In "politics and the english language," george orwell cites the following paragraph as an example of "bad writing." revise the paragraph by eliminating pretentious diction and improving clarity. on the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. but on the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. recall the definition of love. is not this the very picture of a small academic? where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?

On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, as it does not have problems or dreams. Its desires are clear, fas they only represent what society tries to put in the minds of people; any other system would change their number and intensity. There is not much in them that is natural, that cannot be eliminated, or that is culturally dangerous. But on the other side, the social bond itself is only the understanding of such integrities. Think of the definition of love. Does it not remind you of the small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?

huck's relationship with food is a prominent theme throughout the novel, and during his time on jackson's island and working his way down river, huck revels in and enjoys his ad hoc dining. in the first chapter, we observe huck is ironically trapped in a "civilized" world, when he would prefer to live freely in nature.

is this the question?