From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]
George Orwell's childhood experiences played a significant role in shaping his future ambitions as a writer. From the passage provided, it is clear that Orwell's loneliness during his formative years contributed to his habit of making up stories and engaging in imaginary conversations. This solitary activity not only provided him with a creative outlet but also laid the foundation for his literary ambitions. The isolation he felt as a child fueled his desire to create an internal world where he could address his feelings of being undervalued and face unpleasant facts. This tendency is explicitly mentioned in the comprehension passage:
"I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons..."
Therefore, Orwell's loneliness directly led to his habit of making up stories, as indicated by the correct answer:
Making up stories.
George Orwell's loneliness during childhood led to his habit of making up stories. This can be inferred from the comprehension passage where Orwell reflects on his early life, stating, "I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons." The passage elaborates on how his feelings of isolation and being undervalued contributed to his literary ambitions and storytelling. Therefore, among the options given: Estrangement with his father, Unhappy days, Making up stories, and Unpleasant incidents—the correct answer is Making up stories. This aligns with the passage where storytelling is directly attributed to his childhood loneliness.
In the comprehension provided by Orwell from "Why I Write," he discusses the importance of understanding a writer's early development and motives. He provides background information to highlight that one cannot assess the motives of writers without this context. Orwell suggests that a writer's motives are influenced by personal experiences and early emotional attitudes, which play a vital role in their subject matter and writing style. He indicates that knowing about a writer's motives is crucial to understanding their work fully. Therefore, the correct answer to why Orwell gives background information is: It is essential to know about motives of writers.
The question posed is based on understanding a passage regarding a writer's early influences and motivations. If a writer escapes from their early impulses, as described in the passage, they will lose their urge to write. This conclusion is drawn from the following points in the passage:
Thus, the correct answer is that if a writer escapes from these early impulses, which shaped their motivations, they will lose their urge to write.
The comprehension passage highlights the connection between a writer's early influences and their writing impulse. The author shares personal experiences of aspirations to become a writer stemming from loneliness and a facility with words. The writer’s subject matter is shaped by personal history and the societal context. It's emphasized that if writers completely abandon their early influences, they risk losing their writing impulse. This aligns with the statement, "if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write," which corresponds to the correct answer: Lose his urge to write.
The comprehension passage delves into the motivations behind writing, as expressed by the author. Among the key motivators listed are sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. Specifically focusing on aesthetic enthusiasm, the passage describes it as the writer's desire to share valuable experiences that should not be missed. However, it is crucial to notice the aspect of non-utilitarianism implicit in this motivation.
The term 'non-utilitarian' relates to activities undertaken not for practical purposes but for their intrinsic value. Aesthetic enthusiasm, as explained by the author, aligns well with this concept because the motive is not to serve a utilitarian purpose but to engage in the artistic and experiential aspects of writing for their own sake. This non-utilitarian nature makes aesthetic enthusiasm significant to writers as they pursue the art itself rather than any external benefit or practical outcome.
Therefore, the correct answer can be inferred as Non-utilitarian, as it captures the essence of engaging in writing for its artistic merits rather than practical or utilitarian goals.
To solve the question of why "aesthetic enthusiasm" is an important motive for writing according to the author's explanation, we need to understand the context provided in the text. The author outlines four primary motives for writing: sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. Focusing on "aesthetic enthusiasm," the author states it as the "desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed." This indicates that aesthetic enthusiasm is driven by the intrinsic value of the experience itself, without requiring a utilitarian purpose or practical outcome. Hence, it is non-utilitarian because it's motivated by the pure enjoyment and appreciation of the experience rather than by any practical application.
The author's perspective on writing is deeply rooted in the personal experiences and emotional development of the writer. In the comprehension passage, it is emphasized that a writer's motives can be influenced by their early life experiences and internal conflicts. The author discusses four distinct motives for writing, with 'sheer egoism' being one of them. This egoistic tendency, as described, involves the desire for recognition, remembrance, and personal vindication.
Given this context, when considering the options provided, the key takeaway is that the author acknowledges the struggle with egoism but ultimately advises against allowing it to dominate the writing process. Thus, the statement that the author strongly advocates for writers to "avoid any egoistic impression in their work" aligns with the overarching message. Writers are encouraged to discipline their temperament and not be driven by sheer egoism.
In conclusion, based on the passage, the correct choice is:
Avoid any egoistic impression in their work.
Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review — introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram — is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.
Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta’s algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season.
The Achilles’ Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right.
Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt
According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the ’cargo myth’ prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However,they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people. The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption.
According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer ”sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight”. For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead.
They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced ’real’ happiness with ’signs’ of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard’s words, ”in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle”. Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: Read the following transcript and choose the answer that is closest to each of the questions that are based on the transcript.
Lucia Rahilly (Global Editorial Director, The McKinsey Podcast): Today we’re talking about the next big arenas of competition, about the industries that will matter most in the global business landscape, which you describe as arenas of competition. What do we mean when we use this term?
Chris Bradley (Director, McKinsey Global Institute): If I go back and look at the top ten companies in 2005, they were in traditional industries such as oil and gas, retail, industrials, and pharmaceuticals. The average company was worth about $250 billion. If I advance the clock forward to 2020, nine in ten of those companies have been replaced, and by companies that are eight times bigger than the old guards.
And this new batch of companies comes from these new arenas or competitive sectors. In fact, they’re so different that we have a nickname for them. If you’re a fan of Harry Potter, it’s wizards versus muggles.
Arena industries are wizardish; we found that there’s a set of industries that play by very different set of economic rules and get very different results, while the rest, the muggles (even though they run the world, finance the world, and energize the world), play by a more traditional set of economic rules.
Lucia Rahilly: Could we put a finer point on what is novel or different about the lens that you applied to determine what’s a wizard and what’s a muggle?
Chris Bradley: Wizards are defined by growth and dynamism. We looked at where value is flowing and the places where value is moving. And where is the value flowing? What we see is that this set of wizards, which represent about ten percent of industries, hog 45 percent of the growth in market cap. But there’s another dimension or axis too, which is dynamism. That is measured by a new metric we’ve come up with called the ”shuffle rate.” How much does the bottom move to the top? It turns out that in this set of wizardish industries, or arenas, the shuffle rate is much higher than it is in the traditional industry.
Lucia Rahilly: So, where are we seeing the most profit?
Chris Bradley: The economic profit, which is the profit you make minus the cost for the capital you employ is in the wizard industries. It’s where R&D happens; they’re two times more R&D intensive. They’re big stars, the nebulae, where new business is born.