Restrictive structure or literary anarchy?

[Mark Singer]

Just to get on board the new thread...

Simply wanted to toss my own three or four cents worth into the fray. I think the general consensus is that a story written within the structure of good grammar and spelling is entirely more readable and enjoyable than a story that is written outside of that basic structure. Rules is rules and them rules am there for a gud reason, methinks.

As for Huck Finn and the like, the poor grammar and such were presented when necessary and were surrounded by, and carried within, the overall structure.

Of course, there isn't a spell checker in the world that will let you slide with 'Mmmm...' or 'Aaaarrrggghhhh...' and we all know that those are two of the most important phrases in erotica. Or smut, anyway...

Great thread, y'all.

-M-

 

[Guest]

Wow, what a very interesting thread.

I read this thread in it's entirety, then went back and tried to read the "story" that started this thread to begin with.

To jump into this debate, I have to agree with KM in regard to the story. I didn't like it. It's the age old story of a young girl having a sexual encounter with a friends dad. I couldn't finish it.

A good writer can make ANY topic interesting. In a creative writing class, I remember reading a story about some kid shooting a bb gun at a squirrel out of an apartment window. Not a terribly exciting subject. The writer, however, made the story very interesting by adding emotional touches, and consequences for his action. That is the art of creative writing.

Sometimes there are reasons to be grammatically incorrect.

"I wasn' a thinkin' that a'way, pa. Honest I wasn't."

That statement gives the reader a feeling about the character speaking. But if the entire story was written that way, it would lose some audiences.

I was over at Ashley's house this last weekend and after every one went to bed or I thought they did I went down stairs to get a drink, I had on my usual night shirt which is a XX large t shirt. Nothing else under it.

I was over at Ashley's house last weekend. After everyone went to bed, or so I thought, I went downstairs to get a drink. My extra large t-shirt barely covered my bare bottom.

Three full sentences, rather than one long run on, and one fragment. Long run on sentences bore me, and I can't finish a read when they continue.

You do have a lot of very interesting points, CD, I just can't see anyone publishing this story without editing it first.

Guess that's my two cents....

 

[KillerMuffin]

I was thinking about this again today for some odd reason. After reading a few stories onsite and thinking about what makes a story poor, good, or great. A lot of that has to do with the grammar in it, as well as the characterization and the plot.

 

[Pyper]

Ah, a revived thread. I might as well put my two cents in. I'll just say that grammar and spelling is important, but definitely not everything.

I read a lot of fan fiction, and as you can imagine, a lot of it is downright awful. But I have been bored to tears with stories that had perfect grammar and flawless spelling, yet immensely entertained by stories that always spelled "you're" as "your" and had frequent misuses of the word "lunge" (don't ask).

Sometimes a vibrancy to the writing can give a story life, no matter how bad its grammar is.

 

[Ally C]

Re: Pssshaw, I don't be needing none of them thar grammar jobs, I gots me a dikshnary

concerning whether or not artistic license with the language is reason enough to toss rules of grammar to the four winds, or whether one should pay attention to grammar.

I'd say that it would take a lot of discipline by both the writer (and subsequent readers) to play outside the rules of grammar in such an 'artistic' way. There's no reason why this wouldn't work, but the final piece would probably have limited appeal. Such an effort would, as I understand it, require a high level of grammatical knowledge in the first place. Say, for example, someone wanted to produce a story written from the perspective of grammatically challenged characters; you'd need prior knowledge of 'good grammar' to sustain the effect. If it's about making an intellectual point regarding literacy and its uses, why use 'artistic licence' to paint pictures which very few will enjoy? Then again, if we're talking about 'bad grammar' for the sake of it, then I see no value in this whatsoever.

There's a difference between knowing what we mean when we write something, and other people understanding what we mean when they read it. I'd say that if you are writing specifically for others, then you ought to try to be consistent. Okay, okay, I know that we are in effect always 'writing for others', but it's often taken for granted that (for example): "I post stories at Lit. Lit is an adult / 'erotic' site. I therefore write about 'erotic' things." Given the input on this thread, it seems that quite a few authors might overlook grammar and spelling in favour of storyline, of genre. Surely it's not unreasonable to combine attention to all of these fundamental details?

As for spell-checkers / online help of any variety, my view is that these should be a last resort, and should be supplemental tools, rather than prerequisites. To be a good writer it helps no end if you are a good reader. While you'll probably never appeal to everyone's tastes, being your own 'worst' critic, so to speak, is preferable to leaving your work open to others to criticise, especially if all you want to do is share your story for the enjoyment of others. Enjoyment, an important consideration here, isn't only reliant on subject matter, as has been seen. If possible, why not share stories with friends who enjoy the written word prior to submission? Nobody is perfect, but that's no excuse to broadcast the fact via bad grammar.