make ugly truths sound more attractive to the general populace, and perhaps to other nations.

In more recent times, the phrase ‘collateral damage’ is one of the more objectionable phrases used about war, hiding the often ugly reality (innocent civilians who are unfortunate victims of violence, but who are somehow viewed as a justifiable price to pay for the greater good).

Although Orwell’s essay has been criticised for being too idealistic, in many ways ‘Politics and the English Language’ remains as relevant now as it was in 1946 when it was first published.

Indeed, to return to Orwell’s opening point about decadence, it is unavoidable that the standard of political discourse has further declined since Orwell’s day. Perhaps it’s time a few more influential writers started heeding his argument?

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

9 thoughts on “A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’”

• Pingback: 10 of the Best Works by George Orwell – Interesting Literature
• Pingback: The Best George Orwell Essays Everyone Should Read – Interesting Literature

YES! Thank you!

A great and useful post. As a writer, I have been seriously offended by the politicization of the language in the past 50 years. Much of this is supposedly to sanitize, de-genderize, or diversity-fie language – exactly as it’s done in Orwell’s “1984.” How did a wonderfully useful word like gay – cheerful or lively – come to mean homosexual? And is optics not a branch of physics? Ironically, when the liberal but sensible JK Rowling criticized the replacement of “woman” with “person who menstruates” SHE was the one attacked. Now, God help us, we hope “crude” spaceships will get humans to Mars – which, if you research the poor quality control in Tesla cars, might in fact be a proper term.

And less anyone out there misread, this or me – I was a civil rights marcher, taught in a girls’ high school (where I got in minor trouble for suggesting to the students that they should aim higher than the traditional jobs of nurse or teacher), and – while somewhat of a mugwump – consider myself a liberal.

But I will fight to keep the language and the history from being 1984ed.

My desert island book would be the Everyman Essays of Orwell which is around 1200 pages. I’ve read it all the way through twice without fatigue and read individual essays endlessly. His warmth and affability help, Even better than Montaigne in this heretic’s view.

• Pingback: Q Marks the Spot 149 (March 2021 Treasure Map) – Quaerentia

I’ll go against the flow here and say Orwell was – at least in part – quite wrong here. If I recall correctly, he was wrong about a few things including, I think, the right way to make a cup of tea! In all seriousness, what he fails to acknowledge in this essay is that language is a living thing and belongs to the people, not the theorists, at all time. If a metaphor changes because of homophone mix up or whatever, then so be it. Many of our expressions we have little idea of now – I think of ‘baited breath’ which almost no one, even those who know how it should be spelt, realise should be ‘abated breath’.

Worse than this though, his ‘rules’ have indeed been taken up by many would-be writers to horrifying effect. I recall learning to make up new metaphors and similes rather than use clichés when I first began training ten years ago or more. I saw some ghastly new metaphors over time which swiftly made me realise that there’s a reason we use the same expressions a great deal and that is they are familiar and do the job well. To look at how to use them badly, just try reading Gregory David Roberts ‘Shantaram’. Similarly, the use of active voice has led to unpalatable writing which lacks character. The passive voice may well become longwinded when badly used, but it brings character when used well.

That said, Orwell is rarely completely wrong. Some of his points – essentially, use words you actually understand and don’t be pretentious – are valid. But the idea of the degradation of politics is really quite a bit of nonsense!

Always good to get some critique of Orwell, Ken! And I do wonder how tongue-in-cheek he was when proposing his guidelines – after all, even he admits he’s probably broken several of his own rules in the course of his essay! I think I’m more in the T. E. Hulme camp than the Orwell – poetry can afford to bend language in new ways (indeed, it often should do just this), and create daring new metaphors and ways of viewing the world. But prose, especially political non-fiction, is there to communicate an argument or position, and I agree that ghastly new metaphors would just get in the way. One of the things that is refreshing reading Orwell is how many of the problems he identified are still being discussed today, often as if they are new problems that didn’t exist a few decades ago. Orwell shows that at least one person was already discussing them over half a century ago!

Absolutely true! When you have someone of Orwell’s intelligence and clear thinking, even when you believe him wrong or misguided, he is still relevant and remains so decades later.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Politics and the English Language

By george orwell, politics and the english language study guide.

Fittingly, George Orwell 's essay “ Politics and the English Language ” is accurately described by its title. The essay is about the connection between politics and poor uses of language. It presents an argument for clear, simple, unpretentious language that attempts to represent its meaning—hence the unambiguous title.

The essay is not, as it might at first glance appear, a defense of archaic or traditionally “proper” uses of English. On the contrary, Orwell feels that old, dead words should be abandoned, as he argues for original and independent thinking that comes from asserting agency in language—specifically in political speech. One of his main arguments is that repetitions derive from unoriginal thinking and unoriginal thinking leads to repetitions. He describes a form of indoctrination that happens when people use familiar turns of phrase in political speech. Rather than thinking independently, people pantomime a party line.

Along with hackneyed phrases and meaningless redundancies, abstract or elevated political language is one of his main targets. He demonstrates in clear terms the way that abstract language is a form of lying: namely, when the language used to describe a party’s political agenda is far removed from the violence for which it apologizes.

The essay’s thesis is an evolving one, ultimately aiming to debunk the idea that there’s no hope in resisting the intellectually corrosive effects of political speech, nor the lies produced by highly abstract language for political purpose. He offers a helpful toolkit for the political writer to use in order to resist being indoctrinated by language.

Politics and the English Language Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Politics and the English Language is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Politics and English language

• Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the...

What does the author believe about the worsening status of a language

What does the author think about

What are the shifts in attitude or tone in the story "Legal Alien"? Where do they occur?

Who is the author of this?

Study Guide for Politics and the English Language

Politics and the English Language study guide contains a biography of George Orwell, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Politics and the English Language
• Politics and the English Language Summary
• Quotes and Analysis

Essays for Politics and the English Language

Politics and the English Language essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Politics and the English Language by George Orwell.

• The Adaptation of Language: An Analysis of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"

Lesson Plan for Politics and the English Language

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to Politics and the English Language
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• Politics and the English Language Bibliography

Wikipedia Entries for Politics and the English Language

• Introduction
• Publication
• Critical reception
• Connection to other works

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

In his new book on George Orwell, Stanford English Professor Alex Woloch writes that Orwell’s anti-totalitarianism can only be understood in relation to his democratic-socialist political beliefs.

British writer George Orwell’s writing and democratic-socialist political beliefs are the subject of a new book by English Professor Alex Woloch. (Image credit: Eric Arthur)

And much of this is revealed in how Orwell used language, according to Woloch, a scholar of 19th- and 20th-century fiction and literary theory and the chair of the Stanford Department of English . For his book Or Orwell: Writing and Democratic Socialism , Woloch studied Orwell’s essays, journalism and documentary writing, especially a series of columns that the British writer penned for the socialist weekly Tribune . Titled “As I Please,” those columns represent a part of Orwell’s writing that scholars have never examined so closely before.

In doing so, Woloch seeks to understand Orwell’s often hard-to-pin-down political views while highlighting the “very complicated texts he crafted to express his political opinions.” If “we all have a responsibility to make political judgments,” Orwell’s work “illustrates how deeply such judgments can be informed by the craft and constraints of writing.”

Political thinking, in this light, can draw on the same resources as literary writing: irony, experiment, variety and imaginative precision, he said.

Perhaps by reading Orwell more carefully, and paying attention to his formal and linguistic subtlety, Woloch suggests, society today can create a more humane political culture.

Beyond 1984

To those readers familiar only with Animal Farm and 1984 , Orwell is one of the greatest anti-communist and anti-totalitarian writers of the 20th century, Woloch noted. To others, he is an avatar of plainspoken common sense.

But Woloch rises above this stereotypical image of Orwell as “a naturally virtuous person,” by examining the author’s writing and reconciling Orwell’s ethics and political vision.

For example, Woloch said, Orwell’s 1946 essay “Why I Write” reflects his primary political orientation. In it, Orwell famously stated: “Every line of serious work I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”

Woloch believes that each of the two halves of this statement must be given equal weight, and that we cannot understand Orwell’s anti-totalitarianism if we do not consider it in relation to his democratic-socialist thought.

However, a key Cold War introduction to Animal Farm in the United States simply omitted the last phrase – “ for democratic socialism, as I understand it” – leaving only what Orwell was “against.” The absence of the phrase serves as a metaphor in Woloch’s book for Orwell’s own persistent engagement with the elusiveness and complexity of language, writing and form.

Between theory and politics

Woloch became interested in Orwell in part through his own political commitments and his sense that Orwell’s work speaks to contemporary political concerns. He finds it suggestive, and a little amusing, that the first serious U.S. presidential candidacy of a self-identified democratic socialist (Bernie Sanders) should occur just as his book is being published.

At the same time, the book is motivated by a set of scholarly and theoretical concerns. Much of English literary criticism in the last three decades has been dominated by different strands of deconstructive theory, which, as Woloch puts it, “can find political ideology in almost any writing.” In other words, deconstructive theory looks for the subliminal political ramifications of literature.

While this approach has been fruitful in interpreting any number of written works, it falls short when confronted with an author like Orwell. That is because Orwell’s political commitments are clear to even the most naïve reader, Woloch said. He noted, “Theory doesn’t always know what to do with a writer like Orwell.”

Woloch uses close reading and theory to get underneath the skin of Orwell’s prose, not to reveal hidden political opinions, but rather to show how Orwell’s language informs and makes possible those views.

This new turn is in part made possible by the first complete works of Orwell, published in the 1990s. The complete works, which included his prolific journalism alongside his more well-known novels and essays, made clear to scholars just how important something like the weekly “As I Please” column could be to understanding the writer.

“We want a figure like Orwell, we want that voice to comment on [the terrorist attacks in] Paris or to comment on [Donald] Trump. But my book is about the complexity of bearing witness. It’s about the complex forms of writing that a writer like Orwell would want to enable and foster,” Woloch said.

Media Contacts

Veronica Marian, Stanford Humanities Center: (650) 724-8155, [email protected] Clifton B. Parker, Stanford News Service: (650) 725-0224, [email protected]

“Politics and the English Language.” By George Orwell.

LITERATURE MATTERS

In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell poses a thoughtful question: Does language experience “natural growth” or is it shaped “for our own purposes”? In other words, does the English language organically evolve over time or is it purposefully manipulated in order to affect the social order? Anyone familiar with Orwell’s body of work can probably guess at the trajectory of his response. Although one could argue that this seminal essay on 20th-century linguistics was written merely to lament the “general collapse” of language as a reflection of the general collapse of civilization following the Second World War, Orwell’s ultimate purpose is to show that social activists can unduly manipulate language for their own ends by obscuring meaning, corrupting thought, and rendering language a minefield in the political landscape. Why? Orwell says: to effect changes in thought and affections and to shame those who somehow prove impervious to manipulation.

Orwell dramatizes this assertion in Nineteen Eighty-Four . Published three years after “Politics and the English Language,” the iconic dystopic novel imagines a futuristic government that manipulates language so that its citizens conform in thought, word, and deed to a narrow political orthodoxy. Language, in fact, is the primary change agent, assisted by government-engineered fearmongering and savage punishments for language dissidents.

Just as language matters in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four , it matters in our world too. Consider, for example, the basics of “inclusive language.” Back when Orwell was writing, and throughout much of the 20th century, the accepted universal singular pronouns were he , him , and his , a reality codified in every English grammar text published before 1999. These pronouns referred to any individual, whether male or female, as in “Every student should bring his book to class.” The meaning was clear, the convention was understood, and because it was an accepted grammatical convention, no one was denounced as sexist for applying its usage. Some years later, in an effort to be “inclusive,” language handlers in academia and the publishing industry pointed out that the convention itself was sexist and reinforced sexism in society. If they could change the convention, they reasoned, they could change society.

The language handlers first promoted the alternative “inclusive” usage of he or she , him or her , and his or hers — and soon thereafter demanded it. Those who continued using traditional grammatical constructions that included the universal pronouns he , him , and his (especially men) were often branded, on the basis of their grammar alone, as sexists. But mere social stigma later gave way to punitive actions. For example, in 2013, California State University, Chico, revised its definition of sexual harassment and sexual violence to include “continual use of generic masculine terms such as to refer to people of both sexes.” Thus, Chico profs who say, “Every student should bring his book to class” are susceptible to disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal. As you might imagine, Chico is not alone in this. Rather, this is the norm on most college campuses.

But now, in 2020, it is no longer acceptable to use he or she or him or her . What was once promoted and then demanded by language handlers as inclusive has now been deemed verboten by the same people! Who are these language handlers? In brief, they are the engineers of the English-language style manuals used by academia, the media, and the publishing industry, all easy prey to special-interest lobbyists who demand language changes to promote their sociopolitical agendas. Last year, for example, the American Psychological Association (APA) announced a change to its stylebook, advocating for the singular they because it is “inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.” The APA style guide makes it clear that using his or her is no longer inclusive and no longer acceptable. This could not have happened without the proponents of transgenderism pushing for the manipulation of language. In order for the APA’s statement to make any sense — “they…is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender” — one is forced to accept the premises of transgenderism, including the theory of so-called nonbinary gender. If one is to accept the usage of the singular they , one must also accept the fantasy that an infinite number of genders exists and that language is tied to something called “gender expression” rather than to sex, which is binary (i.e., male and female).

In 2018 the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) released a “Statement on Gender and Language,” promoting the use of the singular they as the only inclusive universal pronoun. In its position statement, the NCTE actually spells out the premises one must accept in order to make sense of the singular they . This is not about language clarity or precision; this is about advancing a sociopolitical agenda that requires everyone — yes, everyone — to accept the following terms:

Gender identity: an individual’s feeling about, relationship with, and understanding of gender as it pertains to their sense of self. An individual’s gender identity may or may not be related to the sex that individual was assigned at birth.

Gender expression: external presentation of one’s gender identity, often through behavior, clothing, haircut, or voice, which may or may not conform to socially defined behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being either masculine or feminine.

Cisgender: of or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender: of or relating to a person whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. This umbrella term may refer to someone whose gender identity is woman or man, or to someone whose gender identity is nonbinary (see below).

Nonbinary: of or relating to a person who does not identify, or identify solely, as either a woman or a man. More specific nonbinary identifiers include but are not limited to terms such as agender and gender fluid (see below).

Gender fluid: of or relating to individuals whose identity shifts among genders. This term overlaps with terms such as genderqueer and bigender, implying movement among gender identities and/or presentations.

Agender: of or relating to a person who does not identify with any gender, or who identifies as neutral or genderless.

The NCTE, like the APA, the Chicago Manual of Style , and the Associated Press, not only advocates using the singular they , it also prohibits “using he as a universal pronoun” and “using binary alternatives such as he/she , he or she , or (s)he .” And, in case you don’t understand the prohibition, the NCTE provides an example of the forbidden “exclusionary (binary)” language: “Every cast member should know his or her lines by Friday” must be rephrased as “Every cast member should know their lines by Friday.” But the new convention presents an offense against the dignity of traditional grammar usage, as the plural pronoun, their, does not agree with its singular subject, cast member . (Really now, a simpler rewrite would render the sentence both grammatically correct and “inclusive”: All cast members should know their lines by Friday .) And, according to NCTE, in the case of a student named Alex, who declares that his preferred pronouns are they , them , and their, a teacher should say, “Alex needs to learn their lines by Friday.” Yes, seriously, this is the example given by the NCTE. (And whose lines, one may ask? Everyone’s lines? This phrasing is lacking in precision and clarity, and this from the organization that exerts enormous influence over our nation’s high-school English teachers!) To be sure, teachers and students will be forced to utter the ridiculous: Alex needs to learn their lines by Friday . Failing to do so could, in the near future, be construed as gender harassment and be cause for expulsion or sacking.

So, why does it matter what the APA or the Chicago Manual of Style or the NCTE has to say on the matter of nonbinary, gender-inclusive language and the singular they ? Well, the APA sets the writing style and format conventions for academic essays for many college and high-school students, as well as for scholarly articles and books. The Chicago Manual of Style (published by the University of Chicago) sets the editorial standards and conventions that are widely used in the publishing industry. And the NCTE, as mentioned above, sets the tone for high-school English teachers across the nation, those who will teach our children to read, write, and speak.

In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell calls this “an invasion of one’s mind” — again, the purposeful manipulation of language in order to corrupt one’s thoughts and affections. Thus, the choice of academia, the media, and the publishing industry to adopt the singular they is not simply about word choice — as silly and illogical as it may be: Alex needs to learn their lines by Friday! — it is about forcing students and others to accept the language of transgenderism and the ideological corollaries behind the vocabulary. It is asking us all to accept something that is less than reality. Pronouns, we are told, are no longer related to the body (male and female) but to the mind, how one “identifies” or “expresses” the social construct of gender. Reality is denied, and the fluid world of one’s nonbinary fancy replaces it.

It is worth noting that last year the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education published a 30-page document, “Male and Female He Created Them,” on this very topic. Quoting Pope Francis, it explains that gender theory “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.” This ideology, Pope Francis explains, promotes “a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time.” Thus, in the case of the Catholic educator or the Catholic student, one must compromise one’s religious principles in order to conform to the industry standards of language.

This attempt to transplant pronouns from the body to the mind, Orwell might say, is an attempt to destroy our ability to communicate. According to this new norm, one can now choose from a multitude of “gender identities” — or simply make up a new one — none of which has any fixed link to a specific set of pronouns. (Some recently emerging gender pronouns include zir, ze, xe, hir, per, ve, ey, hen , and thon . And there are more! Facebook, for example, offers 50 options. Fifty!) In fact, following this reasoning, gender expressionists may, at any time and for any reason, decide to change their preferred personal pronouns but without changing their gender identity; they may also decide to change their gender identity without changing their preferred pronouns — or they may choose to change both.

This is the kind of linguistic pretension that, as Orwell warns, obscures meaning, corrupts thought, and renders language a minefield in the political landscape. Why a minefield? As Orwell illustrated in Nineteen Eighty-Four , language-engineering is an attempt to shame or punish those who disagree with the ascribed linguistic orthodoxy. And, again, to what end? As Chicago-based community activist Saul Alinsky famously wrote in his manifesto Rules for Radicals (1971), “He who controls the language controls the masses.” (Note his use of “sexist language” by way of the universal singular pronoun he. ) Alinsky, an enthusiastic advocate of manipulating language for political purposes, agrees with Orwell: It’s all about thought control; it’s about superimposing a sociopolitical ideology on the masses; it’s about altering our understanding of the world; it’s about customizing the language to effect whimsical social change. It’s ultimately about altering reality so that, as Orwell dramatized in Nineteen Eighty-Four , we come to accept that “war is peace,” that “freedom is slavery,” and that two plus two equals five.

Orwell, as evidenced by “Politics and the English Language,” believes that language should reflect reality. If it doesn’t, what possible limits could be placed on misleading, manipulative language, whether in grade-school textbooks, government documents, or political campaign literature? If language is “always evolving,” as many commentators have reasoned in their recent support of so-called nonbinary, gender-inclusive language (including the singular they ), what is stopping anyone from using this as an excuse to effect any change in any language for any reason at any time?

©2020 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

To submit a Letter to the Editor, click here: https://www.newoxfordreview.org/contact-us/letters-to-the-editor/

Enjoyed reading this?

READ MORE! REGISTER TODAY

Choose a year

• Language & Its Destruction
• Literature & Literary Criticism
• Literature Matters by Michael S. Rose
• Political Correctness
• Transgenderism & Conflation of the Sexes

"Catholicism's Intellectual Prizefighter!"

- Karl Keating

Strengthen the Catholic cause.

SUPPORT NOR TODAY

You May Also Enjoy

Why does Audie Bock find it important to point out that she's small?

She required that we ban, Those damned suffixes, "man."

Why is it that gay and lesbian students enjoy special protection from harassment while religious students do not?

Politics and the English Language

George orwell, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

George Orwell ’s central argument is that the normalization of bad writing leads to political oppression. Orwell starts with the premise that the distortion of “language” reflects a “corruption” of “civilization.” But Orwell objects to the conclusion he believes readers usually draw from this initial premise. Specifically, Orwell claims that most readers—even those who think language and politics are in a bad state—presume that language is merely a mirror of society. That is, language only reflects the state of the world. Orwell claims language doesn’t just reflect the condition society. Language, he argues, also shapes society. He contends that language is both prescriptive and descriptive of civilization’s decline.

Orwell then takes a step back to what explain constitutes bad writing. He begins by listing a series of passages. Reading each passage, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to make out the writer’s point. Orwell uses these passages to identify the elements of bad writing, such as “inflated prose” or a “mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence.” In describing the features of “inflated prose,” Orwell posits that laziness is the primary driver of “inflated style.” That is, instead choosing words and phrases carefully, lazy writers use inflated style to grab whatever smart-sounding words and phrases they have on hand. In the process, bad writers lose their grip on reality, allowing junked-up prose to create a “gap between one's real and one's declared aims.” These writers, he explains, exchange truth for convincing as they pull together words without “really thinking.”

According to Orwell, inflated style circulates through society like a disease, rotting the brains of writers and readers. Once the normalized, Orwell warns, aspiring dictators can more easily engage in linguistic trickery. Manipulative governments can “make lies sound truthful and murder respectable” by using the same “inflated style” of lazy writers. In other words, dictatorships merely capitalize on the linguistic vagueness normalized by lazy writers.

Thus, as means of resisting oppression, Orwell encourages readers to adopt more careful reading and writing practices. To help a writer “change his own habits” as means to resists government manipulation, Orwell outlines eight guidelines for writers geared towards more honesty and concision. He explicitly warns against relying on “readymade phrases” which he describes as like “a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow.” Instead, Orwell encourages readers to exercise more imagination and create more vivid metaphors. Likewise, Orwell recommends concision: using as few syllables and words as possible.

Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Decline of english language, politics and english language, improving the language, works cited.

English language, unlike other languages, is very strict in its usage. According to Taylor (4), English language has faced a lot of transformation over time. Several factors have contributed to this evolution of this language. This scholar states that this language is the second most spoken language in the world after Chinese.

Different groups of people will speak this language differently based on their place of birth and the first language. The way words are pronounced by different individuals from different parts of the world clearly demonstrates this variation. Some of the variations are so big that one may fail to understand what another speaker is saying.

This is sometimes worsened by the fact that some people consider introducing their first language into English, creating what Meyers (3) refers to as slung. This is very common in the political language. This study focuses on the works of George Orwell about the use and misuse of the language titled “Politics and the English Language.”

George Orwell has carefully analyzed the use of English language both it its written and spoken form. In this article, Orwell brings out the fact that English language is constantly deteriorating as the world globalizes. Although this is the second most spoken language in the world, it is always seen as the most important language in the world. It may be because of this reason that there has been a massive attempt by individuals from around the world to get an understanding of this language.

As civilization continues around the world, the language is getting worse with each passing day. It is of concern that the society seem to be comfortable with this distortion. Orwell laments, “It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes” .

He says that the society has become so accustomed to this poor language that it has become impossible to persuade them out of it. An attempt to convince people to desist from the language is like telling them to avid what is considered trendier. That is why Orwell is comparing this emerging English language to an electric light and the traditional English language to a candle.

It is a fact that as the world globalizes, there is increased number of people speaking this language. However, this does not mean that the language spoken in these areas are not Standard English.

In fact, there has been a consistent decline in the standard language. This distortion of the language may be because of some little ignorance that was ignored when they first appeared in this language. According to Orwell, the effect of a distorted language seems to be the cause of further distortion of the language. This scholar says that some individuals resign to their fate.

He says, “A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.” Orwell compares a man who uses the effect of a little failure in the English language as a reason to the deterioration of both spoken and written English. An individual will consider him or herself a failure and therefore use failure as an excuse to the deterioration of spoken English. Like a drunkard, the effect will be used to compound the whole process.

Orwell says that misuse of the language is common even in the media. He says that it is common to hear and read substandard language in media. The misuse of the language has become so serious that it is currently finding its way into the classrooms. This scholar says a number of ways in which individuals in various capacities are dodging the Standard English in their speech and writings exist.

The report by Larkin (12) supports the argument of this scholar. This scholar says that media has been one of the leading sources of distortion of the language. This scholar says that misuse of the language is common to both the media presenters and reporters, and the people they bring to the media.

This scholar brings to focus an incident that hit the headlines of many newspapers and televisions around the world. A reporter in a West African country was reporting on an accident. The reporter said, “They are in furu furu condition” to mean that the individuals spoken about were drunk. What this reporter wanted to say was that the individuals were in full full condition , which in its improved form, is still not a Standard English.

This incident was a perfect demonstration of how an effect can be a perfect cause of a phenomenon. Because this report was listened to over the radios, television and the print media, it became a common terms, almost a cliché within a very short period. Instead of saying that an individual is drunk, one would say that the individual is in full condition .

The expression ‘full condition’ in this case has been given a completely new meaning that did not exist before. This is what George Orwell is describing as a ‘verbal false limb’. They slowly get into the mainstream language and like cancer, the get accepted and steadily displace the traditional English expressions.

According to Orwell, there is a close link between language flaws and politics. In politics, there is always the pressure to impress the audience. One is always forced to use the power of word in order to convince the audience that he is the best. This shows that when such an individual is offered an opportunity, he will be able to tackle most of their problems. To do this, diction is very important. A politician will always try to show a mastery of language by using very complex and flowery language.

Simile and metaphors become very vital, and any extra word or expression that will make the sentence more flowery is always welcome. According to Orwell, “Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind , are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one’s elbow.”

In traditional English, there is always a rule that one should avoid double negatives in a sentence. The phrase above does not observe this. The expression “ not and unjustifiable” as it appears above is not a Standard English. This is because the sentence can be simplified further as justifiable. However, when people in authority make such statements, they become easily acceptable.

They always infiltrate the academic sector first. Students who consider these leaders as their role model will start using such language without the knowledge that such expressions are not standard. This clearly demonstrates the fact that there is a direct relationship between politics and the language.

According to Orwell, politics has become so entrenched in the society that “there is no such thing as keeping out of politics.” Our society is defined by politics. Orwell says that language and politics is closely connected both directly and indirectly.

Orwell laments that politics a large mass of lies, folly, evasion, and hatred. Because of the evasive nature of the language, it becomes convenient for them to come up with a language that is evasive to help hide their intention. They have to find a way of expressing statements in a way that does not reveal their real intention.

The language they use become so entrenched in the society that they become part of people. According to the report by Hitchens (17), the sentiments of Orwell are valid. Politics has redefined the way some of the phrases are made. This scholar emphasizes the elusiveness and deceitful nature of politics and politicians. This scholar says that in politics, people may be forced to say statements that they do not mean.

At times, this scholar says that politicians are found in dilemma where they have to address an issue that is considered controversial. When a politician is faced with a situation that will demand that he makes a choice between two issues, and the choice comes with some form of consequences, the politician will always try to gamble and win both factions.

To achieve this, it will force such a politician to use a language that will be pleasant to both sides. This may involve coming up with a language that will make his opinion or choice appear to appease both sides. This creates a scenario where no straightforward statements that can help express opinion of an individual exist.

English as a language has become very common. A large number of people around the world speak it and many more are aspiring to know the language. Language is an important tool of communication. It is also a fact that languages also undergo evolution that may make them change in a way that reflects the current society. This is especially so as technology keeps on bringing new items and phenomenon that must find a name and an expression.

However, it is important to develop the traditional language based on the emerging trends in the society. When one decides to replace the traditional expressions, words or sentences with others that crop up spontaneously, then the language will lose its meaning. An individual from the United States may not be able to communicate with another from Britain because the two speak different languages while still claiming to speak English language.

To do this, it is important for an individual to avoid usage of similes and metaphors or other figurative languages that may be common in the media. An individual should also avoid using long words where short words can be used. Above all, one should avoid sentences that do not make sense even to themselves. This is the only way the language can be protected.

Bounds, Philip. Orwell and Marxism: The Political and Cultural Thinking of George Orwell . New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009. Print.

Hitchens, Christopher. Why Orwell Matters . New York: Basic Books, 2003. Print.

Larkin, Emma. Secret Histories: Finding George Orwell in a Burmese Teashop . New York: Penguin, 2005. Print.

Meyers, Jeffery. Orwell: Wintry Conscience of a Generation . New York: W.W.Norton, 2000. Print.

Taylor, Derrick. Orwell: The Life . New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003. Print.

• "Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom" by Thomas E. Ricks
• “Politics and the English Language” by Orwell
• Ways in which people are guilty of George Orwell’s complaints
• Summary of John Humphrys
• Effects of Text Messaging on English Language
• Texting and the English Language
• The Effect of the American Culture on My Use of Language
• Written as Spoken Language
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 17). Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/politics-and-english-language/

"Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay." IvyPanda , 17 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/politics-and-english-language/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay'. 17 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay." June 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/politics-and-english-language/.

1. IvyPanda . "Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay." June 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/politics-and-english-language/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Politics and the English Language: Analysis of George Orwell’s Essay." June 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/politics-and-english-language/.

• About George Orwell
• Partners and Sponsors
• Accessibility
• Upcoming events
• The Orwell Festival
• The Orwell Memorial Lectures
• Books by Orwell

Essays and other works

• Encountering Orwell
• Orwell Live
• About the prizes
• Reporting Homelessness
• Previous winners
• Orwell Fellows
• Introduction
• Enter the Prize
• Terms and Conditions
• Volunteering
• About Feedback
• Responding to Feedback
• Start your journey
• Inspiration
• Find Your Form
• Start Writing
• Reading Recommendations
• Previous themes
• Our offer for teachers
• Lesson Plans
• Events and Workshops
• Orwell in the Classroom
• GCSE Practice Papers
• The Orwell Youth Fellows
• Paisley Workshops

The Orwell Foundation

• The Orwell Prizes
• The Orwell Youth Prize
• The Orwell Council

The Orwell Foundation is delighted to make available a selection of essays, articles, sketches, reviews and scripts written by Orwell.

This material remains under copyright in some jurisdictions, including the US, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of  the Orwell Estate . All queries regarding rights should be addressed to the Estate’s representatives at A. M. Heath literary agency.

The Orwell Foundation is an independent charity – please consider  making a donation to help us maintain these resources for readers everywhere.

Sketches For Burmese Days

• 1. John Flory – My Epitaph
• 2. Extract, Preliminary to Autobiography
• 3. Extract, the Autobiography of John Flory
• 4. An Incident in Rangoon
• 5. Extract, A Rebuke to the Author, John Flory

Essays and articles

• A Day in the Life of a Tramp ( Le Progrès Civique , 1929)
• A Hanging ( The Adelphi , 1931)
• A Nice Cup of Tea ( Evening Standard , 1946)
• Antisemitism in Britain ( Contemporary Jewish Record , 1945)
• Arthur Koestler (written 1944)
• British Cookery (unpublished, 1946)
• Can Socialists be Happy? (as John Freeman, Tribune , 1943)
• Common Lodging Houses ( New Statesman , 3 September 1932)
• Confessions of a Book Reviewer ( Tribune , 1946)
• “For what am I fighting?” ( New Statesman , 4 January 1941)
• Freedom and Happiness – Review of We by Yevgeny Zamyatin ( Tribune , 1946)
• Freedom of the Park ( Tribune , 1945)
• Future of a Ruined Germany ( The Observer , 1945)
• Good Bad Books ( Tribune , 1945)
• In Defence of English Cooking ( Evening Standard , 1945)
• In Front of Your Nose ( Tribune , 1946)
• Just Junk – But Who Could Resist It? ( Evening Standard , 1946)
• My Country Right or Left ( Folios of New Writing , 1940)
• Nonsense Poetry ( Tribune , 1945)
• Notes on Nationalism ( Polemic , October 1945)
• Pleasure Spots ( Tribune , January 1946)
• Poetry and the microphone ( The New Saxon Pamphlet , 1945)
• Politics and the English Language ( Horizon , 1946)
• Politics vs. Literature: An examination of Gulliver’s Travels ( Polemic , 1946)
• Reflections on Gandhi ( Partisan Review , 1949)
• Rudyard Kipling ( Horizon , 1942)
• Second Thoughts on James Burnham ( Polemic , 1946)
• Shooting an Elephant ( New Writing , 1936)
• Some Thoughts on the Common Toad ( Tribune , 1946)
• Spilling the Spanish Beans ( New English Weekly , 29 July and 2 September 1937)
• The Art of Donald McGill ( Horizon , 1941)
• The Moon Under Water ( Evening Standard , 1946)
• The Prevention of Literature ( Polemic , 1946)
• The Proletarian Writer (BBC Home Service and The Listener , 1940)
• The Spike ( Adelphi , 1931)
• The Sporting Spirit ( Tribune , 1945)
• Why I Write ( Gangrel , 1946)
• You and the Atom Bomb ( Tribune , 1945)

Reviews by Orwell

• Anonymous Review of Burmese Interlude by C. V. Warren ( The Listener , 1938)
• Anonymous Review of Trials in Burma by Maurice Collis ( The Listener , 1938)
• Review of The Pub and the People by Mass-Observation ( The Listener , 1943)

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard
• Buying Guides

Rethinking the 5-Paragraph Essay in the Age of AI

Will AI kill the five-paragraph essay? To find out, I asked my ninth grade English teacher.

The five-paragraph essay is a mainstay of high school writing instruction, designed to teach students how to compose a simple thesis and defend it in a methodical, easily graded package. It's literature analysis at its most basic, and most rigid, level.

A typical five-paragraph essay asks students to pick a simple thesis, usually from a list of prompts, and compose a short introductory paragraph, followed by three paragraphs each laying out a different piece of supporting evidence, followed by a final paragraph—usually beginning, "In conclusion…."

Critics   argue  this assignment kills student creativity and turns writing into an exercise in pure drudgery. I tend to agree, remembering my time spent composing five-paragraph essays as soul-rending—forcing me to focus on sticking to a formula and a restrictive prompt rather than actually analyzing the books I was reading.

But the sudden ubiquity of large language models such as ChatGPT threatens to upend this status quo.

"I am *shocked* by how good OpenAI's new chat" is, University of Toronto professor Kevin Bryan  tweeted  after the first release of ChatGPT. "You can no longer give take-home exams/homework."

To test this hypothesis, I sat down in front of ChatGPT and gave it a classic freshman-year English prompt: "Please write me an approximately 500-word, five-paragraph essay discussing the role of Newspeak in controlling the people of Oceania in George Orwell's novel,  1984 . Please use MLA formatting and include 1–2 quotes per paragraph."

In response, it spit out an—ahem— six-paragraph, 588-word essay .

" In George Orwell's dystopian novel '1984,' the ruling Party of Oceania employs Newspeak as a potent tool for controlling the thoughts and behaviors of its citizens, " the essay begins. " Newspeak, a language designed to limit freedom of expression and thought, serves as a mechanism for the Party to maintain its authoritarian rule and suppress dissent. Through the manipulation of language, the Party effectively restricts the ability of individuals to articulate dissenting ideas, ultimately consolidating its power over the population. "

And then I sent it to my ninth grade English teacher.

Corey Craft taught English at the Alabama School of Fine Arts for nine years and now serves as an instructor in the school's creative writing department. A decade ago, I first read  1984 for his class.

"I'd give this essay a mid-level B—an 85," he told me. "Is the content OK? Sure. It's a little surface-level…but it gets the major points right."

Yet he also noted the essay's impressive vocabulary—phrases such as " linguistic manipulation " and " reshape historical narratives "—would sound some alarm bells. "There are words and concepts used in this paper that I would find suspicious coming from the average ninth grader," Craft added.

ChatGPT also made another glaring fumble—producing a six-paragraph essay, despite my multiple attempts to rephrase the prompt so it would stick to just five paragraphs.

While the typical ninth grade cheater might not be clever enough to fix these mistakes—Craft says he sometimes sees plagiarism where students have copy-pasted text without changing the font or text color—it's only a matter of time before tools such as ChatGPT work out these kinks.

Much to the chagrin of the five-paragraph essay's harshest critics, myself included, it doesn't look like ChatGPT will spell the end of the assignment. While five-paragraph essays are achingly dull, they do serve a simple purpose—they match the median student's ability level, even if it means leaving behind the significant minority of kids who can barely read by eighth grade and infuriating a small cohort of  nerds  who end up getting degrees in Renaissance literature.

There simply isn't an obvious alternative to the five-paragraph essay—and certainly not one that is somehow immune from inevitable AI mimicry. In a ChatGPT-saturated world, teachers will likely resort to giving students handwritten, in-class five-paragraph essays instead of ditching the assignment entirely—even if this is "more of a pain for the student to complete and more of a pain for the teacher to grade," Craft notes.

In short, rather than reshape writing instruction, educators will find new, less technology-dependent ways to keep doing the same thing.

"That may take trial and error," Craft says, "but that's part of the fun of the job."

The post Rethinking the 5-Paragraph Essay in the Age of AI appeared first on Reason.com .

Recommended Stories

Google is putting more restrictions on ai overviews after it told people to put glue on pizza.

Liz Reid, the Head of Google Search, has admitted that the company's search engine has returned some "odd, inaccurate or unhelpful AI Overviews" after they rolled out to everyone in the US.

Former 76ers player Drew Gordon, older brother of Nuggets starter Aaron Gordon, dies in car accident at 33

Drew Gordon played all over Europe after a college career at UCLA and New Mexico.

OneScreen.ai brings startup ads to billboards and NYC’s subway

When Alex Ewing was a kid growing up in Purcell, Oklahoma, he knew how close he was to home based on which billboards he could see out the car window. Now, as the CEO of OneScreen.ai, he's helping startups like fintech Ramp and technical recruiter Karat advertise on billboards and beyond. "I think billboards are cool and help bring creativity back into marketing," Ewing told TechCrunch.

These experts study aging for a living. Here are 6 things they've learned about how to age well.

Experts say aging well is more about mindset than a strict lifestyle.

A timeline of Donald Trump's guilty verdict: How it all went down

A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, a historic verdict in the first ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

Giants TE Darren Waller drops bizarre music video about recent divorce, complete with a fake Kelsey Plum

The video ends with the fake Plum stabbing Waller in the back.

Yankees lose starting pitcher Clarke Schmidt to lat injury

New York Yankees pitcher Clarke Schmidt was placed on the 15-day IL with a right lat strain. He's been part of an excellent Yankees starting rotation this season.

Silent Hill 2 remake hits PS5 and PC on October 8

Bloober Team's remake of Silent Hill 2 hits PlayStation 5 on October 8, and it's looking nice and spooky.

Mets reliever Jorge López says his 'worst team' line was a misquote after getting DFA'd

The ex-Mets reliever claimed he actually said he was "the worst teammate probably in the whole f***ing MLB."

AI manufacturing startup funding is on a tear as Switzerland's EthonAI raises $16.5M

As factories and manufacturing facilities have gotten "smarter" through sensors, robotics and other connected technologies, this has created a potential treasure trove of data that can be mined for insights on bottlenecks and other areas for improvement. While big data analytics has for years been a mainstay of industries such as finance and logistics, it hasn't fully made its way into the manufacturing realm. This has created an untapped gold mine of insights, and more recently a nascent market for technologies designed both to capture and make sense of a vast array of manufacturing data.

DJT stock drops 8% after Trump found guilty in hush money trial

Shares in Donald Trump's social media company fell as much as 10% late Thursday after the former president was convicted on all counts in his hush money trial.

SpaceX sent Starship to orbit — the next launch will try to bring it back

SpaceX’s massive Starship rocket could take to the skies for the fourth time on June 5, with the primary objective of evaluating the second stage’s reusable heat shield as the vehicle tries to safely reenter the atmosphere for the first time. CEO Elon Musk said on his social media platform X that "There are many tough issues to solve with this vehicle, but the biggest remaining problem is making a reusable orbital return heat shield, which has never been done before." One of the biggest issues, Musk suggested, is the vulnerability of the system overall: “we are not resilient to loss of a single tile in most places,” he said.

Rock this beach cover-up from the shore to the store — get it as low as $30

Whether seaside or poolside, this chic button-down dress will be your go-to look this summer.

Inspired by his father's final years, Pat Knight returns to coaching

Pat Knight is leaving a cushy NBA job to be the head coach at NAIA Marian University.

This bestselling portable ice maker can be yours for a cool $58 — save over 40%

'I love the compact size,' raved one of 2,500+ fans.

How many credit cards is too many?

Using multiple credit cards can be a great way to take advantage of the different features each one offers, But how many credit cards is too many?

Texas and Oklahoma's first SEC game against each other to begin at 3:30 p.m. ET on Oct. 12

The major conferences and television networks revealed early-season and marquee kickoff times for the 2024 season on Thursday.

How to find the best checking accounts for April 2024

The best checking accounts have low balance requirements and no monthly fees. Here’s how to find the best options.

Spotify says it will refund Car Thing purchases

Spotify says it has quietly begun offering refunds for its soon-to-be-bricked Car Thing. The company told Engadget on Thursday that, as of last Friday, customers with proof of purchase can contact customer service and get their money back for the vehicle streaming device.

Skip the salon — snag this permanent hair-removal tool for $60 (that's 50% off)

'I feel a whole lot more confident': 7,000+ five-star fans say it has your back (and your upper lip, chin, armpits ... you get it).