Orwell showing us how it's done, but not really.

Throughout his rhetoric, Orwell keeps forcing (though ever so gently) the reader to compare his writing to that he claims deficient.

He stars off broader than that, comparing his hypothesis about the decline of the English language to that he deems incorrect.
“Our civilization is decadent and our language- so the argument runs- must inevitably share in the general collapse.

He sets himself apart from this idea by interrupting it to state this isn’t his own. The use of pattern 18, with that undermining, whispering interruption “-or so the argument runs-” sets up such argument to be incorrect, without flat out saying so. Here, Orwell may have just as well ended the sentence with “or so they claim.”

Orwell abstains from outright insulting those claims he deems inaccurate to preserve that helpful, quasi-objective tone. He knows that any other way, he’d be coming off as pompous, especially with the snobbish subject matter of the decline of the English language, most especially because he’s George Orwell.

Always precise in his sentences, Orwell sheds light on the wishy-washiness of other’s arguments. In illustrating how ridiculous their claims of his approach being old fashioned, he resorts to precise metaphor, saying they argue that his reasoning is like “preferring candles to electric light.” His comparison is clear, and it almost feels like he wants us to know that he’s helping them illustrate their claims, that’s just how “general” they are.

Linking inefficiency to lack of precision is something he does from the very start. After wording the opposing view with terms such as “general decline” he describes their view as “half-conscious.” Then, he carries on the comparison (his precision versus their ambiguity) in an even more obvious matter:

“Now, it is clear that the decline of language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not simply bad influences of this or that individual writer. The sentence is split right in the middle, him on one side with “must” and “clear”, the opposition in the other with “this or that.”

He then moves on to slamming writing for its ambiguity, just as he did with something more abstract (a point of view) before. Yet, just as before, he never makes his feelings too obvious. He never says “this is how it’s done”, he instead slyly shows us buy continuing the comparisons.

When Orwell shares a point of view, he’s efficient: with sentences like “The point is that the process is irreversible.”, yet remaining accessible by using the first person and “hoping” his examples are clear.

Systematic Orwell lists five examples of poor writing, yet tries to rule out snobbery, telling us he hasn’t picked such examples because their particularly bad. He knows that without that little side note, we’d think of an elitist indulging in mocking poor writing.
In keeping with his helpful demeanor, Orwell picks examples from a variety of sources- professors, letters, pamphlets. That way, he remains objective.

Orwell lists five examples, then two qualities- not “a few” or “a couple”- he’s always precise. Further contrasting, he calls out bad writing for having a “lack of precision”.

In showing us how it’s done, without blatantly giving us a condescending example, he says phrases in poor writing are “like sections of a prefabricated hen-house.” immediately after, he pins down a deficiency of modern writing: the dying metaphor.

Steering away from the “pretentious language” he then condemns, he keeps that helpful, accessible tone throughout his analysis. But he takes liberties with it on occasion by using sermon-like diction, while remaining at our level- “our thoughts are foolish”, “mental vices we now suffer”.