Blog #3: How Do Montaigne and Orwell Compare to Others?

Modern prose does not follow nearly as stringent guidelines as during Montaigne's sixteenth century or even Orwell's early/mid twentieth century. Although these authors come from very different periods and contexts, there writing reflects a certain understood etiquette that existed when writing or speaking formally.

Elements such as colloquial speech and fragmented sentences/non-sequential ideas seem more typical of contemporary authors, which makes sense because that is how the mind thinks. Montaigne uses lofty prose which was more common in his time than it is today (if someone wrote like that in 2009 we would say he is pretentious or antiquated).So what exactly makes these two pieces CNF? The authors' ability to make their own stories resonate with the audience. The shortcomings and anxieties of the men are illustrated to comment on a larger sphere of human concern and folly ( the devastation of imperialism and the apparently tenuous concept of happiness).
Montaigne's piece is historically founded rather than springing simply from a personal event (although pondering his own death couldn't be more personal). He also quotes scholars and philosophers, which I don't think we've seen in any other writing so far. Also, Orwell's piece was much more politically charged while at the same time commenting on his own nature and that of the "white man in the East." This technique falls in line with Lott's idea that one should write about himself in relation to an experience or larger population, not just list the facts as they occur. Actually, all the pieces that we have examined so far meet this criteria, whether the author is front and center or positioned as a casual observer, the pieces are all telling about aspects of the human condition.