The ‘pacifism and the war,’ is a literal piece by George Orwell as a response to accusations by other writers among others Woodcock and Mr. Comfort. It is a defensive response to the letters of accusations for his perceived role in the fascism war. He essentially addresses important themes that form the basis of these charges. The thesis of the literature thus focuses on the scope of the accusations advanced in the papers. As such, the audience of the paper includes the delivering agent and the authors of the accusing letters. It is a platform that he not only uses to defend himself, but also to rebuke the sheer hypocrisy of the literary world in their role with the ideology of fascism. The literary piece is an indisputable masterpiece, with the calculated use of writing and persuasion styles to deliver his point of argument.
The literature is a defensive response to various allegations. As a rebuttal, the author has made use of important types of evidence to persuade the audience and discredit the accusations therewith. To this end, the author has succeeded in watering down the arguments set up courtesy of three styles of evidence. First, he has made use of testimonial evidence greatly, where he gives personal accounts to discredit some misconceptions while at the same time affirms certain propositions. As such, he explains his role when telling about his actions in the Indian Imperial Force and his actual position on pacifism during the time (Savage et al. 21). This evidence has been vital because it constitutes a personal account of his activities. Some accusations as the ones above are on the face of it discrediting to his works, and testimonial evidence in this direction accords him a platform to add details that contributes to his position.
He has also used analogical evidence extensively. Such is the case when he is explaining the operation of elementary common sense to explain how other authors are in reality part of the Pacifism war. Analogies aid to mount some collaborative evidence and prove certain positions that would be otherwise difficult. Such is also the case when explaining how the Germans and Japanese are objectively pro-fascism. Lastly, the role of anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. In anecdotal evidence, one tends to distinguish certain scenarios from another to prove one's point. The case of sentiment in Vegetarian article is a perfect example. Here, he uses it to prove that the fact of his membership to Indian Imperial army does not mean he agreed with dictatorial practices within. Together, these evidences help him to counter rather fallacious arguments at the same time solidify his defense.
The tone of the argument is defined in two ways. It is critical and at the same time aggressive. The tone in the first part of the paper is critical. The account of his inability to attract a huge audience marks the beginning of a critical overtone. The bigger fraction of the paper contains defensive and disproving sentiments. He criticizes the apparent hypocrisy in the literature world on the pacifism war, where the authors remain hypocritical to avoid objection. Towards the end of the argument, this tone shifts to aggressive one. He exudes an aggressive character, especially when charging the authors to denounce the hypocrisy and take an active role in Pacifism.
However, most of the argument is highly fallacious. The author raises certain appeals that include, appeal to popular opinion, appeal to authority, and appeal to ignorance. One such instance is when he cites the ignorance of his critiques on the things that he broadcasts in India. Although fallacious appeals are self-defeating, here, the author uses it tactically to discredit allegations, which he deems been supported by ignorance. They help to shift the onus to his accusers. Mr. Savage’s remark is an authority which he relies on to buttress his defense (Savage et al. 21). The discourse on elementary common sense outlines public opinion. The style helps the author to validate his claim.
Works Cited
Savage, D. S., et al. "Pacifism and the War: A Controversy." Partisan Review 9 (1942): 414-21.
