Orwell was trying to point out how writing has evolved into a competition of who can include the most words in a sentence without ever really getting the true point of the meaning across. Using simple descriptive words is easier for the reader to grasp and visualize what the writer is trying to convey.
I came across a great example of what Orwell was talking about. I was utterly confused, and a bit offended, by the time I finished this critique of a well loved cartoon.
The oppressive humor archetype
The pop-art (yet neo-minimalist) etchings of Ziggy and Family Circus, both liegemen to the Lichtensteinian legacy, question their own raison d'etre. Are they visual tropes? Are they self-conscious (self-mocking/self-loathing) po-mo nombrilisme? Or are they simply (and solely) stochastic snapshots sans lexical basis? The Family Circus series can best be examined as artistic interventions against the oppressive humor archetype, whereas the unappealingly desperate musings of Cathy Guisewite's eponymous series are truly indebted to Jenny Holzer's oeuvre. Or, as Baudrillard and Guillaume so succinctly state, "What is produced with the romantic turn…is…the…play of…masculine hysteria…of …sexual paradigms that once again must be reinserted in the more general and universal context of a change in the paradigms of otherness."[1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jean Baudrillard and Marc Guillaume, Figures de l'alterite. Paris: Descartes et Cie., 1994
Rezac, Richard. "The Winner of PORT's 1st Annual Pretentious Art Writing Contest." PORT 17 June 2006. 22 January 2011 <http://www.portlandart.net/archives/2006/06/the_winner_of_p.html>.
I think Orwell's argument is that writing is evolving into proving one's intelligence by injecting "big" words at the attempt to sound well educated and impressive. His argument is persuasive in the fact it makes you think about what you are writing and how the reader will interpret it. It doesn't have to be fancy to be effective.
