iblis wrote:

Jack wrote:

P.S. No one is 2038yrs old. That kinda was silly.

It's only because I'm Jesus, you know.

Great. Then you can answer a question that's been nagging me for almost 13 years now: Do you believe in Santa Claus?

More importantly, does he believe in this little Virginia chick I keep hearing about?

JaNell wrote:

jenna wrote:As far as the spacing issues go.... who cares? Who was the horribly bored anally retentive person that came up with the idea that sentences had to be followed by 2 spaces anyway? What's wrong with no spaces or for that matter having 30 spaces?

It's for clarity. The human brain can process things faster and more efficiently if they are presented in definable packages. Also, the spaces imitate the pause at the end of a spoken sentence, which is longer than the pause one uses after a comma. Commas, semicolons, colons, and periods all indicate a specific type of pause in a sentence - which in turn structures the rhythm of the sentence. The rhythm of a sentence is an important part of discerning its meaning.

True. It does make for easier reading. However, that's just because it is the paradigm that we are all educated to read and write under. If it wasn't what we were taught it would lose all relevance. If one was taught to read in a more intrepretive manner, then meaning would be quite easy to find regardless of the writing style or adherance to the standards of grammar of the writer. Communication is just as dependant on the capasity of the reader to understand as it is on the writer's ability to express. For example the average 6 year old would rapidly become lost and confused reading Dostoevsky. That confusion doesn't mean that Dostoevsky is a crappy writer, it means that his writing is above the reading comprehension of the audience of an average 6 year old.
Also, problems can arise in more advanced writing when the expectation is for grammatical rules to be strictly followed. As you said, the rhythm of a sentence is very important to its meaning. However, there are times when "proper" structure actually inturrupts the appropriate rhythm for the meaning to be expressed. For example, if the narrative voice is supposed to be a rather manic high strung individual, graceful flowing sentences with all commas and spacing exactly where they are supposed to be can actually hinder the proper meaning and tone being conveyed. Like all rules they can be useful to a point, but then eventually become irrevelant and confining. Being able to go beyond them makes for readers and writers with higher creativity levels, and more capable of communicating and understanding a fuller range of ideas. After all "Foolish consistancy is the hob-goblin of small minds."

jenna wrote:

JaNell wrote:

jenna wrote:As far as the spacing issues go.... who cares? Who was the horribly bored anally retentive person that came up with the idea that sentences had to be followed by 2 spaces anyway? What's wrong with no spaces or for that matter having 30 spaces?

It's for clarity. The human brain can process things faster and more efficiently if they are presented in definable packages. Also, the spaces imitate the pause at the end of a spoken sentence, which is longer than the pause one uses after a comma. Commas, semicolons, colons, and periods all indicate a specific type of pause in a sentence - which in turn structures the rhythm of the sentence. The rhythm of a sentence is an important part of discerning its meaning.

True. It does make for easier reading. However, that's just because it is the paradigm that we are all educated to read and write under. If it wasn't what we were taught it would lose all relevance. If one was taught to read in a more intrepretive manner, then meaning would be quite easy to find regardless of the writing style or adherance to the standards of grammar of the writer. Communication is just as dependant on the capasity of the reader to understand as it is on the writer's ability to express. For example

", "

jenna wrote:the average 6 year old would rapidly become lost and confused reading Dostoevsky. That confusion doesn't mean that Dostoevsky is a crappy writer, it means that his writing is above the reading comprehension of the audience of an average 6 year old.

Can we have more specifics about the six year old's audience?
Or did you mean, "... it means that his writing is above the reading comprehension of an average 6 year old."?

jenna wrote:Also, problems can arise in more advanced writing when the expectation is for grammatical rules to be strictly followed. As you said, the rhythm of a sentence is very important to its meaning. However, there are times when "proper" structure actually inturrupts the appropriate rhythm for the meaning to be expressed. For example, if the narrative voice is supposed to be a rather manic high strung individual, graceful flowing sentences with all commas and spacing exactly where they are supposed to be can actually hinder the proper meaning and tone being conveyed.

Of course conversation is written more naturally! Sentence structure is one of the most effective ways that a writer can present the personality, gender, and even upbringing of a charector. That's why it is especially important to adhere to basic grammer and sentance structure; without the contrast of conversational style with the more formal narrative style, a valuable writing tool is lost, and one is left with lengthy, boring descriptions to establish the personalities of the characters.

jenna wrote:Like all rules they can be useful to a point, but then eventually become irrevelant and confining. Being able to go beyond them makes for readers and writers with higher creativity levels, and more capable of communicating and understanding a fuller range of ideas. After all "Foolish consistancy is the hob-goblin of small minds."

LOL
The "creativity" reasoning is too often used as an excuse for poor writing skills and an actual lack of creativity; who can tell in all that mess?
And by the way, there should be a comma and space immediately before the quote in your last sentence, which, of course, should be referenced...


Good thing I'm not a Spelling Nazi, too! They wouldn't let me in because of my dyslexia.

For anyone interested in Writing, there are some links to Writers' tools here.

Rather late into this but quite honestly I felt Coma posted one of the more interesting texts on the board as of late.

I feel that overstricted grammer rules make white bread out of the language. Everyone writing in the same structure boring the muses to death causing them to sleep unconscience in their oblivion.

I think Jenna has raised a valid point. Readers should train themselves to read more varied writing styles.

And then there's the proper context issue. I feel that this message board hosts a informal setting, a place for people to write informally.

It total, I command the language the language does not command me.

Assimov was a horrible speller.

And then there's this guy.

http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03/ulyss12.txt

Celestial Dung wrote:Rather late into this but quite honestly I felt Coma posted one of the more interesting texts on the board as of late.

I feel that overstricted grammer rules make white bread out of the language. Everyone writing in the same structure boring the muses to death causing them to sleep unconscience in their oblivion.

I think Jenna has raised a valid point. Readers should train themselves to read more varied writing styles.

And then there's the proper context issue. I feel that this message board hosts a informal setting, a place for people to write informally.

It total, I command the language the language does not command me.

Assimov was a horrible speller.

And then there's this guy.

http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03/ulyss12.txt

I think you're taking my response far more seriously than it is intended - and as being aimed at the general membership, rather than discussing it with one person.

Also, we were talking about creative writing, not board posts.

I've read a lot of submission guidelines, and almost every one starts with either an admonishment for proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling, or an outright threat to circular file any manuscript that doesn't bother with the basics, under the reasoning that if the author doesn't care to write it properly, why should they even bother to read it?

Nah it's just the old grammer issue.

Actually some of the most interesting writing I've ever read has been in zine form where grammer rules are not so stritctly appllied. A good example would be Christopher Scum's local read. It's not expecially gramaterically coherent but it matches his attitude.

To me these Zine writers are interesting because of their lack of respect toward standard grammer rules. It opens up new ways of expressing a thought or situation. It's also tend to refelct the personality of the writer better.

You point about publishing companies is correct but on moral basis I still can't abide very well with it. It bothers me to no end that in some trash pile there is a fire gem of a work and it's tossed out on account of absent commas, misspellings, and word structure. While I would advise any writer who wants to market their work to try to adhere to the commen grammer rule, I would suggest self publication to the maverickables.

I was taught to believe that 16th century was the high point of the English Language. I find it more then interesting during that period the language was also quite ungovernable.

Christopher Scum •is• an interesting read but I find myself wishing he could articulate himself more clearly - all those interesting thoughts, all muddled up in tangles...

I'm reading China Mieville's Perdido Street Station right now, and blessing his command of the language as he has enticingly complex sentences - he almost qualifies as a Southern Writer that way, in spite of being British.

Perhaps the Southern Writer style is a lingering effect of Colonialism?

I abhor latent malignancies with deliberacy and tapestries; would greater maps fold readers' traps? Or would unfortunate coincidence break more jumped fences in lists of anomalous dances? Truly, a feather strikes under Hellenic literature. Moose.

I would like to give my support for the Grammer Nazi Movement, because we just really need fascism on the KnoxGothic board.

I mean we should unite and obliterate original thinking! We need to destroy creativity! Then we can all go ahead and burn some books! Outlaw any form of free expression!

Of course, we'd have to change our name from KnoxGothic to the Moral Majority......But that's OK.....We're a Darkly Comic Fascist State.....

Faulkner wrote some great works disregarding the 'standard' for grammar.

But you know what I'll never read them. I learned to read funny cause of my crappy vision. I just simply can't read something without at least punctuation, capitalization isn't a must be it takes longer. The punctuation gives the sentences structure, and that I understand. Without that it is all just a jumble of words that don't make no sense.

JaNell, thank you so much for your corrections of the grammatical errors on my last post. i'm sure that if i ever become rich and famous and someone decides to put together and publish an anthology of obsure posts to message boards that i composed, they will be greatly appreciative of your editing work. However, until that unlikely event, your help was really an unnecessary effort. As you said yourself creative writing is different than board posts. i'm with CD on the nature of that difference being that boards are an informal setting, therefore informal is the way to go.
i do agree that not siting the source of my quote was a Major no-no. That sort of thing is usually not my style. So, in case anyone is curious, the source of the quote is from the essay "Self-reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
The idea of the crutial necessity of sticking to formal grammer for the meaning of a written work to be understood reminds me of my 6th grade English teacher. This is the woman who was seriously anti-gay and would deride and ridicule all the boys in the class that had pierced ears and was supposedly a huge fan of Shakespeare. Eleven year old little Jenna pointed out to her that as demonstated by the picture of him hanging on her wall, Shakespeare had a pierced ear, and that based on study of some of his sonnets some scholars theorize that he may have had a gay lover. She had a screaming fit accusing me of being a liar and having no idea what i was talking about and sent me to the office. That woman is the sort of literary genious (sarcasm) that comes to my mind when people preach the necessity of good grammar to making a written work meaningful.
Whereas what comes to mind when i think of those who take the view that rigidly following syntax rules can at times inhibit creativity and the ability to convey a message, i think about sitting in on conversations my mother, (who has a PHD in English, and has been published) and her friends had about their writings and creativity and free expression in general. These conversations were a high-point of my child-hood, and have positive memories attached to them. i loved the stories these people could tell me, and the excited passion in their voices as they spoke about creative expression.
So, not only is the importance of not letting the rules of grammer confine you and repress your creativity a belief that i find personally appealing and far more expressive both in my own occasional writings and in the writings of others, it is one backed by powerful childhood memory associations. Granted, the fact that doing so can get in the way of publication is a valid point. Yet, it is one that can be worked around to some extent. It is also one that does not apply to me, because i do not write out of any desire to be published. i write sheerly because i have an over-active imagination and enjoy having an outlet for it. Besides... publishers=the establishment=bureaucracy=EVIL. lol
Also, JaNell has a vaid point that there are things done using the creativity excuse that really are just crap. However, i've read plenty of pieces that got by on perfect grammer only and aside from that amazing feat were utter drivel. To me, the reader and the writer have a relationship of sorts. Like all relationships, one reader may get along wonderfully and totally understand a certain writer, whereas the next person thinks that their work is completely meaningless rubbish. People's opinions on a writer will vary. The merits of a written work and whether or not it was creative, insightful, or spoke to them, should be decided upon by the reader, not by Harbrace, The Holy Tome of Grammar Nazis.
So, i guess to the Grammar Nazi Movement i am the White Rose of Free Expression, working to spread the word of the freeing of the English language from a fascist regime. (The original White Rose being a student resistance group during the Holocaust that handed out revolutionary leaflets, led by Hans and Sophie Scholl expaining the attrocities commited by the nazis)

creapyrob wrote:Faulkner wrote some great works disregarding the 'standard' for grammar.

But you know what I'll never read them. I learned to read funny cause of my crappy vision. I just simply can't read something without at least punctuation, capitalization isn't a must be it takes longer. The punctuation gives the sentences structure, and that I understand. Without that it is all just a jumble of words that don't make no sense.

Jenna, that you, or anyone, could completely disregard what Creepy Rob is saying - that he needs that structure to be able to read at all - that without it, he will never be able to understand the words - never be able to understand what the writer is saying - is absolutely incomprehensable and self-absorbed to me.

I feel like I should say more, and then be done with it.

I believe that everyone should communicate to the best of their ability. Putting hurdles in the way of the reader, when you are capable of writing standard English, is not an act of creativity; it is an act of laziness.

In fact, expecting people to interpret what you write seems to me to be a form of elitism. Of course a highly literate person can eventually interpret what you meant to say, but for someone with a learning disorder or low literacy, it's simply too difficult without a standard, consistant format.

I'm not that much of a snob.

Amazing how this has gone on so long.

My thoughts:

Grammar serves a purpose in making things easier to read. While this is an informal setting and not a technical treatise any help in comprehension is good. This medium gives us too little data to work with vs. normal conversation.

canyouunderstandwhatiamsaying

The above would be an another excellent argument for structure or to quote a section from the book I'm currently reading:

Payne was not going to be pushed into their ranks. Spectroscope readings can be ambiguous where they overlap. Payne began to wonder how much the way her professors broke them apart depended on what they already had in mind. For example, let the reader note the following letters very well, and then try to read them:

n o t e
v e r y
o n e w
i l l g
e t i t

Admittedly not about grammar directly, but grammatical conventions are used as an example to get the point across on the interpretation of spectroscope lines. Originally, spectroscope readings were interpreted to suggest that the sun and other stars were mostly made of iron instead of hydrogen.

On other notes:

Codedine Coma ~ Greeting, and hang in there bro.

There is an huge difference between knowing proper grammar/spelling and intentionally disregarding it for creative purposes, and disregarding it because you can't be arsed to do it right.

Example A: God looked down on me; and I said "Jesus? I amn't."

Example B: guys u know what i think my lack of grammer is creative expression stop being a nazi ok sheesh U R 2 uptite LOLZ!!!!1111

God, if I never hear the term "grammar Nazi" again it'll be too soon.

I mean, that's like saying "Man, why does 2+2 have to equal 4? Stop being a math Nazi!"

I met the Math Nazi. Second period Algebra 2. *shudder* Coach Leer. Why do they let Coaches teach Math. It's just wrong.

JaNell wrote:Jenna, that you, or anyone, could completely disregard what Creepy Rob is saying - that he needs that structure to be able to read at all - that without it, he will never be able to understand the words - never be able to understand what the writer is saying - is absolutely incomprehensable and self-absorbed to me.

I can understand it, I just have to go through and add grammar.

Without periods its just a free flow of information.

Commas are good for breaking up sentence parts. I used to have a saying about writing "When in doubt, use a comma."

I over-puncuate stuff, a lot.

So does that make me The Bad Grammar Nazi?

I'm still pissed about shifting case. I still have a snippet of javascript though, called a "favelet", in my toolbar folder (Mozilla's "Favorites") which allows me to, with but one click of my mouse, render all text on my screen as lowercase.

That way, I can be happy with my little text, and no one else can complain. Well, they could complain, as it seems to me that someone out there will find something to bitch about, no matter what you do.

But I digress.

creapyrob wrote:

JaNell wrote:Jenna, that you, or anyone, could completely disregard what Creepy Rob is saying - that he needs that structure to be able to read at all - that without it, he will never be able to understand the words - never be able to understand what the writer is saying - is absolutely incomprehensable and self-absorbed to me.

I can understand it, I just have to go through and add grammar.

Without periods its just a free flow of information.

Commas are good for breaking up sentence parts. I used to have a saying about writing "When in doubt, use a comma."



I over-puncuate stuff, a lot.

So does that make me The Bad Grammar Nazi?

Creapy Rob, if you ever do have any problems understanding a point i am trying to make, please feel free to ask me to explain. For that matter, anyone else who gets lost on one of my rants, Please Ask!

i was assuming that you could understand my posts, as you have responded to them before in a manner which would indicate that you understood them. It was Not out of any lack of empathy or self-absorbtion as JaNell seems to think. It stemmed from the fact that you seemed to be understanding perfectly fine, which would indicate that there was no need for me to change my style.

jenna wrote:Creapy Rob, if you ever do have any problems understanding a point i am trying to make, please feel free to ask me to explain. For that matter, anyone else who gets lost on one of my rants, Please Ask!

i was assuming that you could understand my posts, as you have responded to them before in a manner which would indicate that you understood them. It was Not out of any lack of empathy or self-absorbtion as JaNell seems to think. It stemmed from the fact that you seemed to be understanding perfectly fine, which would indicate that there was no need for me to change my style.

In my opinion throwing out grammar in general cause it 'stifles creativity' to me is a cop out. No grammar doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be there. Like words grammar is a tool for communicating. While it is not usually as important as the words, it is as important as the word choice. But if you disregard grammar, then you are not using your writing to the fullest.

I was a junior taking a freshman level 'Intro to Engineering' class. A senior level Civil Eng. came in and gave her presentation on concrete. This was the first time she gave the presentation to a class, so she wanted feedback. So the teacher asked the class to comment on her presentation. I said she had good use of semi-colons, cause she did. The class laughed, but it was true. She had approiate use of semi-colons. That is one of the only times I have seen something where every semi-colon was used properly.

I hated that class, I hated that teacher, but that is one for the only things I remember was the presentation with good use of semi-colons.