|
|
|
|
ASK THE EDITOR Vol. 1, Issue 4 July/August 2000 http://kevinorf.tripod.com ----- IN THIS ISSUE: BREAKING THE RULES - BREAKING THE RULES - CLASSROOM FOLKLORE - WHAT RULES "MAY" YOU BREAK? ----- NOTE FROM THE EDITOR I’ve met countless people learning to become better writers who get discouraged by the number of rules they must learn. Rules for grammar, spelling, punctuation, style, usage, mechanics… At my writing seminar I tell people to forget about rules. What’s that, you say? Forget rules? Wonder what my high school composition teacher would say about that one. What I mean is, you have to learn the rules, then forget them. Golf is a good analogy. You have to learn grip, stance, and ball position. You need to take the club back slowly, not past parallel. Shift your weight, follow through, don’t move your head, and on and on… Try to play golf while being conscious of every rule you’ve learned and you will play miserably, I promise. Bobby Jones said that when he’s playing well, he has one swing thought. When he’s playing great, he has none. But what people often don’t realize, including many writing teachers, is that many of the rules we mindlessly obey are not grounded in linguistic fact, but are passed down from generation to generation as "classroom folklore." And that’s what this issue is about. Have you been to our Web site lately? Now you can enjoy witty and profound quotes on writing every week. See the "Writing Quote of the Week" at http://kevinorf.tripod.com. And please recommend this newsletter to your friends and associates. Just have them send an e-mail to kevinorf@netwurx.net with "Subscribe to Ask the Editor" in the "Subject" box. Sincerely, "The Editor" ----- BREAKING THE RULES In a scene from the movie Avalon, a teacher asks an immigrant father to come to school to discuss his son’s poor performance. The teacher explains that the child says "can" when he really means "may." The father can’t comprehend what the child has done wrong no matter how the teacher explains it to him. While many of us know that some distinction exists between "can" and "may," few of us probably remember it, much less observe it. Perhaps the only thing we remember about high school composition class is all those rules we knew we’d forget. Trying to be conscious of every possible rule when we write can be disastrous. Simultaneously trying to write and edit ourselves causes paralysis in writing. In my writing seminar, I stress that we should try not to be too rule conscious when we begin writing and revising drafts. Our purpose and audience should guide our writing. We should attend to rules only at the end of the process during proofreading. ----- CLASSROOM FOLKLORE We become so rule conscious because of how we were taught to write. Although this is changing, most of us were taught to write using methods based on outmoded notions of "correctness" that date all the way back to the eighteenth century. These notions are based on the belief that language is of divine origin and is therefore perfect in its beginning, but is always in danger of being corrupted. The prescriptive grammarians of this time thought they could fix what they perceived to be the deplorable state of the English language by establishing a system of inflexible rules. But linguistic science has advanced much since then (and with it--slowly but surely--how writing is taught). Scholars now take a more objective, or "descriptive," approach, which recognizes that language is a living, changing thing, a hodgepodge of different dialects that is in constant flux and subject to a variety of influences including immigration, cultural trends, and new technology. For if language wasn’t constantly changing, why would we need 5,000 footnotes to read a Shakespeare play? Of course, we need to observe certain rules. Every language has rules that govern its fundamental structure and show how words relate to one another and derive meaning, such as word order or subject verb agreement. For example, we can’t arbitrarily shuffle the subject and object of a sentence without changing the meaning. Obviously, "Dog bites man." and "Man bites dog." don’t mean the same thing. Then there is that fuzzier category of rules, the Emily Post guide to writing, a hodgepodge of grammatical etiquette collectively know as "correct usage." For example, don’t use "can" when you mean "may," and never use the word "hopefully" at the beginning of a sentence. These rules are not linguistic fact, but classroom folklore, invented by eighteenth-century grammarians and taught over and over as "rules" that must be obeyed. We must all write correctly, but we need to understand that matters of usage are not as important (and in many cases, in fact, are not important at all) as rules governing fundamental structure. I would argue further that they actually impede our ability to write well as we become too rigid in trying to be "correct." By blindly following rules for fear that some reader might criticize you, you surrender a certain degree of stylistic choice, and with it, quite possibly, clarity. And clarity should always come before "correctness." --- WHAT RULES "MAY" YOU BREAK? Obviously, you can’t just break any rule. Violating the rules governing the fundamental structure of our language marks us as careless or unschooled. Certainly, few of us want, "I is a English major." appearing in our resume. But native speakers usually observe these rules without thought, as well they should. But the rules that often cause us the most anxiety are exactly those that readers won’t even notice when they’re violated, much less care--the "folklore" rules. Indeed, many of these rules--such as split infinitives--can’t be broken without adding an air of formality to your writing. Many highly regarded writers violate these rules, some for deliberate effect.
Of course, you "can" break any rules you like. But you "may"--you have my permission--to break these: - "Do not begin a sentence with ‘and’ or ‘but.’" And always floss after you brush. - "Never use sentence fragments." As if. - "Do not split infinitives." How often have you heard the phrase, "To boldly go where no one has gone before"? And did you ever ask yourself, even once, "Shouldn’t it be, ‘To go boldly’?" - "Do not end a sentence with a preposition." To which Winston Churchill once replied: "This is a situation up with which I will not put." - "Use ‘fewer’ with nouns you count, ‘less’ with nouns you can’t." Writers never use "fewer" with uncountable mass nouns (for example, you never hear, "fewer sand"), but writers commonly use "less" with countable plural nouns, for example, "less resources." - "Avoid using contractions." I can’t imagine not using contractions, unless I’m trying to add emphasis to my message, as in, "Son, you _will not_ put toast in the VCR ever again." - "Use ‘shall’ as the first person simple future, ‘will’ for the second and third person simple future; use ‘will’ to mean strong intention in the first person, ‘shall’ for second and third person." Okay. Can anybody explain this rule, let alone remember it? - "Avoid addressing the reader directly as ‘you.’" Actually, I think "thou" is much more preferable. ----- QUOTES "Any fool can make a rule and any fool will mind it." Henry David Thoreau "Usage is the only test. I prefer a phrase that is easy and unaffected to a phrase that is grammatical." W. Somerset Maugham "You can be a little ungrammatical if you come from the right part of the country." Robert Frost ------ QUESTIONS FOR READERS What rules drive you crazy? Or, conversely, what are your pet peeves? What rules do you constantly see being broken that represent the demise of Western Civilization? ----- PREVIOUS READER REPLIES What strategies do you use to revise your writing? Editing, editing, reediting, and editing again are among my favorite activities. In fact, at my new job, I have the pleasure of editing articles nearly every day before they get posted online. Having worked for almost 11 years at an office where all editing was done on hard copy, I have been forcing myself to modify my methods. I usually do at least one edit on-screen in MS Word, highlighting my changes so that I have a record of them. Then I accept all the changes and save this version as a new document. If I have the luxury of time on my side, I'll print the half-edited version and do another edit on paper the next day. Steven Lyons Other replies: I want to cheer you on in your attack against forms of the verb "to be." I've always said this. Some English teacher told us to write something without any form of "to be"--just try it, he said. And I carried on the cause when I taught college English. I always try to weed out the actionless and agent-less "there is's" that float like foam on a polluted pond. Next, why don't you go after Latinate words and boost "real English" (Anglo-Saxon ) ones?--help for assist, get for obtain, ask for inquire, etc, etc. And then, to get really radical, why not go after adjectives? Not just the Germanic pile-up of nouns as adjectives in front of real nouns, but even real adjectives--well, not all of them, but lean on power verbs and clear action, instead, whenever you can. Louise Kaegi ----- ASK THE EDITOR QUESTION Just what the heck is the difference between "that" and "which"? D. Wade I’ve met many a fine editor who couldn’t keep this straight. "That" always introduces restrictive causes, in other words, clauses essential to the meaning of the sentence. For example, "I paid $100 for the lawn mower over there that is green (not the red, orange, or blue one)." In everyday speech, "that" and "which" are both used for introducing nonrestrictive clauses not essential to the meaning of the sentence, as in, "This is my new lawn mower, which (oh, by the way) I paid $100 for." In writing, editors often prefer to limit "which" to nonrestrictive clauses. Interestingly, a study about "that" and "which" using the Brown corpus (fancy term for a big body of published work used for linguistic research) revealed that in scholarly writing, "that" and "which" are used pretty much interchangeably for introducing nonrestrictive clauses. This suggests that this "rule" is nothing more than classroom folklore, as discussed above. ----- Stumped by a style issue or perplexed by a punctuation problem? In each issue, I answer a question submitted by a reader. Send your question today! ***** Ask the Editor is a free, bimonthly e-newsletter for customers of Innovative Communication Solutions. Each issue tackles a common problem all writers--from business professionals to professional writers--often face. You can also get expert opinion on any writing problem. Just "Ask the Editor." ***** Copyright 2000 Kevin Orfield Need an immediate quote on a writing project? Or need an estimate for a customized business writing seminar? Call a writing consultant you can depend on. Kevin Orfield, MA Writing Consultant 262-236-0110 Fax: 262-236-0120 Innovative Communication Solutions 10321 N. Versailles Ct. Mequon, WI 53092 Visit our Web site! http://kevinorf.tripod.com Subscription Notes: Feel free to pass this newsletter on to friends and colleagues. - To subscribe others, just have them send an e-mail to kevinorf@netwurx.net with "Subscribe to Ask the Editor" in the "Subject" box. - To unsubscribe at any time, simply send an e-mail to kevinorf@netwurx.net with "Unsubscribe to Ask the Editor" in the "Subject" box. But then, why would you want to miss out on free advice? **** |
|
Or need an estimate for a customized business writing seminar? Send an e-mail message to Kevin Orfield at kevinorf@netwurx.net or call 262-236-0110.
Orfield Communications, 319 Woodside Ln., Thiensville, WI 53092, fax: 262-236-0120. |
Need an immediate quote on a writing project?