Restrictive structure or literary anarchy?

[KillerMuffin]

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

Since most of us are into the stories and enjoy the good ones, whichever we may think those might be, and some of us are even authors, or wannabe authors, or wannado certain authors, I think this is somewhat relevant to all of us.

Don't know how much we get onto the Story Feedback board, but there is an interesting thread there 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.

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=15455

My question, other than to discuss, is how important is good grammar (not perfect, but reasonably good) to you when you read or write a story? Does bad grammar necessarily turn you off of a story when you read it? Or do you think that grammar doesn't really play a role in how well a story is written? Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Tamtam]

I feel when you are publishing a piece of work should it be on this site or else where grammer is important. I personally feel that it shows the level that you are commited to your work and your desire to make it perfect. When reading here, major gramatical errors jsut annoy me if i have to go back and read the sentence over and over to get what is trying to be said. However, little things like a missed comma or the like are no big deal.
So i guess my point is that if they dont get in the way of what has to be said its no big deal. yes...i know my grammer wasnt perfect in this post but i dont care enough to go back and proof-read it.

 

[Purple Haze]

What a progressive society we have become, we need a computer to correct our spelling for us.

Onward we go.

I have to admit, I am more drawn to neat paragraphs and proper punctuation. It shows respect for the reader. JMO

 

[SimplySouthern]

I am aware that some people are not as proficient as others in the area of grammar and spelling. Having said that, I also think that in this day and age, with the help of computers ans such there is really no excuse for not having proofread something before submission. If you pour so much hard work and dedication into writing a work of fiction, the least you could do is make it that much more enjoyable to the reader by pushing the spell check button on the computer before you submit it.

Literotica and the wonderful members herein make it that much easier on you. There are a bevy of great writers here that are willing to edit for you. Yours for the taking, if you will

I prefer to read something that I don't have to try and decipher. While reading a story filled with grammar ans spelling errors, I feel more like proofreading than....uh...well, anything else one might do while reading.

 

[Laurel]

Is grammar and spelling important? Fucking-A yes! The purpose of language is to communicate. Rules aren't there just so high school teachers can give tests - they exist so that there's a common ground between speakers of a language, without which information could not be passed effectively.

When I read stories (which I do occasionally) in which the author refuses to make paragraphs to delineate change of action, or refuses to use proper punctuation, or refuses to not only proofread their work but also use the automated spellcheck feature in their word processor, I think they're lazy. They're relying on the reader to decipher their cryptic sentence structure and mangled syntax. They lose the reader in their 2-page-long paragraphs. Ignorance is no excuse in an age where grammar help is at your fingertips (via various gramma sites on the web as well as our very own Volunteer Editors program), where spellcheck requires exactly one mouse click.

Writing, like any art, is freedom within a structure. The structure is the language. If you violate that structure without any good reason (or sometimes even with good reason - I can't read Burroughs, he hurts my brain), you risk offending and thus losing your reader.

 

[Sonora]

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

My question is how important is good grammar (not perfect, but reasonably good) to you when you read or write a story? Does bad grammar necessarily turn you off of a story when you read it? Or do you think that grammar doesn't really play a role in how well a story is written? Thoughts? Comments?

I've clicked off of many stories that were too difficult to read because of poor grammer, punctuaion, spelling, sentence structure, etc. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect to be able to be able to read the story with reasonable ease. There are stories that may contain a character's dialogue where the character's garammer is not perfect and that's ok--for that part of the story.

 

[Always]

I read so many books that I'm accustomed to good grammar; so when I see something with u instead of you it confuses me for a moment. I try to use good grammar and spelling even in my posts.

 

[April]

Um, what everybody else said.

Yes, grammar, spelling and punctuation is all very important. I've given up on stories that were written badly, and even voted low marks for them. There is no excuse for submitting a poorly written story when the volunteer editor program is there.

 

[CreamyLady]

If I could "wake" James Joyce, I don't know whether I'd kiss him or slap him. Those of us who have struggled through Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake know how restful it is to read a story with proper punctuation.

That said, would his stories have worked as well if written in a conventional manner? I don't know -- I haven't got the time or patience to go through and redo them.

Nothing can save a bad story, not even perfect grammar and spelling. If the story is good, though, I'll soldier on.

Also, if I could talk to him, I think I might give him a piece of my mind on developing a form that looks easy and has led to some horribly bad imitations.

 

[Whispersecret]

It's not diagramming sentences, but....

Ditto what everyone else has said, with interest. I'm a teacher, so my opinion is biased.

Most people write a story and post it here so that people will read and enjoy it. Why risk people clicking off your story because of excessive technical errors? Personally, I think the goal for every story should be that it be 100% error free. I know that's unrealistic, but that should be the goal. The rules are made to ease the communication of ideas, not to stifle creativity.

Plus (and I'm going to be politcally incorrect here) you look stupid when you post something riddled with mistakes. That's not to say that people who can't write are stupid. Quite the contrary, everyone has their own strengths. A man named Gardner (Gardener?) has a whole theory about the seven intelligences. HOWEVER, that doesn't negate the fact that poor writing makes the writer appear somewhat illiterate.

There are many reasons why you should proofread. I can't think of any valid reason against it.

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Warning! Page Rage ahead!

I second that motion, Laurel. Proper spelling, grammar and syntax are not only important, but critical. I agree with the sentiments of the others as well. If someone documents their thoughts by utilizing written words on paper (or electronically), their commitment should be total. Should they not possess inherent talent and intelligence or a more than adequate educational background to give proper attention to their work, then they should be obliged to at least rely on modern technology for assistance. There is no excuse in this day and age of spell-check and grammar software not to put forth a flawless product.

This is just another example of the "dumbing down" of society. We must not tolerate it. Laurel was quite accurate in saying that we communicate through language. We certainly learn basics by the back and forth of spoken dialogues. But to become an intelligent member of society, it is imperative that we read! We absorb much more when seeing something in black and white.

Rules are made for a reason. We know many people who speak just to hear the sound of their own voices. The writer who is lazy or stupid is of the same ilk. Until we can produce students who can actually string together more than 2 words at a time (and I am not talking about, like... you know), perhaps we ought to refocus our attention on our educational system. Perhaps we can finally do away with 'self-esteem' and other modern psycho-babble courses and return to basics. Good old 'reading, writing and 'rithmetic'. And yes, taught to the tune of a hickory stick!

English as a second language certainly takes on a whole new meaning with this thread! I certainly do not enjoy, nor put up with, poorly written stories. I demand at least a modicum of effort from an author. If they want my respect, then they need to earn it. And, trust me, poor grammar, misspelled words and mangled syntax are not the ticket.

On a personal note, Ms Whispersecret, even if I had not known you were a teacher, I would have known that you are one smart cookie by your writing style. That Hostile Takeover story is one HOT series and extremely well written. I enjoyed it very much!

This anal-retentive speaker is now stepping down off the soap box.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I think it's interesting how many times the grammatical editor feature on the word processing programs has been referred to. The posted story by cheryl on the other thread was full of grammar errors and she stated that she ran it through MSWord's grammatical checker. I counted no less than 4 grammar errors in the first sentence alone.

One of the literary works that was brought up for consideration against the benefits and requirements of grammar was Huck Finn. It has been a long time for me, so I don't remember it well. Would Huck Finn been as good had the grammar in it been perfect?

 

[Ezzy]

I totally agree...

1) KM (wannado).

2) Tamtam (grammer, commited, gramatical, jsut, (i)x 4, dont , grammer , wasnt , dont, proof-read ).

3) Purple Haze no problems at all.

4) SimplySouthern (ans x 2 and ….uh…) one to many periods before the uh.

5) Laurel (refuses, spellcheck x 2 , gramma).

6) Sonora (grammer, punctuaion, garammer).

7) Shila no problems at all.

8) April no problems at all worth mentioning.

9) CreamyLady no problems at all.

10) Whispersecret (politcally).

11) BrainyBeauty (then, dumbing, psycho-babble, rithmetic, That Hostile Takeover story is one HOT series and extremely well written, soap-box).

Here are a few of the ones me spell check and grammar check brought up.


EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif

Ps spot me deliberate mistakes and win a prize.

 

[CreamyLady]

There should have been a problem, Ezzy. I ended a sentence with a preposition.

Bad me. Bad, bad me!

 

[Weird Harold]

One of the literary works that was brought up for consideration against the benefits and requirements of grammar was Huck Finn. It has been a long time for me, so I don't remember it well. Would Huck Finn been as good had the grammar in it been perfect?

I think that Huckleberry Finn would have lost much of it's charm if Huck's grammar and diction were perfect.

On both this thread, and the other, there have been mention of several famous authors who "violated all the rules," yet are considered to be "Great Writers." That's really a misnomer, all of those mentioned are great story-tellers. Authors whose stories rose above the peculiarities of their writing style.

In the case of stories here on the web, I will often press on a muddle through a story that is far from technically perfect because the story is worth digging out of the technical imperfections. I've also bailed out of numerous stories because the author couldn't tell a story if someone else wrote it down for them, despite near perfection on the technical aspects.

I'm sure that everyone of us knows someone who can tell a bad joke and make everyone around them laugh anyway. That's a skill closely related to story-telling, and I'm not sure that it can be learned. Refined and improved, yes; Learned, no.

As many others have mentioned, this site offers links to many writers resources and the volunteer editor program, so there is little excuse for technical flaws in a story. However, it must also be considered that this is an international forum where English is a second language for many of the authors.

I have edited stories for non-english speakers, and the first thing I ask them, is if they want their story to sound "American" or retain the flavor imparted by imperfect translation from their native tongue. There are several stories here written by natives about India. They would not have as much appeal to me without the distinctive turn of phrase that identifies them as translations from a non-English native tongue.

The story is what determines what is a "proper" degree of technical accuracy. Grammar, punctuation and spelling need to be correct enough to communicate, yet flexible enough to allow the style and character of the story-teller to be expressed.

Every story is unique and the "rules" for each must be what works best for telling the story. Huck Finn, Nicholas Nickleby, and Oliver Twist are characters/narrators who were illiterate, and their stories absolutely require being told in an illiterate style. James Bond is an intelligent and urbane Englishman, and stories about him require a higher level of literacy in the presentation of the character.

In general, I much prefer stories I don't have to "translate" into understandable English to enjoy, but a story about a "Trailer-trash queen" that demands I translate from perfect grammar into a more appropriate dialect bothers me just as much. The level of technical precision must fit the story and characters.

 

[KillerMuffin]

For an opinionated old fart, you're pretty guruish.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, WH. There has to be some for of symbiotic balance between literary license and grammatical structure. Grammar means different things for different accents, dialects, and countries that speak the same language.

As an editor though, I can't help but wonder how much grammatical input I ought to give the writers who turn to me. Usually, I ask them what they want, but some errors are rather glaring and consistent. Is it the writing or is it ignorance of grammatical law? In third person, it's rather obvious, grammar should be reasonably good unless following a characters stream of consciousness. First person is more confusing, nevermind second person. In first person, how much of the grammar should be attributed to vernacular and how much grammar should be corrected? I have tended to point out grammatical inconsistencies where it appears to disrupt the natural flow of the "speaker's" thoughts.

 

[Jester]

To get to the point, if a story has all different kinds of fucked-up grammatical errors, it completely distracts me from the story itself. There have been stories that I haven't read specifically for that reason: I just couldn't get past it! If you're going to go through the effort of creating these things, have a little pride or least a work ethic and make sure that they are at least readable, even in they're not the next great American novel!

 

[Closet Desire]

great idea killer

SexyRed suggested I check out the trouble you were stirring up! Nicely done.

I won't be long winded...I promise

I'm glad to see Joyce being brought up but I would remind people that Joyce was Irish and that the flow, lilt, and rhythm of his language is different from the American or proper English. Until I came to study in England I couldn't fully appreciate that what sounds clumsy to an American can be musical in its native form. I'm not the one to say if Joyce was "musical" or not! But, he certainly broke some rules--or as I prefer--changed some rules for the rest of us.

I found myself making a distinction to dark_indy yesterday between grammar and literature as they are often linked together under "English". My own field is literature...I don't spend my days wondering if a verb should be here or there or whether or not I just wrote another "comma splice". We should all try to know the rules, just like we do when we learn a sport or how to drive, but then we shouldn't be too afraid to toss out what is arbitrary and try new things. That makes it exciting. This isn't an excuse for bad writing because there is a difference between the truly awful and the creative or merely interesting.

Dark_indy made a good comparison between an erotic scene painted by Rockwell and one by Picasso. It's one of those images I simply can't get out of my mind! They would be completely different...one I suppose...following all the rules of propriety and the other...well...not. Which is right? Which is wrong? Does it matter?

To wrap it up...too much conformity for a writer is a bad thing. I mean, do you want to read erotica or a thousand different clinical descriptions of intercourse? Erotica already breaks some of the rules because you can't always describe how it happens in the Queen's English. How exactly do you "talk" when your mouth is full of flesh? What about that final gasp and scream as your orgasm overwhelms you? As Jeff Foxworthy says "how exactly do you spell that?"

I'm off to lead my creative writing group in a couple of hours. Part of overcoming the influence (good influence mind you) of English teachers for writers is to feed in some counter views. Today I'm showing a film called "The Dead Poets Society". It's a brilliant piece for budding writers and, for that matter, old ones as well. Another one that has multiple layers is "Pleasantville".

I suppose what I'm saying is that although everybody, including me, agrees that some form of structure and adherence to rules is important, they are also saying they want to be drawn into the story, they want it to be real, and they want it to be alive. This is already a compromise on the type of writing you would employ for a term paper because life isn't like that either. We use contractions. We use incomplete sentences, often for impact. Grammatically incorrect, but effective. Creative writing is already a compromise on the rules.

About Bill Gates' ideas on grammar and spelling. What a load of rubbish. The spelling checkers are okay to an extent, but the grammar checkers are awful. I've come to the conclusion that they can correct the work of a third grader with passable efficiency, but they are completely thrown by complex sentences. The one with Word 2000 has the ugly inability to judge subject/verb agreement correctly.

With that I borrow the words of Paul Harvey and say "...good day!"

Closet Desire

 

[Laurel]

5) Laurel (refuses, spellcheck x 2 , gramma).

No, I really meant "gramma sites" as in sites owned by grammas. Grampas too, I guess.

 

[Ezzy]

CreamyLady and Laurel...

And the others on the thread, I was using MS word 2000, (for the spell check and the grammar check), that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.
There were other little things that I did not bother to mention, I was just wondering to myself what was the state of the thread was up to that point.

EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif

Ps That made me think of that 60’s group reforming, you may have heard some of their songs. “The Grammas and The Grandpas”. I think they did “San Diego Dreaming” or something like that! LOL.

 

[Weird Harold]

As an editor though, I can't help but wonder how much grammatical input I ought to give the writers who turn to me. Usually, I ask them what they want, but some errors are rather glaring and consistent. Is it the writing or is it ignorance of grammatical law?

When I'm commenting on a story as feed back to the author, whether as an editor or as a critic, I try to distinguish between comments on something that "violates the rules", and something that "just doesn't read right to me."

When something is a a violation of grammatical rules, I point it out as "this isn't grammatically correct. The correct form is..."

When it's just an awkward phrasing or poor choice of words, it's "While 'verdant' is technically correct to describe a thick growth, it also carries a connotation of 'a thick GREEN growth.' Are you sure you want to describe her pubic hair that way? I think 'lush' might be a better choice."

I also try to explain what images the author's words evoke for me. One editor told me "your description makes me think of a catholic grade-school girl." Which although it was meant crtically, in the sense that my editor felt it was an image that didn't fit the story, but it was wonderful news to me. That is exactly the image I was trying to generate for the reader.

The best thing an editor can do for an author, is to point out the things that are confusing and/or incorrect so that the author can decide whether or not confusion and/or bad grammar is what is desired at that point in the story.

Sometimes what is written is read completely different from what the author intended. Ezzy read my reference to Helen of Troy on another thread in a completely unexpected manner. The image of a beautiful woman sending ships down the ways by banging them with her face, instead of a champagne bottle, isn't exactly what "the face that launched a thousand ships" was meant to evoke in the reader, but it's one way of reading that line.

A bland editorial correction of "mistakes" doesn't help the author the story as the reader will see it. An explanation of what the editor 'sees' and feels from the author's words does help.

That's just my philosophy on editing (in part) and not what every author is looking for. I know that WhisperSecret has a similar approach, as do several other editors I've gotten good results from. The result is often a story with more red electrons than black ones when it comes back from the editor, but I personally much prefer that from my editors, and so return it to those I edit for.

 

[Closet Desire]

ahhhhh....

What a refreshing thing to hear.

 

[CreamyLady]

I had no trouble with Joyce once I started reading Ulysses aloud; a practice which pretty much guarantees solitude. The lilt and flow of words were beautiful, and I'm close enough to my Irish ancestors to "catch" it. Heck, my cousin Winifred can sound just like Molly Bloom, given sufficient Guinness.

Reading silently, however, with no punctuational road signs, is a serious exercise in stamina. It isn't an "American" thing. I think it stymies just about everyone in the beginning, no matter what version of English he or she was taught.

 

[Whispersecret]

Thank you, BrainyBeauty, for your compliment. I appreciate it a lot!

Weird Harold is incorrect about my "editing." I aspire to make my comments as neutral as he does. Unfortunately, I often end up sounding preachy. I don't even call it editing anymore. I call it critiquing. I just can't separate my personal opinions from objective observations.

...everybody, including me, agrees that some form of structure and adherence to rules is important.... This is already a compromise on the type of writing you would employ for a term paper because life isn't like that either. We use contractions. We use incomplete sentences, often for impact. Grammatically incorrect, but effective. Creative writing is already a compromise on the rules. --Closet Desire

Very true. (<--Incomplete sentences!) I often end sentences with prepositions because the grammatically correct way sounds dorkish and stilted, which would work for a newspaper article, but not for a hot and heavy erotic story.

However, don't forget that in order to break the rules, you must know them first. Authors today often use fragments for emphasis.

He started with licking her breasts, and then moved on to fingering her pussy. As usual.

And I see amateurs attempt this, but often they only end up exposing the fact that they don't know the appropriate place to break the sentence.

 

[Weird Harold]

Weird Harold is incorrect about my "editing." I aspire to make my comments as neutral as he does. Unfortunately, I often end up sounding preachy. I don't even call it editing anymore. I call it critiquing. I just can't separate my personal opinions from objective observations.

Actually, your style is more "teachy" than "preachy"

My editing style is more critique than edit also. I don't even really try to not be subjective. The only thing I try very hard to do is identify what is personal preference rather than purely technical.