Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Banjomike, I think that was the OP's point -- that the authors he admires clearly KNOW the rules of grammar, but feel free to break them.
Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to tell since he gave no examples -- just wrote a very long OP about how great it is that so many authors break the rules of grammar. He ended with this: "authorial style depends on a systematic, intentional misuse of grammar" -- but of course, "authorial style" ( at that rather pompous phrasing) does NOT always depend on a systematic, intentional misuse of grammar. A lot of published writers write beautifully WHILE using correct grammar.
I get the OP's point, as I have myself intentionally "broken" rules -- but it was clear from my writing that I KNEW the rules, I was just ignoring them to make a point. So I definitely appreciate it when authors do that, especially authors who clearly KNOW the rules.
HOWEVER, my problem with all of this is that so many self-published writers (e.g., who publish on amazon's platform) are SO easy to spot because their writing is, well, terrible. It's not that they are breaking rules to make a point -- it's that they don't seem to KNOW the rules to begin with.
Thanks for the example, Mightyqueen. I also read the blog post. Honestly, I suspect that I would get frustrated with the Mantel's writing style pretty quickly; I think clarity (e.g. in knowing to whom "he" refers) is a GOOD thing.
I think the fact that Mantel's writing is so compelling allows the reader to forgive the pronoun peculiarity, which is a bit off-putting at first. She has a brilliant way of saying things without directly saying them. She deserved her literary awards. She's telling a story that has been told a thousand times before but from another perspective. We all know what's going to happen, but we keep reading anyway.
I think it's reasonably important to understand the rules before deciding to make them no nevermind.
That was exactly my point! Deliberately violating the rules presumes you know them in the first place. Accidentally breaking the rules is just bad writing.
Amusingly, upon seeing some paintings I've sometimes wondered if the artist intended that, or did he/she simply stumble and knock over some paint, and then frame it!
I too enjoyed Lolita. It's interesting that it was actually written in English, and then later translated into Nabokov's native language, Russian, although he was raised in a multi-lingual environment so it is arguable re: his native language. He lived in various places after leaving Russia due to civil unrest, then lived Berlin, the US, etc. He must have been a very remarkable person.
Alas, I can only produce examples as quickly as I am able to read. Never the less I promised them, and I intend this to be a long lasting topic as far as my participation. I truly believe my premise and I'm out to prove it, if for nobody else then for myself, as I desire to become a successful writer myself and the only way I'll learn is by writing then writing some more. Writing essays is just a part of it for me.
I am pleased that I have provoked serious discussion on this subject. To be continued...
The rules of grammar are like tubes of paint are to a painter. Any painting has to follow some visual rules, but a good painter who knows those rules can use them in completely distinctive ways. The painting looks radically fresh, but the rules still applied.
So it is with writing. A writer can use perfect grammar and still write a very compelling radical book. A good example is Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" which is extremely correct in its grammar. Nabokov used some slang very intentionally, and in other works, was intentionally freer with his grammatical mistakes, but those mistakes were intentional.
And in "Lolita", his very prim and proper grammar only amplified his protagonist. That was intentional, too, or Humbert Humbert would not have been such a vivid villain.
I think the main thing when writing creatively is to stay true to your own writer's voice. If the narrative is strong, no matter how bad the grammar is, the story will work.
But it is sure better to know the rules and how to apply them than breaking them without understanding them in the first place. Like the tubes of paint, some colors will always be used much more often than others, because they're the essential ones, and grammar is just the same. Some rules simply can't be broken and result in good writing because they are essential.
While I understand the idea you are positing in the last sentence, there is a fundamental flaw in it. Words are merely representations and models of greater concepts, which makes breaking rules imperative to prevent rigidity of thought. The ding en sich is greater than any word that represents it. Writers and poets that understand this break the rules of grammar regularly, or impose other rules to communicate more effectively. Haiku imposes rules beyond the well known 5-7-5 to focus and simplify an instant of existence for sharing. Basho never followed our 21st century grammar rules, but his word poems are timeless and gorgeous.
Words themselves are rarely the message, what lies underneath them forms the message. Confusing the messenger and the message is a common human problem. In reaching for technical perfection, sometimes messages can get lost or sanitized out of existence.
I think I can be a bit more flexible in stating that intelligent, skilled, and intentional violation of grammatical rules may be desirable in some or perhaps even many instances, I may have taken it too far in stating it as a requirement. However I believe it is a requirement that each author must develop a personal writing style. How they achieve that is by use of their authorial license. If they break the rules in a skillful manner then IMO that is perfectly acceptable! As readers, you decide!
I'll be back to this subject when I have some examples. My present author is being notoriously uncooperative in his adherence to the rules of grammar. However I have realized that he is a special case as I get further into the novel, in that the author Jim Hines and his Libriomancer novel are heavily based on F&SF literature in that the MC has the ability to extract physical, fictional objects out of novels. The author is clearly familiar with a vast body of F&SF works (most of which I recognize, remember, have read) and the author is quite likely at the literary extreme as far as his grammatical style—a very poor example for my essay—although a great example that one can develop a great writing style without breaking the rules. In fact I am immensely enjoying the novel and looking forward to reading his many sequels.
Next up is Faith Hunter's Cold Reign (Jane Yellowrock series, latest release) and I can't recall ATM if she's a rule breaker. But she's a fantastic author!!!
I've recalled some small part of J. R. Ward's authorial style that piqued my interest and thoughts that led to my writing this essay. Please understand these are just a few things I remembered offhand, not the full list of all my examples, not even all of my Ward examples. (Note that Ward writes in the genre of urban romance fantasy. She leans very hard on the romantic parts, but also does great in her kick-ass action!)
Ward very often ended questions in periods, not question marks, and both in dialog and in narration. At first it irked me, setting off my internal copy editor. Then I wondered why Ward didn't have a copy editor. Finally I realized that certainly there was a copy editor. The periods were not mistakes. There mere presence, and the many times the device was used indicated that that's just the way Ward liked to do things. (Question marks were present more often than not.) Does this mean that ending questions in periods is a good thing to do? No, of course not! It just means it was a good thing for Ward to do it, because it nuances her stories. Right for her, wrong for you or I.
Annnnnnd. She uses the device, "Annnnnnd" as a signal that there is a narrational shift in progress and that the reader should prepare to shift gears. If she used this device too often it would become annoying, but she didn't. I took it as simply her way of conspiratorially leaning over to the reader and winking her eye, recognizing she was speaking author to reader and sharing her storytelling with you, almost personally. I thought it quite cute!
Your link isn't working. Apparently you linked to the top level of a blog instead of to the article you intended to reference.
I wouldn't use the term grammar loopholes. Rather, it is intentional violation of proper grammar, although not in a major or disorganized way. Instead it is simply an individual writing style that does not adhere to correct grammar in that some of the elements violate grammar but yet they work.
Since I wrote the OP I have also realized that it is quite possible to create a highly individualistic writing style that perfectly follows grammatical rules.
I conclude that in some cases professional authors can create non-grammatical writing styles and create a distinctive writing style that works for them. However such style would have to deviate from proper grammar only to a minor extent. Take it too far and you have chaos.
Your link isn't working. Apparently you linked to the top level of a blog instead of to the article you intended to reference.
I wouldn't use the term grammar loopholes. Rather, it is intentional violation of proper grammar, although not in a major or disorganized way. Instead it is simply an individual writing style that does not adhere to correct grammar in that some of the elements violate grammar but yet they work.
Since I wrote the OP I have also realized that it is quite possible to create a highly individualistic writing style that perfectly follows grammatical rules.
I conclude that in some cases professional authors can create non-grammatical writing styles and create a distinctive writing style that works for them. However such style would have to deviate from proper grammar only to a minor extent. Take it too far and you have chaos.
Not necessarily. Ever read Alice Walker's The Color Purple? She took it too far and won a Pulitzer and a National Book Award!
I guess it depends on what you consider to be "minor." Taken to the extreme (violating grammar) a book would be gibberish.
It's no secret that I'm planning to make a run on writing a novel. (My damned business keeps interrupting!) When I start putting down words I'm not afraid of violating grammar. I know all the rules, and I think I have the critical judgement to figure out which rules I can violate to create my personal, individual writing style. I will probably not go too far out of bounds...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
