Comic by XKCD
Post by Natalia Real
I wonder: what is the point of the tiring litany of rules in [the English] language? Do we really need so many styles: AP, APA, MLA, Harvard, and so on? Why do we capitalize I but not you?
What is the big deal with all these rules? Shouldn’t our priority be simply to get the point across?
For many years I quietly accepted and followed the sometimes stark differences in writing, punctuation, citation, etc. styles in my various types of writing and editing. The AP Stylebook was my bible and was later joined by the MLA Style Guide. I acquiesced to switching back and forth between them and didn’t question it or complain. I was a stickler, in truth. I was known as the “copyediting Nazi” in one of the newsrooms I worked at.
Lately, however, I have come to feel annoyed toward the arbitrary and unstable validity of these authoritarian demands on how I must express concepts through written language.
Why is it okay for me to employ commas in traditionally incorrect ways in fiction but not in academic writing? Why can E. Annie Proulx get away with sentences such as, “He looked for something to bail out the water; nothing” and “He worked the tiller, traced curves” in The Shipping News while William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White twitch and roll over in their graves? Why can I violate certain grammar rules in blog posts but not in professional journalistic articles? And why do dead white men get to dictate how so many of us must write, anyway?
It always feels delightful to blow off the rules I so diligently abide by during working hours. For instance: “She turned away, glanced at the ice cream in her wine glass” is beautiful, I don’t care what the dead white guys say.
It’s like taking off a tight skirt, foot-deforming high heels, a business suit, a corset, a veil—and getting into stretchy, soft sweatpants and walking around barefoot. It’s liberating ourselves from oppressive, immobilizing restraints (speaking of which, I am an adamant opponent of heels and uncomfortable garments).
And if it feels delicious to break free from these rules and if nobody can offer a logical reason why we must continue respecting them—I call mutiny!
Why do we even wear what Colette Guillaumin denounced as tools of torture? Elements that only succeed to limit us, hinder us, dominate us? Some may claim that rules provide necessary structure and guidance. I say you can acquire these things some other way—via inspiration, desire, or making a list of possibilities, cutting them into strips, tossing them into a hat, and picking one out! There is profuse evidence that neglecting stringent grammar rules does not harm the quality of writing: Cixous, Artaud, Giovanni, Cummings, the aforementioned Proulx.
And while hardly anyone uses further vs. farther, less vs. fewer, and whom correctly (which, okay, I admit: still miffs me a bit) it usually doesn’t make the text any less coherent—which I believe should be the deciding factor.
What’s so awful about the passive voice or ending a sentence with a preposition if the meaning and its coherence remain the same? It’s not as atrocious as forming the possessive singular of a noun and neglecting to add ‘s, e.g. Davis’ cup instead of Davis’s cup. Just kidding.
“[We] generally accept that values are socially constructed and historically acquired, but [we] seem to think they must nonetheless be preserved,” says Christine Delphy in her essay “Rethinking Sex and Gender,” a statement we can apply to our purposes as we rethink the rules of language.
Language is alive, constantly evolving—any day now you’ll find “pwned” in the dictionary. And why shouldn’t changes involve rules for using dashes vs. commas? Also, I like including foreign language in my prose (you heard me, Strunk and White!). It grants it a certain je ne sais quoi.
And speaking of a new paradigm, I for a while now have wanted to devise a satisfying substitute for the lengthy he or she/she or he and the unpalatable s/he in addition to him or her/her or him (as he and him alone is clearly out of the question). What about seh and hur? So far, ze and hir, among others, have been suggested.
I alas do not know enough people making a true effort to take part in this revolution. It is not an easy path to take alone without support. But when “allowed” to express myself freely, I will happily work toward revolutionizing language.
Will you join me?
Natalia Real has been a writer, copyeditor, translator, and slave to various style guides since 2002. Help her brainstorm a world of gender neutral pronouns where dichotomies are obsolete, and much more.
I wonder: what is the point of the tiring litany of rules in [the English] language? Do we really need so many styles: AP, APA, MLA, Harvard, and so on? Why do we capitalize I but not you?
What is the big deal with all these rules? Shouldn’t our priority be simply to get the point across?
For many years I quietly accepted and followed the sometimes stark differences in writing, punctuation, citation, etc. styles in my various types of writing and editing. The AP Stylebook was my bible and was later joined by the MLA Style Guide. I acquiesced to switching back and forth between them and didn’t question it or complain. I was a stickler, in truth. I was known as the “copyediting Nazi” in one of the newsrooms I worked at.
Lately, however, I have come to feel annoyed toward the arbitrary and unstable validity of these authoritarian demands on how I must express concepts through written language.
Why is it okay for me to employ commas in traditionally incorrect ways in fiction but not in academic writing? Why can E. Annie Proulx get away with sentences such as, “He looked for something to bail out the water; nothing” and “He worked the tiller, traced curves” in The Shipping News while William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White twitch and roll over in their graves? Why can I violate certain grammar rules in blog posts but not in professional journalistic articles? And why do dead white men get to dictate how so many of us must write, anyway?
It always feels delightful to blow off the rules I so diligently abide by during working hours. For instance: “She turned away, glanced at the ice cream in her wine glass” is beautiful, I don’t care what the dead white guys say.
It’s like taking off a tight skirt, foot-deforming high heels, a business suit, a corset, a veil—and getting into stretchy, soft sweatpants and walking around barefoot. It’s liberating ourselves from oppressive, immobilizing restraints (speaking of which, I am an adamant opponent of heels and uncomfortable garments).
And if it feels delicious to break free from these rules and if nobody can offer a logical reason why we must continue respecting them—I call mutiny!
Why do we even wear what Colette Guillaumin denounced as tools of torture? Elements that only succeed to limit us, hinder us, dominate us? Some may claim that rules provide necessary structure and guidance. I say you can acquire these things some other way—via inspiration, desire, or making a list of possibilities, cutting them into strips, tossing them into a hat, and picking one out! There is profuse evidence that neglecting stringent grammar rules does not harm the quality of writing: Cixous, Artaud, Giovanni, Cummings, the aforementioned Proulx.
And while hardly anyone uses further vs. farther, less vs. fewer, and whom correctly (which, okay, I admit: still miffs me a bit) it usually doesn’t make the text any less coherent—which I believe should be the deciding factor.
What’s so awful about the passive voice or ending a sentence with a preposition if the meaning and its coherence remain the same? It’s not as atrocious as forming the possessive singular of a noun and neglecting to add ‘s, e.g. Davis’ cup instead of Davis’s cup. Just kidding.
“[We] generally accept that values are socially constructed and historically acquired, but [we] seem to think they must nonetheless be preserved,” says Christine Delphy in her essay “Rethinking Sex and Gender,” a statement we can apply to our purposes as we rethink the rules of language.
Language is alive, constantly evolving—any day now you’ll find “pwned” in the dictionary. And why shouldn’t changes involve rules for using dashes vs. commas? Also, I like including foreign language in my prose (you heard me, Strunk and White!). It grants it a certain je ne sais quoi.
And speaking of a new paradigm, I for a while now have wanted to devise a satisfying substitute for the lengthy he or she/she or he and the unpalatable s/he in addition to him or her/her or him (as he and him alone is clearly out of the question). What about seh and hur? So far, ze and hir, among others, have been suggested.
I alas do not know enough people making a true effort to take part in this revolution. It is not an easy path to take alone without support. But when “allowed” to express myself freely, I will happily work toward revolutionizing language.
Will you join me?
Natalia Real has been a writer, copyeditor, translator, and slave to various style guides since 2002. Help her brainstorm a world of gender neutral pronouns where dichotomies are obsolete, and much more.
4 comments:
Lovely. I'll join you!
My only concern is that writing will become unreadable if a proximity to some kind of law and order is not maintained.
Before you throw off the yoke of proper grammar, realize that it is merely a means to an end: comprehension.
It's easy to say that dead white guys don't deserve to hold sway over how we write, but easy to forget that they never held any power. The power derives from the people who followed them.
Which leads to my point: Grammar is not dictated, it is agreed upon. It is a consensus, not a mandate.
To make an analogy, in the States we drive on the right side of the road. In some other countries, people drive on the other side of the road. Now, it's not really important which side you drive on, but you'd better make sure you're on the same side as everyone else.
While I'm all for bending the rules when they needed bended, throwing them off because they're just no fun is going too far. After all, the value is language is the ability to communicate, and if you can't guarantee that you'll be understood, you've shot yourself in the foot.
On the other hand, if your revolution is successful, can you stick some apostrophes in possessive pronouns? That really irks me.
I agree with Loobs and John Roach. The s/he issue is annoying because there's so many opinions. When rules are set and followed, educated readers comprehend the meaning of a passage without focusing on grammar or spelling.
Fashion rules are like language rules in that they help establish credibility. People won't trust you if you wear a sweatsuit to a typical office. Likewise, readers won't trust a writer who uses comma splices and misspellings in a technical document.
Maybe no one minds sweatpants and bare feet at a picnic, and readers may accept loose language usage in fiction. Expectations differ in different situations.
- Loobs, I am happy to read that! Get in touch! :)
- John, I am absolutely all for comprehension. My point is that many rules don't concern comprehension. Instead, they just seem to be there to annoy the crap out of writers and editors and translators; they only serve a stylistic or needless purpose.
And, sure, grammar is agreed upon. Spreading the word is key, getting people involved and interested.
And I will certainly keep apostrophes in possessive pronouns. That irks me too. Plus, neglecting to use them invites confusion.
- Amlynn, as a former spelling bee champion (okay, in the classroom only), I virtually twitch every time I see a typo. However, spelling in the English language is erratic and illogical, so it would be nice to make some changes for the sake of ease and clarity.
I agree about wearing a swimsuit to the office. But you know, someone will eventually get away with it. Maybe William Safire, who would shock everybody's socks off and spark intense debate on the issue on a widespread scale. He'd look sexy in a bikini.
Post a Comment