spelling

[Irritable1]

Grammar wars go back much further. English grammar rules were developed as a way to teach Latin because only the plebs spoke English. And no-one was going to waste their time trying to codify rules for common low-lifes living in hovels Fact is it was those "common" people who invented and shaped early English according to their own will. It was only from the late 1400s that "rules" of grammar, and which words to use and how to spell them, were shaped up by printers, like Caxton, of the first books to be written in English. And they only did it so they could open up their market beyond regional dialects in order to maximise sales and shift more product From that time there have been battles and skirmishes over who's "right" and which "rules" are correct and more recently, since the first OED, whether dictionaries should prescribe correct usage or describe actual usage.

 

So you could say that rules of grammar and spelling have always been driven by the publishing industry, while the "common" people have just gone their own way, changing words and language to suit them. And that's just as true today with texting and tweets where non-standard language becomes new norms and printers rules are ignored. It's an important difference from French where academics believed they had the right to control language. Yeah, and look where that got them

 

And then there's American spellings...

 

 

I stand corrected    I wonder if internet publishing will make a range of published dialects financially viable.

 

Americans: we spell things right!

Edited June 18, 2014 by Irritable1

[Irritable1]

Now I want a novel written entirely in lolcats speech.

[C J]

Since everyone wants to be perfect, here's some help.  Enjoy a little enlightenment. 

 

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/preventative-vs-preventive/

[Sasha Distan]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice that! My theory was that J.K. Rowling was so big at that point, the publisher grew afraid of changing even a semicolon from her manuscript. As a result, there were all kinds of run-on sentences, disconnected dependent clauses, a bunch of clumsy stuff... none of which affected the first three books. I also think they were trying to rush the book out because she had turned it in late, and they had to make a sales date.

 

mostly it was the fact that 3/4 way through the book a character is quoted to have spoken who died two chapters previously...

[BarricadeBoy]

I'm pretty sure if y'all read a chapter of one of my stories, y'all would have a field day with this lol.

[Irritable1]

I'm pretty sure if y'all read a chapter of one of my stories, y'all would have a field day with this lol.

 

I like to think it's not about picking holes in people's work, but about helping them achieve as high a goal as they want to try for 

[Thorn Wilde]

OK, if you want perfect grammar in your story go for it.  I doubt that perfection makes any difference to readers.  Of course a story needs to be understandable and interesting, but it doesn't need to be perfect.  Readers want a good story, not an example of perfection.  Yes, grammar is a good thing, but it doesn't need to be perfect to be understood.  Words are often used in combinations that don't comply with the rules, like in poetry, but they convey an idea, and that's what the goal of story writing is in the end.

 

I like proper grammar and spelling, but I don't need it above all other things in order to appreciate whatever I might be reading.  I think an author who is able to be creative in the way they write is going to be more successful than one who strives to follow the rules.  If a story's success depended so much on grammatical perfection then it wouldn't be so difficult to write a best seller. 

 

People read stories for the same reason they go to a movie.  They want to "see" the story, and when you read your seeing pictures in your mind.  That makes grammar and spelling less important, and imagination more important.  I can describe a scene in a lot of ways, but most of them aren't going to be that interesting.  It's the ones that create a strong image in the readers mind that are successful, not the ones that conform most closely to the rules.

 

Why can't we have both? I don't know which rules you're talking about, but simple grammar and spelling isn't going to stop your narrative from creating strong images. Quite the opposite. A strong narrative, written by a writer who feels secure in their use of language, who doesn't have to second guess themselves every other word, is far more engaging and interesting, IMO. I am not one who thinks that every writer should conform to the same style, that punctuation should always only be used a certain way or anything like that. I am a strong believer in developing a personal style in one's writing. Nor do I think it's a big deal if a novice writer makes a few mistakes every once in a while. To err is human. But I still believe that a writer should want to improve, that they should want to be the best they can be, that they should understand the rules well enough that they can break them consciously and with purpose. It's just like music. Learn the rules, then break them to your heart's content. That's how things get interesting.

 

"OK, if you want perfect grammar in your story go for it.  I doubt that perfection makes any difference to readers."

 

You forget that I too am a reader.

[C J]

Why can't we have both? I don't know which rules you're talking about, but simple grammar and spelling isn't going to stop your narrative from creating strong images. Quite the opposite. A strong narrative, written by a writer who feels secure in their use of language, who doesn't have to second guess themselves every other word, is far more engaging and interesting, IMO. I am not one who thinks that every writer should conform to the same style, that punctuation should always only be used a certain way or anything like that. I am a strong believer in developing a personal style in one's writing. Nor do I think it's a big deal if a novice writer makes a few mistakes every once in a while. To err is human. But I still believe that a writer should want to improve, that they should want to be the best they can be, that they should understand the rules well enough that they can break them consciously and with purpose. It's just like music. Learn the rules, then break them to your heart's content. That's how things get interesting.

 

"OK, if you want perfect grammar in your story go for it.  I doubt that perfection makes any difference to readers."

 

You forget that I too am a reader.

 

I think my posts are saying the same thing, for the most part. 

 

Yes, you are a reader, as are all other people who use the net.  Like I've said before and in different ways, perfect grammar and spelling is less important than the other elements of a story.  I never said they were totally unimportant.  Like I said in a previous post, if a story only needed to be written perfectly to sell, there would be a lot more authors making a living at it.  The truth is most authors are in fact novices, and even those who do make a living at it aren't expert writers.  They simply know how to write stories that lots of people want to read.  Every one of them make a few mistakes once in a while, just like the novices you cited. 

 

It's fine to improve as you go along, and just writing at all will improve your grammar and spelling.  The more difficult, and more important, aspect of writing is the ability to attract, and keep, readers.  If you can't do that, then your spelling and grammar don't matter, because you will have no readers, or very few. 

 

So, my message is simple and easy to understand without any further explanation:  Grammar and spelling are important, but they are not supremely important. 

[The Pecman]

The truth is most authors are in fact novices, and even those who do make a living at it aren't expert writers.  They simply know how to write stories that lots of people want to read. 

 

Do you know most authors? Where's your evidence that "most authors are novices"? Maybe most authors here are, but not in the whole wide world, certainly not published authors. 

 

I can think of a few authors who are, in fact, experts at language in terms of having a college degree and vast amounts of study and research. Stephen King (as one example) has a degree in English and taught high school English for several years, before breaking out as a huge best-selling author. 

[C J]

Do you know most authors? Where's your evidence that "most authors are novices"? Maybe most authors here are, but not in the whole wide world, certainly not published authors. 

 

I can think of a few authors who are, in fact, experts at language in terms of having a college degree and vast amounts of study and research. Stephen King (as one example) has a degree in English and taught high school English for several years, before breaking out as a huge best-selling author. 

 

I can ask you that question as well.  How many authors do you know?  Being published doesn't make an author an expert.  Anyone can publish their work, just like anyone can write, and many do. 

 

I don't need "evidence" to prove what I said, any more than you do.  What is it that makes my statements less valid than yours?  Are you more knowledgeable than I am? 

 

Of course there are authors who would be considered experts in English, but they are the exception not the rule.  Stephen King is one of the most successful authors there are, so I don't think using him as an example of writers in general is a good idea.  Still, I would bet that he would agree that the story is more important than the rules of the language.

 

Have you studied writing as a profession?  If so, then you know that it's not all about following grammatical rules, it's about writing in a way that gets attention and keeps people reading.  Of course spelling and grammar are important, but other elements are more important.  If you can't get people interested and keep them that way then it doesn't matter how well you spell or how great your grammatical skills are because they're never going to see what you write.

 

You can pick apart what I say word by word, but I do know what I'm talking about, and anyone who has an understanding of what successful writing is also understands what I've been talking about.  I have, and still do, study the rules of writing well, and on that basis I feel confident in what I say.  Whether or not you agree with me makes no difference to me.

 

Writing is a skill, and it goes a long way past grammar and spelling.  It requires a good understanding of what readers respond to.  Most people don't read because they want to see perfect spelling and grammar.  They read because they are interested in the story.  If that's not the way you see it then that's fine, believe whatever makes you happy.  I believe what I've been taught, and my teachers are not amateurs.

[Graeme]

Writing is a skill, ...

Sorry, I have to partially disagree Writing is both a skill and an art. The skill is in the grammar, punctuation, spelling part of the process. The art is in the creative story-telling. Skill can be taught. Art generally can't.

 

A good author is one who has the skills to tell a story, and a story to tell. You need both.

 

Of the two, however, I'll agree that the story to tell is the most important part, because, if necessary, you can get someone to help you with the skills. No one can help you develop the story to tell, though -- that has to come from the authors themselves.

[The Pecman]

I can ask you that question as well.  How many authors do you know?  Being published doesn't make an author an expert. 

 

I would say I know about two dozen published authors here in LA, and probably another two dozen authors around the country. All of them are tops in terms of having a good grasp in English; several have actually been employed as English teachers or even writing teachers. I think your mistake is in making a hasty generalization and a very superficial observation without having any real evidence. Back up and look at what I say objectively, and I think you'll see that my point is a reasonable one. Don't ever assume another author knows less than you do; you can wind up being very disappointed or worse.

 

The mechanics of understanding basic English, spelling, grammar, and punctuation, are trivial. Anybody halfway competent can figure that out in a few years of study, unless English is not their first language. 

 

 

Sorry, I have to partially disagree   Writing is both a skill and an art. The skill is in the grammar, punctuation, spelling part of the process. The art is in the creative story-telling. Skill can be taught. Art generally can't. A good author is one who has the skills to tell a story, and a story to tell. You need both. Of the two, however, I'll agree that the story to tell is the most important part, because, if necessary, you can get someone to help you with the skills. No one can help you develop the story to tell, though -- that has to come from the authors themselves.

 

I agree with this 100%. Very well-said. But at the same time, if the writer's basic English skills are so poor as to get in the way of telling the story, it can put off the reader to the point where they won't want to continue reading it. Good editing can help to a point, but there've been times people have sent me stories to edit, and I've taken one glance at the manuscript, thrown up my hands and said, "this thing's a mess! You gotta learn the basics before you dive into real story-telling." An English teacher I am not, though I majored in English for a while in college.

 

It's sad for me when I glance at any online fiction and I think, wow, this is a great idea for a story, but it's executed so poorly, all it's gonna do is turn off readers. And sometimes you see the opposite: somebody with obvious skill who knows how to craft a sentence, but has a trivial plot with thin characters, and there's just no guts to the story. You need both halves of the whole to pull it off, and neither is easy. But I agree with the central point that the story is the thing. I can overlook the occasional typo or a run-on sentence if the plot and characters really hook me in.

Edited June 25, 2014 by The Pecman

[C J]

I would say I know about two dozen published authors here in LA, and probably another two dozen authors around the country. All of them are tops in terms of having a good grasp in English; several have actually been employed as English teachers or even writing teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you know about 48 published authors and they are experts in English?  That's interesting.  How do you get to know so many of them around the country?

[RolandQ]

Let us not take up the fallacy ad hominem.

 

This discussion reminds me of an outstanding college professor I had.  Though his subject was history and ancient languages, his written and spoken material was flawless, even when invoking the vernacular.  One of his favorite sayings was "Revel in your native tongue."  I believe he was encouraging us to celebrate the English language, taking up the conventions of grammar, spelling, and voice and with these tools creating our own story.  Surely these same conventions have and will change.  But the intent of the conventions is to promote communication.  Much like traffic laws, the conventions help us to know what other drivers are going to do, or in the case of writing, what the author intends.  After that, it is our imagination and understanding that gives the story life.

[Zombie]

I can ask you that question as well.  How many authors do you know?  Being published doesn't make an author an expert.  Anyone can publish their work, just like anyone can write, and many do. 

 

I don't need "evidence" to prove what I said, any more than you do.  What is it that makes my statements less valid than yours?  Are you more knowledgeable than I am? 

 

GA is a mini-world so the sorts of challenges you experience here you can expect to experience in the real world throughout your - hopefully - long and happy life. So when you express an opinion that's fine - although others may have opinions that differ - but when you make a factual claim then you need to be able to back it up. So when you make a claim like "The truth is most authors are in fact novices and even those who do make a living at it aren't expert writers", or "there are authors who would be considered experts in English, but they are the exception not the rule" the onus is in fact on you to be able to back up those claims. Unless you prefix them with "In my opinion" - in which case people may still ask you what grounds you have to hold such an opinion, which could be some relevant experience you've had, rather than hard facts. To cut to the chase - the old adage "he who asserts must prove" applies

[C J]

OK, I offer no proof, and I know nothing about what writing is about.  I have no idea who is an expert writer, and no idea who is an English expert.  I'm just here to say things that make no sense and nobody is interested in seeing it.  My thoughts are founded only on wishful dreaming and are worth little or nothing and I'm not qualified in any sense to share them, here or anywhere else.  In short, I'm all wrong and everyone else is right, and I need to find my place and stay there.  I will try and stay out of the way, but that might be difficult as I am an idiot.

 

There, that should make everyone happy and end the issue. 

Edited June 25, 2014 by Ghostboy

[RolandQ]

Easy fella, don't take the pedantic mutterings of others so seriously.  I think we're a little defensive having invested the time - willingly or not - in acquiring formal skills.  The value of ideas - to your point - far outweighs dry, unimaginative scratchings.  That said, we will weigh in on violations of the rules if only so we can access those ideas.  

[Graeme]

Ghostboy, you're not "all wrong" and you're not "an idiot". You had an opinion. Other people disagreed with some of the things you said. There were parts of what you said that got a general agreement. The only real sticking point was the level at which grammatical rules became more important than the story-telling. I think everyone agreed that the story-telling was the most important point. The issue was how much an author could 'break' those rules before the story became difficult to read.

 

Even on your final discussion with The Pecman, I'm not convinced you were wrong. The issue there was that I suspect you and he were using different definitions for 'author'. He was clearly only considering published or professional authors. I personally view the word 'author' with a wider definition than that...and in that context, I suspect you're right. Certainly, I've read enough stories that support your position about most authors being novices

 

The comment about those making a living from it not being experts is harder to judge because it gets down to what is considered to be an 'expert writer'. An 'expert writer' is different to a 'successful writer' (though a person can be both) and only successful writers make a living from writing. Many successful published writers have weaknesses in their writing, but does that mean they're not 'expert writers'? I don't really know, especially as I never get to see the original versions of the stories -- only the versions after they've been heavily edited. If the final published work is considered to be an example of 'expert writing', is that because the author is an expert, or is it because the author plus editor(s) are, in combination, an expert?

 

In summary, you had some good points. A lot of what you said people agreed with. You did make a rather strong claim, for which I doubt anyone is able to offer evidence for or against. It comes down to personal opinion, and your opinion is certainly not outlandish

[Timothy M.]

Certainly, I've read enough stories that support your position about most authors being novices

 

All authors are novices when they begin writing

 

When do you stop being a novice ? How many stories should you have written ? Do only stories which have made it out to a wider audience, like here on GA, count ? Thus if you've written dozens of stories but never attempted to 'publish' them, are you still a novice ?

 

I'm not trying to support any of the view points above. But being a novice doesn't excuse an author for lacking writing skills or creative skills (imagination). And both can annoy readers - and this is the case whether an author is a novice or not.

 

However like Graeme said: the formal writing skills can be learnt, but creative talent is inherent. Therefore I'm more likely to criticize bad grammar or spelling or punctuation, as they denote lack of effort. Authors can't help lack of talent, but they can do something about skills.

[The Pecman]

So you know about 48 published authors and they are experts in English?  That's interesting.  How do you get to know so many of them around the country?

 

Through email and correspondence, through working at a dozen newsstand magazines in the 1980s and 1990s, and being active on groups like these. Heck, I think just my old cronies in the magazine business probably number in the dozens, including freelance writers, staff writers, and editors. I've been around the block a few times. Many of them are very bright, well-rounded people who know art, history, music, and a lot beyond just the world of writing, through writing is their main line of work. I've been writing for more than 35 years, so you figure if I only met one person a year, that'd be about three dozen right there.

 

Two of the brightest LA authors I know personally, David Gerrold and Harlan Ellison, are amazing in their wealth of knowledge and their love of words and imagery. Both have taught writing at the professional level, conducting workshops, and have written scores of books (fiction and non-fiction). They also are far more knowledgeable than me about art, philosophy, history, and politics, four areas in which I have only the vaguest experience. They come to me when they need technical expertise in certain areas, so we all have knowledge in different areas, some of which overlap. And we share a love for great books and great writing.

 

My thanks to Graeme above, who knows my work. He and I have rubbed elbows for years on other forums, and I think he has a similar understanding on what it takes to be a writer. I agree 100% with him that my dispute with your comment lies in making a broad, superficial statement. I promise you, if I had turned in a college paper (or, god forbid, a paid piece) where I said something like that, my teacher or editor would whack me upside the head with a 2x4. But if I had said the magic words in my opinion, then everything is different. There's a huge difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. If you had said, "in my opinion, a lot of writers I see online have very poor skills in spelling, grammar, and punctuation," I wouldn't have said a word, but in fact might have sadly nodded my head in agreement.

 

I've written a couple of essays online where I said, "just because you aren't being paid for your writing doesn't mean you can't at least act like a professional and conduct yourself on that level." And that includes knowing all the rules about grammar, spelling, sentence construction, and so on. As a friend of mine pointed out the other day to me, there's only six strings on a guitar but there's millions of possible chords and songs that can come out of them. The same is true of writing: you really have to know the rules before you can break them, and I think great writers do know those rules, both on an instinctual and an intellectual level. 

Edited June 26, 2014 by The Pecman

[C J]

Thanks for the posts above, all very interesting.  I know I'm not all wrong or an idiot, I just felt like pouting a little.  I know it's silly but sometimes it makes me feel better.

 

Through email and correspondence, through working at a dozen newsstand magazines in the 1980s and 1990s, and being active on groups like these. Heck, I think just my old cronies in the magazine business probably number in the dozens, including freelance writers, staff writers, and editors. I've been around the block a few times. Many of them are very bright, well-rounded people who know art, history, music, and a lot beyond just the world of writing, through writing is their main line of work. I've been writing for more than 35 years, so you figure if I only met one person a year, that'd be about three dozen right there.

 

Two of the brightest LA authors I know personally, David Gerrold and Harlan Ellison, are amazing in their wealth of knowledge and their love of words and imagery. Both have taught writing at the professional level, conducting workshops, and have written scores of books (fiction and non-fiction). They also are far more knowledgeable than me about art, philosophy, history, and politics, four areas in which I have only the vaguest experience. They come to me when they need technical expertise in certain areas, so we all have knowledge in different areas, some of which overlap. And we share a love for great books and great writing.

 

My thanks to Graeme above, who knows my work. He and I have rubbed elbows for years on other forums, and I think he has a similar understanding on what it takes to be a writer. I agree 100% with him that my dispute with your comment lies in making a broad, superficial statement. I promise you, if I had turned in a college paper (or, god forbid, a paid piece) where I said something like that, my teacher or editor would whack me upside the head with a 2x4. But if I had said the magic words in my opinion, then everything is different. There's a huge difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. If you had said, "in my opinion, a lot of writers I see online have very poor skills in spelling, grammar, and punctuation," I wouldn't have said a word, but in fact might have sadly nodded my head in agreement.

 

I've written a couple of essays online where I said, "just because you aren't being paid for your writing doesn't mean you can't at least act like a professional and conduct yourself on that level." And that includes knowing all the rules about grammar, spelling, sentence construction, and so on. As a friend of mine pointed out the other day to me, there's only six strings on a guitar but there's millions of possible chords and songs that can come out of them. The same is true of writing: you really have to know the rules before you can break them, and I think great writers do know those rules, both on an instinctual and an intellectual level.

 

Meeting all those people is amazing.  You could probably write a bio or something about all the things that happened.  I also appreciate the fact that you and Graeme took the time to post in spite of me.    I don't always think about how much I still have to learn,  but I know it's true.  If things were just the way I want them I would already know more than I possibly could.  Thanks for being patient.

[Zombie]

The Daily Telegraph had an interesting opinion piece on this just last week about the 15 yo schoolboy, Albert Gifford, who complained about BMW's car ad. He had a month-long email exchange with BMW over one of their ad slogans “It bites as bad as it barks” which was shown when he went to see Godzilla. He told BMW that “bad” is not an adverb, it should be “It bites as fiercely as it barks” or “Its bite is as bad as its bark” and “a semi-literate eight-year-old” could have spotted the mistake and the ad had ruined his enjoyment of the film - poor dear

Back in March the boy persuaded Tesco [an evil British supermarket giant] to rebrand one of their lines of orange juice after spotting the phrase “most tastiest” on the side of a packet.

The article makes some interesting points....

 

 

     This is clearly a man who knows his way around Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots and Leaves - the essential 2003 Christmas gift for dreary pedants everywhere.

     Didn’t he get the memo, released by Stephen Fry last year, telling us that complaining about incorrect grammar was no longer the done thing? Fry, who is often assumed by the grammar nazis to be one of their own, accused pedants like Gifford of failing to take any joy from the English language. “They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less-than-perfect use of the apostrophe,” he said. “Well sod them to Hades. They write letters to newspapers and broadcasters in which they are haughty about other people’s usage, and in which they show off their superior ‘knowledge’ of how language should be.”

     He added that people should be able to “dress up” their language for a job application, in the same way that they might wear a suit to a job interview - but that this was a question of context and suitability rather than correctness.

     While Fry’s relaxed attitude towards language may initially seem more appealing than being lectured on adverbs by a teenager, on closer inspection his approach is really as objectionable as Gifford’s. Isn’t there more than a touch of noblesse oblige in the statement that, “Yes, I am aware of the distinction between less and fewer, and between uninterested and disinterested, and between infer and imply, but none of these are of importance to me”?

     They’re not of any importance to him precisely because he does know the difference; because he can slip into the metaphorical fewer-suit for a job interview and into the more casual less-onesie for lounging about the house. It’s easy to say there’s no right or wrong language - “just as there are no right or wrong clothes” - when you have access to a wide range of linguistic registers and a wardrobe that goes from flip-flops to morning suit.

      Letter-writing Gifford is easy to laugh at. But without occasional interjections from humourless pedants it’s also easy to forget that register you do sometimes need for the most formal situations. The rules may be no more than conventions - but even so, you need to have a solid knowledge of them before you can forget it all and do what comes naturally, in the way Fry suggests.

     It's easy to avoid the grammar nazis and their smug corrections if you want to. It’s harder not to be seduced by the ones who say they’re not interested in the difference between uninterested and disinterested.
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10905697/The-only-thing-worse-than-a-grammar-nazi-is-an-anti-grammar-nazi.html

Edited June 26, 2014 by Zombie

[Irritable1]

 

 

because he can slip into the metaphorical fewer-suit for a job interview and into the more casual less-onesie for lounging about the house

 

[sexyinaf]

Is it sad that I actually enjoy looking for spelling/grammar errors? It's not like I am doing it to be a bad person or make fun of people, I just see it as a way to exercise my mind. 

[WestcliffWriter]

hehe, I loved that