George Orwell - a dystopian novelist and critic - states that “the essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection.” Gandhi, a spiritual and political saint, states that individuals should aspire to reach this “perfection,” while Orwell asserts with a cautionary tone that this lifestyle can backfire. By utilizing various rhetorical strategies, he qualifies Gandhi’s argument to advise the leader’s followers, as well as the general public, that perfection - the praised lifestyle - can do more harm than good. To build his own credibility, Orwell contends that Gandhi’s teachings are not completely untrue - rather partially true. He exclaims that Gandhi’s statement that “close friendships…are dangerous” is “unquestionably true.” Repeating this over the course of the argument allows Gandhi’s followers and the public to be more receiving of the news to come. Through This technique, Orwell establishes a middle ground, yet he also eases the audience into disagreements that are to come. Further into the argument, Orwell addresses an anecdote about Gandhi’s refusal of treatment for his wife. Acknowledging this story, the audience is exposed to Gandhi’s hypocrisy in his own teachings. This also serves as a piece of evidence for Orwell’s claim that perfection can …show more content…
Towards the end of the argument, he begins to use lengthy syntax when describing the complexity of human nature and morals. Orwell states that this is not a black-or-white issue. It has no right or wrong. Moreover, the use of this lengthy sentence allows the reader to mirror the intricacy in which individual morals ought to be in order for the world to function. Making mistakes and committing sins to seem atrocious, however, they are essential to life and natural behaviors. Orwell also suggests with this ending conclusion that sainthood puts people in danger of committing worse sins, such as Gandhi - the saint