Orwell’s essays, while did not stand out in terms of its plot (in the sense that they were not surprising or shocking), his style of writing and symbolism was something that takes time to understand and many times, I would find myself intrigued, but at the same time confused by how he approach symbolism, particularly in Shooting an Elephant, where how the act of killing one can includes so many layers of meaning that I might not have fully discovered.
Like doing other DRJs, having to take notes and read has made me realized the improtance of note-taking: to fully externalized our feelings and intpretation into words and approach the reading easier. However, I have found that in all 4 readings, I had missed some details that I never considered before and did not record them in my DRJs. Therefore, I’ve better understood that the point of DRJs is to only take notes and understand how we understand a piece of writing, it is also to force ourselves to read slower and more mindful about what is written.
This leads me to my next point, feedbacks. Had I not receive feedback from Mr. MacKnight, I would not have known that there were some details of some readings that complete skipped through. So, having feedback is a great tool for me to consider multiple questions, answers about a reading that I did not see.
Lastly, Wheatcroft’s tribute to Orwell has nailed a few important points for me. Firstly, Orwell in many ways was not exceptional in the real of political writers, but rather, he had the ability to transformed his writing into something of his very own that is quite exceptional. This gave me an answer to what makes a good writer: is that one do not have to be well-known, well-recognized, but one must know their writing and intentional about it. Secondly, became clear to me how Orwell wrote the way wrote, because he was described to be a man in pursuit of justice and truth and honesty, which spoke true in all of his essays about the tyranny, absurd things of society he reflected.