Wa his prose mediocre

Not mediocre, but dry.

>>9774982
>>9774985
That's because Orwell was a literal sperg. Not like that's a bad thing though.

>>9774982
It's workmanlike, which isn't a bad thing

Orwell was a journalist. He was a reporter, a man who wrote for the papers. Of course he's dry. His goal isn't to blow you away with the artistry of his prose, his goal is to communicate his points to you in a clear fashion.

>>9774982
He employed a technique similar to Camus and probably a butch of other writers from that time period where select images that could carry a scene stood out amongst the bland clarity of the rest of the prose. Hemingway does this, and Cesare Pavese. Camus does this a lot in The Rebel. It's like back when people adopted the personas and language of books rather than tv and film and radio, those good lines, good slogans, good imagery actually pervaded society and helped structure people's relations with each other - and therefore this method was a good word of mouth marketing method for your message, or art, or to make sales.

>>9774982
>among those lines
funny

>>9774982

His prose is brilliant, he is one of the most clear and communicative writers in history. I am regularly blown away when I read his books and essays. Read the part in Road to Wigan Pier about his experience going down the mine, and you viscerally understand everything he is communicating.

No OP, you're lit-tarded.

"Animal Farm" shows off Orwell's mastery of subtext. How can you not see the total skill involved in breaking down the symbolic sediment of the French and Russian Revolutions into a fairy tale about farm animals? Its style is accessible, yet profound.

1984, the most intellectually complex of any of Orwell's work, is deeply obsessed with language and, naturally, that means its own. Orwell skillfully uses his style to ironically expose the passive voice's role in the rhetoric of the powerful while also using nuanced grammatical arguments to blur the boundary between the individual's will and the greater historical process that necessarily conditions him.

I could go on about the beautiful realism in the prescient and vastly underrated "Coming Up for Air", but, frankly, I feel like my words can only be wasted on somebody as inconceivable to me as somebody too shallow to appreciate Orwell's magnificent style.

>>9774982
Read his non-fiction and his more autobiographical stuff (Down and Out, Homage to Catalonia). That's Orwell at his best IMO.

>>9774982
>Is it me or was his prose somewhat mediocre ?

Depends. Who specifically are you comparing him to in the 1925-1955 era?

>>9774982
because he is a dumb cunt.

>muh hate is bad
>muh aeternal war is bad
>muh state surveillance is bad

literally cringy libertarian tier

>>9776520
>t. O'Brien

>>9776520
No offense, but you strike me as an utter retard.

The OP's question concerns PROSE quality, and you are attempting to address content -- sloppily, and in a partisan manner.

Orwell's political opinions are beside the point -- bring them up on /pol/ if you are passionate about them.

>>9776544
>having this low a text comprehension ability

clearly you are as dumb as he so you need a plainer explanation. I was merely stating that his political ideas are typical of someone whit a limited intellect, just like yourself, and such a person cannot produce good prose for obvious reasons.

reminder that you need be able to read AND understand text before you can post on this board.

>>9774985
Agreed. Also in 1984 his characters are very wooden, I can't even tell you what Winston's personality is like even though I've read the book a couple of times. I get that it makes sense within his dystopian universe but he missed a trick by not de-woodening his character more when he finds his love.

I'd advise reading his essay 'Politics and the English Language' - it explains a lot of the philosophy behind his writing style.

Orwell disliked elaborately vague and unclear prose because he believed a simpler, more minimalist style allows you to connect with and understand the writers message better.

File: AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH.jpg (292KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 2560x1440px

>>9776520
>tfw somebody calls Orwell a libertarian and not a socialist