Da Rules

[twelveoone]

In various threads, I've seen many references to "the rules".
As someone who is woefully ignorant, I was just wondering what they are.
I'm not talking about forms, form rules are (sometimes) clear. Do this, insert here, etc. etc.
I mean even the rules for Haiku seem a little fuzzy to me, who came up with them?

I am looking for the generalized rules; you know as in "you have to know the rules before you break them".

I would really like to leave a comment indicting someone in violation of Code 23; article 2004, if I knew what it was.

Or is this a cockney rhyming thing "Da rules" really being the the tools?

I just don't know.

 

[WickedEve]

I'd love a refresher course in Haiku. Writing proper haiku. Haiku the right way. I know, read what jthserra wrote. Where is that?

Rhyme: There is no gray area for rhyme. A poet is either good at it, or not. It's usually easy enough to spot bad rhyme, like forced rhyme. I don't like serious themes in poetry being handled with sing-song sounding rhyme.

 

[sandj]

Well, when someone talks about "the rules," usually what they are referring to are the conventions of poetry, the whole history of written verse. It's obviously not some sort of rigid, codified system of crime and punishment, but rather the generally accepted forms that poets use. For instance, a haiku is a Japanese form, a 17 syllable poem, composed of 3 lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables, respectively.

du du du du du
du du du du du du du
du du du du du

Conventionally, haikus have focused on observations of the natural world, using spare language and images to convey a sense of mood. This stripped down feel is somewhat dictated by the form; you can't be very elaborate in only 17 syllables. You can google most poetic forms to find specific information, or check your library, which may have an encyclopedia of poetic forms. One that I have found useful is Patterns of Poetry by Miller Williams. It's concise and comprehensive, giving descriptions of all sorts of poetic forms and providing examples of each.

"The rules" could also refer to grammar, which is also largely convention, but important to know if you intend to share your writing with other people. For instance, ending your sentence with a question mark conveys a specific meaning to most readers, who might be puzzled if the sentence did not otherwise appear to be a question. Nothing you don't already know.

Saying that you have to know the rules before you can break them means that departures from the accepted conventions should be grounded in some knowledge of what those conventions are. Just as when learning piano, you start with scales and not Jazz improvisation, learning "the rules" gives a foundation on which to build. It's the difference between innovation and ignorance. I find rule breaking much more compelling when I can recognize what conventions are being broken, where the departure point is. The tension between breaking away from and being reined in by the rules is what intrigues me most. But perhaps that's just me. Almost all rules have exceptions, boundaries where they break down, but knowing where those boundaries are helps you recognize how best to cross them.

Hope this helps. But if it doesn't, please ignore it.

 

[Liar]

Well, when someone talks about "the rules," usually what they are referring to are the conventions of poetry, the whole history of written verse. It's obviously not some sort of rigid, codified system of crime and punishment, but rather the generally accepted forms that poets use.

Not nessecarily. When I refer to "the rules", I'm talking about the conventions and structure of language in general. Spelling, grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure, punctuation, common disposition in various style genres... stuff like that. Those are the things that poets play with, bend to their will, use and abuse to get their message and emotions across in the most effective way. To make a clever word pay, you must know the words. To use an inventive grammatic structure can be a very effective way to make a poem stand out. But in order to do that, you must make grammar your bitch, intead of the other way around. It's all about control. If you have control, you can to pretty much anything you set your mind to. And in petry, knowledge of "the rules", the tools you use, is the basis to gain control.

So, pretty much what you said, after that.

#L

 

[sandj]

Not nessecarily. When I refer to "the rules", I'm talking about the conventions and structure of language in general. Spelling, grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure, punctuation, common disposition in various style genres... stuff like that. Those are the things that poets play with, bend to their will, use and abuse to get their message and emotions across in the most effective way. To make a clever word pay, you must know the words. To use an inventive grammatic structure can be a very effective way to make a poem stand out. But in order to do that, you must make grammar your bitch, intead of the other way around. It's all about control. If you have control, you can to pretty much anything you set your mind to. And in petry, knowledge of "the rules", the tools you use, is the basis to gain control.

So, pretty much what you said, after that.

#L

I really like that idea of control, being in command of your tools. No matter how badly I may want to build a house, no matter how detailed my conception of what the house should look like, no matter how strong the feelings I may have toward that house, I am not going to be successful unless I learn how to use the proper tools. (In my case, the proper tools would be a telephone to call a builder and a pen to write the check. I have no business near a construction site.)

This is something I was driving at but not quite reaching. Thanks Liar.

 

[Du Lac]

*

Quote: Sandyj

Saying that you have to know the rules before you can break them means that departures from the accepted conventions should be grounded in some knowledge of what those conventions are. Just as when learning piano, you start with scales and not Jazz improvisation, learning "the rules" gives a foundation on which to build. It's the difference between innovation and ignorance. I find rule breaking much more compelling when I can recognize what conventions are being broken, where the departure point is. The tension between breaking away from and being reined in by the rules is what intrigues me most. But perhaps that's just me. Almost all rules have exceptions, boundaries where they break down, but knowing where those boundaries are helps you recognize how best to cross them.


I agree totally.... well said and thank you for reminding me of what I left out on my rant LOL.. on The Poem Academy!

Du~

 

[sandspike]

Eve said

"I don't like serious themes in poetry being handled with sing-song etc, etc, etc:"

Thanks to Eve I have only one rule " Don't write serious shit". The only other
rule maybe spelling. There aren't any other rules unless you are doing a certain
form of poetry. I think that is why its call free verse.

 

[Liar]

"I don't like serious themes in poetry being handled with sing-song etc, etc, etc:"

Thanks to Eve I have only one rule " Don't write serious shit". The only other
rule maybe spelling. There aren't any other rules unless you are doing a certain
form of poetry. I think that is why its call free verse.

Eggs!
Weasels into write much
but when I Dickens
humdrum
mountain top
25
in gold nearly
as


I think I broke a few more rules in this poem. It has flawless spelling, but everything else is pretty wrong.

On the other hand, since my goal was to write a pile of incomprehensiböe gibberish, I did good.

#L

 

[WickedEve]

Eggs!
Weasels into write much
but when I Dickens
humdrum
mountain top
25
in gold nearly
as


I think I broke a few more rules in this poem. It has flawless spelling, but everything else is pretty wrong.

On the other hand, since my goal was to write a pile of incomprehensiböe gibberish, I did good.

#L

That's some mighty fine gibberish.
My goal is to break rules, follow rules, and write poetry that makes the reader not really care about rules, because the poem is damn good. Yep, that's my goal--for today. I'll let you know if it works. lol

 

[WickedEve]

"I don't like serious themes in poetry being handled with sing-song etc, etc, etc:"

Thanks to Eve I have only one rule " Don't write serious shit". The only other
rule maybe spelling. There aren't any other rules unless you are doing a certain
form of poetry. I think that is why its call free verse.

I love to write serious shit. And I actually love some of the rules of poetry. They can be fun and challenging, boys and girls. And free verse isn't all that free!

 

[thenry]

There are no rules, but there are many guidelines. Which is to say in most cases there is a very objective reason why one way works better than another. For example: stay away from clichés.

This is an index from another site and it covers just about everything you can imagine.

 

[DeepAsleep]

*blush* I know almost nothing about rules in poetry. ...I hate rules. The only 'tool' i've been disposed towards trying to sharpen is how I hack up the words, line-breaks, etc... and even then, I trust my gut in a re-read and focus on the feel.

Hee.

~D.A.
I will fuck your rules in the butt!

 

[Trent_Dutch]

Rules are mostly made to be broken... which makes me ask what is the point in making them in the first place. Of course, not all rules are to be broken... if we all drove on the wrong side of the road then.... well, if we all drove on the wrong side of the road it wouldn't be so bad... would just be like switching sides... so thats a bad example....

I don't think there are any rules to poetry in general... unless you're trying to write a poem that follows certain Rules... (i.e. Haiku, Sonnet, Thai-Buk, etc.) or you are working towards your own rules and limitations that you have imposed on yourself... even then your free to break them at any point you wish. Just don't try to palm off work that says it adheres to rules but doesn't really...I remember an English teacher of mine wasn't too happy when I wrote a sonnet made up of only 5 lines, the first of which was "Ducks make poor arm wrestlers".

 

[twelveoone]

Not nessecarily. When I refer to "the rules", I'm talking about the conventions and structure of language in general. Spelling, grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure, punctuation, common disposition in various style genres... stuff like that. Those are the things that poets play with, bend to their will, use and abuse to get their message and emotions across in the most effective way. To make a clever word pay, you must know the words. To use an inventive grammatic structure can be a very effective way to make a poem stand out. But in order to do that, you must make grammar your bitch, intead of the other way around. It's all about control. If you have control, you can to pretty much anything you set your mind to. And in petry, knowledge of "the rules", the tools you use, is the basis to gain control.

So, pretty much what you said, after that.

#L

I know almost nothing about rules in poetry. ...I hate rules.- DeepAsleep
There are no rules, but there are many guidelines.-thenry
I really like that idea of control, being in command of your tools. - sandj
Saying that you have to know the rules before you can break them means that departures from the accepted conventions should be grounded in some knowledge of what those conventions are. - Du Lac

I love to write serious shit. And I actually love some of the rules of poetry. They can be fun and challenging, boys and girls. And free verse isn't all that free! - ay!
WickedEve
although here I suspect WickedEve is talking about "rules" of forms

A couple of things, I attempted here. Ignorance is no shame, even feigned. I knew the answer would be arrived at if not said, thanks thenry, although "tools" and use of the tools may be even better than "guidelines".
I think the use of the tools, may be so deeply ingrained in some of the better poets, that they no longer conceive of them as "tools", or they assign technical terms when they describe them. Worse, sometimes they become dogmatic. A screwdriver, can be used for other things then screws.

Defy convention, be prepared to pay the price, although some of the more asute may pick up on it, if you show enough consistency, and effective use or (misuse) of the tools. Most prefer something that they are familiar with.

Why are you doing this, what is this for, may be the best questions you ever asked, the other person may be on to something that you can use.

Nobody knows more than they don't know, (well maybe DaVinci did). Thank you guys, I hope some of this may be absorped, by some of the more "knowing".

re: Haiku (American) I came across a page that had something like 22 or 23 things that a Haiku should do, and it is not quite the same that a Japanese Haiku will do, but that would be a quite 'nother discussion.

 

[Du Lac]

can not take credit for this...

Saying that you have to know the rules before you can break them means that departures from the accepted conventions should be grounded in some knowledge of what those conventions are. - Du Lac


This is actually Sandyj's quote.. I just happen to agree with her...
Maybe I am too sensitive after spending this last week on the road in NYC... the people are so different here... so rude at times lol... cold .. so when I got that anon quote telling me what poetry is and is not... it set me off... I am a rebel... with a soft heart.. lol... but anything but a conformist. This does not mean I am not informed I just chose not to always play by the rules.. and it just pisses me off when someone tells me what is and is not poetry art music etc... A spiritual warrior am I lol.. who at times will bite back when she feels someone is trying to cage her.... make her stop dreaming, seeing, tasting, touching, hearing and creating a different reality... so I say at times yes rules are good.. for me it is the rules of nature... not of man..but hell that is why my family calls me a pagan

as I said in the academy... we are all pioneers if we chose to be.. rules are meant to be broken at times for our minds,souls and bodies to soar...live and let live.. challenge yourself to be more... even if it means bending, breaking or ignoring rules ...

du lac on a rave..lol..

 

[Angeline]

Eggs!
Weasels into write much
but when I Dickens
humdrum
mountain top
25
in gold nearly
as


I think I broke a few more rules in this poem. It has flawless spelling, but everything else is pretty wrong.

On the other hand, since my goal was to write a pile of incomprehensiböe gibberish, I did good.

#L

Are you familiar with Noam Chompsky? His great example of coventional meaning versus deep syntactic structure is:

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Your poem made me think of it.

 

[PatCarrington]

Are you familiar with Noam Chompsky? His great example of coventional meaning versus deep syntactic structure is:

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Your poem made me think of it.

for tath....he'd just put it here tomorrow anyway.

rules......we dun nee no stinkin' rules.

 

[Angeline]

for tath....he'd just put it here tomorrow anyway.

rules......we dun nee no stinkin' rules.

My Shakespeare teacher once said that when you analyze Shakespeare you must know the basics. Then you can make the craziest claims you want because you can put them in a context to back them up. Tath would say you don't need no steenkin rules. On the other hand, he knows more of them than he'd admit.

 

[foehn]

I don't know either.

In various threads, I've seen many references to "the rules".
As someone who is woefully ignorant, I was just wondering what they are.
I'm not talking about forms, form rules are (sometimes) clear. Do this, insert here, etc. etc.
I mean even the rules for Haiku seem a little fuzzy to me, who came up with them?

I am looking for the generalized rules; you know as in "you have to know the rules before you break them".

I would really like to leave a comment indicting someone in violation of Code 23; article 2004, if I knew what it was.

Or is this a cockney rhyming thing "Da rules" really being the the tools?

I just don't know.

I really don't know either. I do know I don't think of rules or even tools when I write. I feel that I'm reasonably grounded in a knowledge of the art of poetics. I tend to think of literary "devices" as techniques. Things like meter, rhythm and rhyme are part of it, but they are as unexplainable as harmony. That is, these things have an effect on the way I perceive a verbal communication, and although I can usually tell you how it affects me, I can't say why.

Grammar and spelling are conventions, but similarly, a good application of established conventions has an effect on my perception. Having studied grammar a bit higher than the high school level, I understand that the general reason for the conventions is to prevent ambiguity where it's not desired. The conventions usually do prevent misunderstandings and ease the flow of reading, even when not much risk is present. However, such sentences as the one quoted by Noam Chomsky above show that a grammatical construction need not make much sense on the surface. Still, it employs good grammar, and flows easily into the mind, I think, for that reason. It's a vast subject, and smarter men than me have made careers of studying it and writing about it. For myself, I'm willing to overlook typos and numerous flaws in spelling, punctuation and grammar if there's a germ of an idea that I understand, especially if it has emotional or intellectual punch. By the same token, I'll prefer the grammatically correct and correctly spelled version, if available. My understanding of current grammar theory is that these days most linguists classify writing, in terms of grammar, as not grammatical (makes no sense whatsoever), substandard, standard, and formal or elevated. I think most of our day-to-day utterances and written communiques are an interesting mix of substandard and standard grammar. We often mis-type or mistake "it's" for "its," "lie" for "lay," "their" for "they're." And in the rush of an animated conversation, we aren't constantly checking and revising our utterances before they become spoken words. One blessing of speech is that nobody is checking our spelling. One curse is that some people substitute one's accent for spelling, and check on that! (If you have an Arkansas accent, you can't possibly have a Presidential voice...)

Many of the things I've learned about poetics I have filed away into the category of things that enhance literary presentation, creation of art, and nobody can really explain them, although they demonstrably have an effect. Most of them I grasped more fully by trying them out, consciously, in little "poem-experiments" here and there. It made for an awful lot of disposable, bad poetry, but it gave me a "hands-on" knowledge of the concepts involved. Hundreds and hundreds of sheets of paper were wasted on my getting a grasp of things like alliteration, assonance, consonance, metonymy, synecdoche, metaphor, simile; denotation, connotation; iambs, trochees, spondees, the molossus, the phyrric, amphimacer, amphibrach, dactyl, anapest; dimeter, trimeter, tetrameter, pentameter, the Alexandrine; sonnets, Old English rhythm, rondeaus, Spenserian stanzas, and the list goes on and on until the avid student realizes there's just too fucking much.

At that point, I think, a poet just relaxes a bit and starts writing poetry. The interesting thing about it is that all those things do something. It doesn't matter that no one can really tell you why. They function, and the function is felt. One gradually gets a feel for how they function together -- and learns when enough is enough, and when too much is too much. On the other hand, nothing is perfect, because sometimes what insists on "coming out" simply won't fit into a neat little plan. Sometimes it's the flaws in things that make them come to life, to be believable. One learns that, too. But I believe that as an artist (and we are artists!), one learns to abide constructive criticism as a sandpaper tool to point to sharper writing: and beyond that, to actually begin to incorporate all those strange voices internally, so that even on a first draft, the result of the written words are that a committee of some internal "knowing" has argued it into existence. At that point, a "first draft" has actually already been revised several times. One writes, and reads, and re-reads, and perhaps reads aloud, and re-types. Every re-typing is liable to change, as the newborn poem is sifted through various sieves of device and technique.

Or not. Some poems just blurt themselves out, and will not be moved.

I like knowing all that I know, but it doesn't give my poems the "heart" and immediacy and depth of emotion, or even intellect, that get the great ratings here. Some of my favorite poets here are horrible at grammar and spelling, yet something in their creations speaks more primally to my nature as a human being. Those poets have lots of "hots" in their listings. I'm amazed I have any at all, and it's fewer than four.

But there's a tricky thing, for sure. Because it's tempting to think, "Well, if I'd just write a bit more loosely, less carefully, then maybe more people would read and enjoy my stuff." But really, I don't think that's the case. I think readers are like squirrels, in a way. They don't crack the shell for the joy of cracking shells, they're after the meat. If it's not sweet and hearty, it's not very tempting to crack that sort of a nut again. Technique and style may enhance in some instances, and I believe it does. But it's no substitute for genuine, honest thought or feeling.

There aren't really any rules, in my opinion, except the most basic one: anyone who would communicate needs to be understood by the one he or she would communicate to. There may be some codicils and caveats to that, but I think that's about it, really. By the same token, though, that throws the responsibility sqarely into the lap of the communicator. It's not really fair to just dismiss a reader as lacking understanding, not if that's a reader one was trying to reach.

On the theme of rules, now I'm reminded of the old widower of some-odd years out in the country, who hitched up his horse to the wagon and drove to the city to fetch a new wife. He succeeded, and on the way home, the horse balked. He whipped it until it started moving again, and said, "That's once!" Some miles later, the horse balked again. The man got down, went up to the horse with a 2x4 in his hands, and whacked the horse on the head. The horse once again walked toward home. "That's twice!" the man shouted. Finallly, the horse stopped dead in its tracks again. The man pulled out his rifle from under the seat and shot the horse dead. They'd have to walk the rest of the way, and get the wagon later. "That's three times!" the man yelled.

His new bride was beside herself. "Oh, how horribly cruel and unfair!" she cried. The man slapped her across the mouth and said, "That's once!"

 

[twelveoone]

I really don't know either. I do know I don't think of rules or even tools when I write. I feel that I'm reasonably grounded in a knowledge of the art of poetics. I tend to think of literary "devices" as techniques. Things like meter, rhythm and rhyme are part of it, but they are as unexplainable as harmony. That is, these things have an effect on the way I perceive a verbal communication, and although I can usually tell you how it affects me, I can't say why.

Grammar and spelling are conventions, but similarly, a good application of established conventions has an effect on my perception. Having studied grammar a bit higher than the high school level, I understand that the general reason for the conventions is to prevent ambiguity where it's not desired. The conventions usually do prevent misunderstandings and ease the flow of reading, even when not much risk is present. However, such sentences as the one quoted by Noam Chomsky above show that a grammatical construction need not make much sense on the surface. Still, it employs good grammar, and flows easily into the mind, I think, for that reason. It's a vast subject, and smarter men than me have made careers of studying it and writing about it. For myself, I'm willing to overlook typos and numerous flaws in spelling, punctuation and grammar if there's a germ of an idea that I understand, especially if it has emotional or intellectual punch. By the same token, I'll prefer the grammatically correct and correctly spelled version, if available. My understanding of current grammar theory is that these days most linguists classify writing, in terms of grammar, as not grammatical (makes no sense whatsoever), substandard, standard, and formal or elevated. I think most of our day-to-day utterances and written communiques are an interesting mix of substandard and standard grammar. We often mis-type or mistake "it's" for "its," "lie" for "lay," "their" for "they're." And in the rush of an animated conversation, we aren't constantly checking and revising our utterances before they become spoken words. One blessing of speech is that nobody is checking our spelling. One curse is that some people substitute one's accent for spelling, and check on that! (If you have an Arkansas accent, you can't possibly have a Presidential voice...)

Many of the things I've learned about poetics I have filed away into the category of things that enhance literary presentation, creation of art, and nobody can really explain them, although they demonstrably have an effect. Most of them I grasped more fully by trying them out, consciously, in little "poem-experiments" here and there. It made for an awful lot of disposable, bad poetry, but it gave me a "hands-on" knowledge of the concepts involved. Hundreds and hundreds of sheets of paper were wasted on my getting a grasp of things like alliteration, assonance, consonance, metonymy, synecdoche, metaphor, simile; denotation, connotation; iambs, trochees, spondees, the molossus, the phyrric, amphimacer, amphibrach, dactyl, anapest; dimeter, trimeter, tetrameter, pentameter, the Alexandrine; sonnets, Old English rhythm, rondeaus, Spenserian stanzas, and the list goes on and on until the avid student realizes there's just too fucking much.
At that point, I think, a poet just relaxes a bit and starts writing poetry. The interesting thing about it is that all those things do something. It doesn't matter that no one can really tell you why. They function, and the function is felt. One gradually gets a feel for how they function together -- and learns when enough is enough, and when too much is too much. On the other hand, nothing is perfect, because sometimes what insists on "coming out" simply won't fit into a neat little plan. Sometimes it's the flaws in things that make them come to life, to be believable. One learns that, too. But I believe that as an artist (and we are artists!), one learns to abide constructive criticism as a sandpaper tool to point to sharper writing: and beyond that, to actually begin to incorporate all those strange voices internally, so that even on a first draft, the result of the written words are that a committee of some internal "knowing" has argued it into existence. At that point, a "first draft" has actually already been revised several times. One writes, and reads, and re-reads, and perhaps reads aloud, and re-types. Every re-typing is liable to change, as the newborn poem is sifted through various sieves of device and technique.

Or not. Some poems just blurt themselves out, and will not be moved.

I like knowing all that I know, but it doesn't give my poems the "heart" and immediacy and depth of emotion, or even intellect, that get the great ratings here. Some of my favorite poets here are horrible at grammar and spelling, yet something in their creations speaks more primally to my nature as a human being. Those poets have lots of "hots" in their listings. I'm amazed I have any at all, and it's fewer than four.

But there's a tricky thing, for sure. Because it's tempting to think, "Well, if I'd just write a bit more loosely, less carefully, then maybe more people would read and enjoy my stuff." But really, I don't think that's the case. I think readers are like squirrels, in a way. They don't crack the shell for the joy of cracking shells, they're after the meat. If it's not sweet and hearty, it's not very tempting to crack that sort of a nut again. Technique and style may enhance in some instances, and I believe it does. But it's no substitute for genuine, honest thought or feeling.

There aren't really any rules, in my opinion, except the most basic one: anyone who would communicate needs to be understood by the one he or she would communicate to. There may be some codicils and caveats to that, but I think that's about it, really. By the same token, though, that throws the responsibility sqarely into the lap of the communicator. It's not really fair to just dismiss a reader as lacking understanding, not if that's a reader one was trying to reach.

On the theme of rules, now I'm reminded of the old widower of some-odd years out in the country, who hitched up his horse to the wagon and drove to the city to fetch a new wife. He succeeded, and on the way home, the horse balked. He whipped it until it started moving again, and said, "That's once!" Some miles later, the horse balked again. The man got down, went up to the horse with a 2x4 in his hands, and whacked the horse on the head. The horse once again walked toward home. "That's twice!" the man shouted. Finallly, the horse stopped dead in its tracks again. The man pulled out his rifle from under the seat and shot the horse dead. They'd have to walk the rest of the way, and get the wagon later. "That's three times!" the man yelled.

His new bride was beside herself. "Oh, how horribly cruel and unfair!" she cried. The man slapped her across the mouth and said, "That's once!"

"I tend to think of literary "devices" as techniques." "Techniques" is a better word, but I needed something to rhyme with "rules". Use of ingrained techniques comes across as natural, unthought. It shows in your writing. Your concluding sentences strike me as coming from someone who is undogmatic, and quite aware of contradictions.
In short...I applaud.

 

[Liar]

Rules, tools, guidelines, conventions, techniques... same stuff, different names. Know them, and you can use them to control your writing, choose when to let them guide you and when to let them not. Know them not, and you don't have that choice.

#L

 

[Reltne]

Die Regeln !!

Rules are what I say they are when I write.
. . . and. . .
Rules are what you say they are when you read what I wrote.

Rules are what survives when our views collide.
~
Rules are what we can agree they are.

 

[Tathagata]

for tath....he'd just put it here tomorrow anyway.

rules......we dun nee no stinkin' rules.

Hey mister, could you stake a fellow poet to a beer?

 

[Tathagata]

My Shakespeare teacher once said that when you analyze Shakespeare you must know the basics. Then you can make the craziest claims you want because you can put them in a context to back them up. Tath would say you don't need no steenkin rules. On the other hand, he knows more of them than he'd admit.

Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.

 

[Miss Oatlash]

Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.

11 RULES OF WRITING

1. To join two independent clauses, use a comma followed by a conjunction, a semicolon alone, or a semicolon followed by a sentence modifier.

2. Use commas to bracket nonrestrictive phrases, which are not essential to the sentence's meaning.

3. Do not use commas to bracket phrases that are essential to a sentence's meaning.

4. When beginning a sentence with an introductory phrase or an introductory (dependent) clause, include a comma.

5. To indicate possession, end a singular noun with an apostrophe followed by an "s". Otherwise, the noun's form seems plural.

6. Use proper punctuation to integrate a quotation into a sentence. If the introductory material is an independent clause, add the quotation after a colon. If the introductory material ends in "thinks," "saying," or some other verb indicating expression, use a comma.

7. Make the subject and verb agree with each other, not with a word that comes between them.

8. Be sure that a pronoun, a participial phrase, or an appositive refers clearly to the proper subject.

9. Use parallel construction to make a strong point and create a smooth flow.

10. Use the active voice unless you specifically need to use the passive.

11. Omit unnecessary words.

I say...Break 'em all!