Does this "bug" anyone else?

[Quasimodem]

The "real" author argument doesn't work because it's like comparing Stephen King to Siddharta Buddha.

Is that Hermann Hesse's "Siddharta"?
Comparing King to the Buddha is like highway apples and incense.

 

[Coolville]

I not never herd a no Sid Bubba... he a riter? kinky shit? dudn't know he was a king, nether.

 

[SexyChele]

Wow, what have I started here?

I think what KM is saying is that in order to bend the rules for the sake of creativity, one must know the rules to begin with. Yes, many authors take license with grammar - but they know which rules they are breaking and why.

Many amatuers, myself most certainly included, don't have the full scope of knowledge of English grammar. Heck, it's hard enough for me to write within the bounds of English grammar, let alone bending any rules!

I think it's also important to understand the medium an author uses. ee cummings' work is very creative. But he is also a poet, and I do think that poetry lends itself towards a more creative bent, grammatically speaking. Having a complete novel written sans capitalization would be confusing and difficult to read, at best.

 

[Weird Harold]

...would be confusing and difficult to read, at best.

And, therein lies the heart of this whole discussion!

Since the goal of most of the stories here at Lit is to get the reader intimately involved in the action -- possibly even literally involved in the action -- readability is important.

One of the primarly considerations in the readability of any story is how much effort has to be exerted to understand the author's intended meaning. If a story is confusing and difficult to read because it flaunts the rule of grammar and spelling, then it fails to achieve the intent of getting the reader involved and is clearly poorly written.

On the other hand, if a story is NOT confusing or hard to read, then it is well written regardless of any "errors" in spelling, grammar, or style.

The story is what determines what works and what doesn't. Flaunting the rules and/or ignorance of the rules might work for one story and absolutely destroy the readability of another.

 

[Sweet_Intensity]

sub joe, anything goes and one can only respect those who bend the rules. That's why they're there. Exciting new grammatical usage is a pleasure to read. But you have to know the rules before you can break them and most people don't - unfortunately.
I'll press the BACK button quicker than a quick thing as soon I spot bad grammar or spelling mistakes like writing 'your ' instead of 'you're'... knowwhaddamean?

Coolville;

Sorry, but this is irrestible.

This should read "I'll press the BACK button more quickly than..."

"...spelling mistakes such as writing 'your'..."

Anne

 

[Coolville]

just as irresistible

'quicker than a quick thing' is a variation of an English slang expression, like 'browner than a brown thing', 'wetter than a wet thing'. English as in England...

'like' & 'such as' are equally acceptable.

The defence rests.

 

[Guest]

Coolville;

There is nothing wrong with the phrases 'quicker than quick' or 'wetter than wet', or 'browner than brown'. They are, however adjectival phrases. Your original sentence required an adverbial phrase because it was describing how the the back button was pressed.

'Like' as you used it is, at best, informal use, at worst slang. The topic was proper grammar. The use of 'such as' would be the most correct wording albeit the most formal usage.

Oh, one more thing.

The spelling is defense.

Anne

 

[Coolville]

you say tomayto, I say tomahto

'defense' in the American dialect, perhaps, but not according to the Oxford English dictionary. It is spelled 'defence'.

Like color is colour,
tire is tyre,
like 'I like you' is "Well, pinch my nipples and call me Shirley, treacle, but the first time I took a butcher's at your mush, I swear my strawberry skipped a beat. I couldn't fink of a better way of spending a Leo Sayer than sittin' 'round 'n getting Brahms on the Britneys, wiff a beautiful twist by my side.'

You'd be surprised at how different your dialect is from the English language. Spelling, grammar and word usage. But I'm sure if you put in some effort, you can learn more about it on the internet.

And doesn't this seem like a silly pedantic detour? The whole point is that the rules are there to be broken. Think how dull and dreary it would be if everyone wrote exactly by the rules.

But rest assured, whenever I publish something, be it a novel, screenplay or article, I always double check the pedantic details.

I just don't think it is that important on an informal message board on the internet. A message board is conversation. I don't go around correcting people in the shops or streets.
'Ere, gizza pint, guv!' -
'Dreadfully sorry, sir, but unless you request your pint of beer in the proper form, you'll jolly well go without!"

snore.

 

[Sweet_Intensity]

Coolville;

I logged back on to offer you an apology about the spelling—hadn’t occurred to me at the moment about the Canadian or British ‘defence’. It was never my intention to prosecute or persecute or ‘cute’ you in any way [grin]. I was simply amused about the grammar irregularities on a thread that complained about poor grammar. I can see that my attempt at amusement fell flat. My rebuttal was anything but amusing. Forgive me? Of course conversational language is never as formal or polished—and these fora are nothing more than conversations, yes?

Anne

 

[Coolville]

:blushing shyly:

anne - thanks for that, but I should probably apologise for my tone, as well.

 

[Sweet_Intensity]

If a story is confusing and difficult to read because it flaunts the rule of grammar and spelling, then it fails to achieve the intent of getting the reader involved and is clearly poorly written.

On the other hand, if a story is NOT confusing or hard to read, then it is well written regardless of any "errors" in spelling, grammar, or style.

Weird Harold;

I disagree with your point here. Certainly a story that is confusing and difficult to read can be considered poorly written. It does not follow that simply because it is NOT confusing or difficult to read that it is well written. There are many other components of the story that may fail to qualify a story as 'well-written'; other criteria that one may apply to determine the overall quality of a story. Clarity is not all.

 

[Weird Harold]

It does not follow that simply because it is NOT confusing or difficult to read that it is well written. There are many other components of the story that may fail to qualify a story as 'well-written'; other criteria that one may apply to determine the overall quality of a story. Clarity is not all.

I meant "well-written" from a strictly technical point of view and not as synonymous with "A story well told."

I do believe that if technical details like spelling and proper grammar are not intrusive enough to notice, it is most likely that the story-telling just about HAS to be outstanding. I can't picture a situation where bad spelling and grammar would not stand out in a poorly told story and contribute to a negative reaction.

On the other hand, a well told story can and does counter a multitude of technical flaws and raise "sloppy and illiterate" to "well written".

The entire purpose of grammar and spelling rules is to faciltate communication between the author and reader. If an author can communicate without following the rules, then the author "writes well." Of course an author who can communicate without following the rules has to communicate through story-telling ability rather than "proper English."

 

[Coolville]

This Message is an Emoticon Free Zone

Funny.

Just read the entire thread again and realised that almost all of us are saying exactly the same thing. Apart from some mis-timed, uninformed asides, we are, by and large, in agreement, despite the tone in some of the messages. We often keep repeating things someone else has said, making it our own argument.

Hey, just like a real conversation!

Shouldn't we all just shout "Learn the Rules, Then Bust 'Em Up" in unison and then all go down the pub? It's my round.

[The emoticon - a.k.a. smiley - that was placed here has been deleted for your own safety]

 

[curious2c]

Coolville

One of the reasons that I liked e.e.cummings so well. Everytime I tried to emulate him in school, POW! Teacher would nail me on punctuation. Oh Well! Maybe someday I will be able to write like him and be used as a model.

 

[masterhypnotist]

parentheses

How do other writers feel about this? Is it only me? I know I am somewhat quirky. I know there are times when parentheses are to be used, but they irritate me when they are in a story.



I use (***) occasionally. For instance: (pun intended) in the introduction. I think fiction is slanted to the reader who is the final judge of whether it works in the context. Oh well, I intend to continue using ().

 

[KillerMuffin]

Isn't it odd how that works, cool?

I've gotten into this psuedo-fight before. I think jumping instantly to the defense of anyone who has made an error or bad judgement call in writing is just as misguided as assuming that all grammatical and spelling errors means bad writing.






(_\_)(_|_)(_/_) Sittin' on the dock of lay...