<p>Erm, see, I had in mind that you wouldn’t need any background knowledge to understand what the ISD was. Except perhaps a minor understanding of the conflict between security and liberty and a rough idea of the history of the many violations of liberty conducted under the banner of security – e.g. trite/cliched stuff anyway, so everyone would roughly know this – but I digress.</p>
<p>Does the mentioning of “Internal Security Department” and reading the first two paragraphs about Singapore’s policy of government censorship not connect? Is it that unobvious? </p>
<p>(An honest question. My basic idea had been: These guys were supposed to be intimidating. They weren’t.) </p>
<p>My theme wasn’t so much more about the conflict between security and liberty (which is a trite thing to talk about), but how much my political beliefs have developed since then. (When I was 14, I naturally had the “stick it to the Man!” attitude, as any callous youth might have; I still somewhat do, but my sentiments are somewhat more tempered.)</p>
<p>To be honest, the connection really wasn’t there for me. I remember little about the ISD, and know less about Singapore’s censorship laws other than the fact that they exist and are rather strict. In a few minutes reading of an essay, I’d certainly be unlikely to make a deep and meaningful connection.</p>
<p>Now that you’ve explained it, it’s a good idea. But I think you’re forgetting how few people actually know about Singapore outside of its status as an entrep</p>
<p>UCLAri: You didn’t have to know anything about Singapore – I was trying to explain my political perspective as a Singaporean. In the middle I basically conjured up the first few straw man arguments I could think of, to intentionally work up the reader into a fuss. By the middle of the essay it should be clear (since the officers are using the straw man arguments) that the officers have no respect for civil liberty. </p>
<p>I suppose I was expecting people to be a bit more alarmed when someone is mentioning “Internal Security,” censorship, wiretapping and being interrogated in the same essay …</p>
<p>Well then, you wouldn’t call the Beefeaters stoic and emotionless, you’d just call them emotionless. Or a different, more expressive word, preferably.</p>
<p>Pick the most accurate word. By using two with “different nuances,” you’re not completing one with the other, you’re cramming too much in there.</p>
<p>Trust me, Mark Twain, and just about everyone who’s posted here on this one.</p>
<p>UCLAri: “Stoic” doesn’t quite cut it – I didn’t see it as totally self-sufficient. I suppose I was trying to rob away the “noble” element from them …</p>
<p>I also thought of that description [the one you saw a few posts back] on a whim whereas I went through about 20 revisions for my Penn essay; I actually used a lot of dialogue to show their character (rather than tell about their character).</p>
<p>Don’t worry. I used two allusions in my essay, one to do with David Sedaris (which the adcom probably wouldn’t get if they didn’t know he was a humor writer) and one to do with the famous last words of Ulyssess. Are all the adcoms going to “get” it? Maybe not, but that wouldn’t detract from my essay. I think you will be fine, and there will be someone who will appreciate your references.</p>
I have a book of Orwell’s essays and remember reading those rules! That’s really cool. I generally agree with them, although not all great writers follow them… He is really an amazing writer, and his essays are gorgeous.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have minded negative comments if they had been on target.</p>
<p>For example, assuming my intention was to name-drop doesn’t help me, because I’m not trying to name-drop.</p>
<p>“I wonder: what is your opinion of Mssrs. Twain and Orwell’s prescriptions? Do you disagree?”</p>
<p>As a rough guideline. It all depends on what “will do” and “when you can” mean.</p>
<p>“Stoic” has a virtuous element that I wished to remove, whereas “emotionless” is far less suggestive of virtue.</p>
<p>There are many examples of writing where adjective use seems redundant but they also help with rhythm and flow; furthermore there are associations [beyond nuances] in each word I wanted to invoke.</p>
<p>It could be well that I have been reading English wrong (and not wrongly – there is a difference, if you can detect it), but most of the time most words do not have any true synonyms for a particular situation.</p>
<p>Yes, you are right. English is a language quite rich in subtle words for any situation-- this allows for prose with exceptional explanatory power. However, it can also be abused rather easily. The problem is knowing when your diction is aiding the former rather than leading you to the latter.</p>
<p>This maybe comes with practice, but I see plenty of old crusty professors who couldn’t write their way out of a contract.</p>
<p>NearL, I was just about to suggest Orwell’s “Politics in the English Language” to the OP </p>
<p>Being concise in your writing, from my own (admittedly limited) experience, can actually be much more difficult than stringing together long, wordy fragments into complex sentences for the exact reasons given by Orwell. Hemingway and Steinbeck are often lauded as two of America’s greatest writers, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that their writing seems simple, but contains so much subtext that Dickens-esque prose isn’t necessary. Conveying an idea powerfully in as few words as possible is a pretty admirable feat, really.</p>
<p>That being said, I have a tendency to ramble (not suggesting to the OP that you were rambling) and when I look back and read some of things I’ve written, I have to cringe because it does sounds like I am trying too hard. I think I have a fairly good grasp of vocabulary and am able to vary sentence structure, but my writing lacks the kind of simple eloquence that Hemingway gets so RIGHT. But, when a proofreader suggested I shorten my app essay and be more straightforward, I just couldn’t do it and still sound like myself. It just wasn’t my style of writing and, to the OP, I don’t think it’s your style either. If there’s anything worse than being too wordy, its trying to sound like someone you’re not. At least in my opinion.</p>
<p>Re: your Mr. Charrington and Javart references, I think it would have been a little different had you been referencing 1984 or Les Miserables as a whole; using those specific characters may throw your reader off a little. My essay was mostly about art, and I did reference Picasso and Warhol, but the references only required that the reader know they were modern artists (or, at the very least, ARTISTS :)). When I got to the meat of the essay, which was about Mark Rothko, I went into much more detail because Rothko is not so recognizable. Of course, this was at the expense of my word count, but there’s nothing either of us can do about it now. C’est fini.</p>
<p>I’m going to ignore the seven pages of arguing to offer my opinion…</p>
<p>While the adcoms are probably very well-read, they are unlikely to pick up on the references you listed, especially without any other mention of the original texts.</p>
<p>I say this as somebody who has read 1984 about five times and mentioned it in an essay, but still cannot attach the name “Charrington” to a particular character. I’m especially bad with names, but I wouldn’t pin your essay’s clarity on assuming that the reader is familiar with another work.</p>
<p>The best sample of writing we’ve gotten out of you so far.</p>
<p>Words like “emotionless” and “stoic” are so similar that to splice them into one description and expect the reader to feel this weak “nuance” of nobility being established and overthrown is asking too much. No one’s brain does this. Poets don’t even ask us to do this when it comes to words this bland. Two boring words do not a sparkling description make. Think honestly about what someone else’s mind would do when reading over your sentences. Adcoms are not going to go over every adjective in your essay with a fine toothed comb.</p>
<p>Did you try an adjective like “wooden”? And no need to tell me why this is actually a terrible word for what you were describing, just take the hint. If stoic is the wrong word by itself, find the right word. What do you think all Twain’s talk about lightning and lightning bugs was?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, this sums up your attitude in general. The conflict between security and liberty is not trite. Certain sentiments about it might be, but it’s actually a complex topic with tons of history and philosophy behind it, and it’s worthy of a considered exposition. You’ve thought about it a bit and maybe read about it, therefore it is now part of your repertoire and trite. Not at all the case. What people are saying to you here is mature, well thought out stuff. Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t make it two-dimensional and trite. Maybe consider a bit of humility. I really mean that.</p>
<p>BTW, your writing is littered with "rather"s and "somewhat"s and other totally unnecessary words. Maybe you should think for awhile about why you hide behind them.</p>
<p>"If stoic is the wrong word by itself, find the right word. "</p>
<p>I was actually writing with quite a temper as a <em>forum post</em> in <em>exasperation</em>; it would not have been an actual word choice of mine in an essay.</p>
<p>"The conflict between security and liberty is not trite. "</p>
<p><em>Viewing</em> it as a conflict is… [which was my point of my essay; I had some pretty trite views back then.]</p>
<p>"BTW, your writing is littered with "rather"s and “somewhat"s and other totally unnecessary words. Maybe you should think for awhile about why you hide behind them.”</p>
<p>Because I dislike making absolute statements in conversation and want to leave myself wiggle room to qualify my statements later.</p>
<p>I generally use them only in conversation – written conversation included (e.g. situations such as forum threads).</p>
<p>'Kay, telling everyone that they’re taking you out of context and then nitpicking what they say isn’t going to win you any points. We are giving you illustrations; we are trying to demonstrate something for you. And most of us (can’t totally vouch for myself) are giving you good stuff to chew on.</p>
<p>Maybe you wrote that on forums in a temper, but you proceeded to defend it when I mentioned it was awkward. It’s obviously an ingrained habit.</p>
<p>I’m willing to concede the security/liberty point, since you missed my point anyway.</p>
</p>
</p>