Orwell’s essay “The Politics of the English Language” may descend, at times, into what looks like an appeal to uphold an unadulterated English language (though I may have misunderstood this aspect of the writing), but it presents a worthy argument highlighting the declining quality in prose. The most affective point is how individual and original meaning is sacrificed to the use of hackneyed metaphors and predetermined “verb phrases.” The artful search for words to fit meaning has been reversed, as he claims, to place words before meaning. This may be most clear in political speech and writing. Orwell gives examples of double speak and political euphemisms that are usually used to explain horrendous policies (“A mass of Latin words fall upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.”). However, words without solid definitions and meanings are used in commonplace political speech as well. I find myself becoming trapped in this practice, using phrases that I cannot honestly say I fully understand to abstractly describe what is often very physical and without need of overwritten phrases. I agree with Orwell that political writing is often terrible writing, even if I agree with it. Is it necessary to limit political speech to overused phrases? Can it not find meaning with more visual descriptions or at least with simpler speech? Can there not be some level of artistic quality in political writing and still allow it to maintain a serious tone? Must it often be unreadable?