That being said I remember in late high school feeling pretty frustrated because I had a good grip on the rules by now and wanted to try adding some zest to my writing.
But zest is difficult to grade, my teachers were not paid well enough to deal with ambiguity and to be honest most of them didn’t strike me as particularly imaginative in the first place.
Not really. Sometimes I think about it but it’s sort of hard to find the time. My interests also just started to shift away from writing after high school.
Yea, it’s just that pedants deep down believe that good grammar is good writing; they don’t understand the difference. Therefore, they’re going to struggle to recognize good writing, and be incapable of producing it.
No- but since a good “meal” is subjective to the person eating it, one person calling it a bad meal is not a good metric to base your opinion on.
If the meal has seasonings you don’t like, or is missing components you do like (grammar, in this case)- it doesn’t make the meal bad. It just means it isn’t for you, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Bullshit. If ignorance of the rules is no excuse to avoid punishment, then knowledge of them cannot be either, because you should’ve known better.
This whole charade is merely a loophole to allow people to avoid saying “wow, this writer is really hot, therefore they are allowed to break the rules whenever they want to.”
Artistic rules are quite different from rules of law.
When making art, you should know the rules (and especially why they exist) before breaking them because the reason why each rule exists is that we figured out along the way that most ways of breaking it lead to worse art.
Of course, tastes are different, but the basic aesthetic sensibilities of humans living in the same culture have a lot of overlap.
Knowing the rules leaves you much better equipped to achieve your desired effect on the consumers of your art. If you don’t know the rules of grammar, your text will likely be quite difficult to parse and, unless that was your intention or a worthwhile trade for some other effect you’re going for, this is probably sabotaging your writing.
When you break the rules, you introduce friction. If you don’t know why they exist, the “punishment” is that your art is not perceived as you intended.
To break the rules you gotta first learn the rules.
That being said I remember in late high school feeling pretty frustrated because I had a good grip on the rules by now and wanted to try adding some zest to my writing.
But zest is difficult to grade, my teachers were not paid well enough to deal with ambiguity and to be honest most of them didn’t strike me as particularly imaginative in the first place.
aw man… but you still write, I hope?
Not really. Sometimes I think about it but it’s sort of hard to find the time. My interests also just started to shift away from writing after high school.
Yea, it’s just that pedants deep down believe that good grammar is good writing; they don’t understand the difference. Therefore, they’re going to struggle to recognize good writing, and be incapable of producing it.
It doesn’t take a chef to spot a bad meal.
No- but since a good “meal” is subjective to the person eating it, one person calling it a bad meal is not a good metric to base your opinion on.
If the meal has seasonings you don’t like, or is missing components you do like (grammar, in this case)- it doesn’t make the meal bad. It just means it isn’t for you, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Missing grammar is the wrong grammar. And that’s more akin to a spoiled component.
You literally just started your sentence with a conjunction. At the very least practice what you preach.
And?
My own bad grammar somehow makes my statement wrong?
And that’s your opinion. A subjective view of your own. See how that works?
“Missing grammar” is usually not an issue unless you’re reading self-published, unedited books.
Rarity of it makes it more pronounced
I was going to ask if that went for lawyers as well, But then I realized it was obvious.
Bullshit. If ignorance of the rules is no excuse to avoid punishment, then knowledge of them cannot be either, because you should’ve known better.
This whole charade is merely a loophole to allow people to avoid saying “wow, this writer is really hot, therefore they are allowed to break the rules whenever they want to.”
Artistic rules are quite different from rules of law.
When making art, you should know the rules (and especially why they exist) before breaking them because the reason why each rule exists is that we figured out along the way that most ways of breaking it lead to worse art.
Of course, tastes are different, but the basic aesthetic sensibilities of humans living in the same culture have a lot of overlap.
Knowing the rules leaves you much better equipped to achieve your desired effect on the consumers of your art. If you don’t know the rules of grammar, your text will likely be quite difficult to parse and, unless that was your intention or a worthwhile trade for some other effect you’re going for, this is probably sabotaging your writing.
When you break the rules, you introduce friction. If you don’t know why they exist, the “punishment” is that your art is not perceived as you intended.
That’s why I always read the applicable statute(s) before I run red lights and stop signs and ignore speed limits.
I know the rules, which means I get to break them, right?
no that’s not what that proverb means at all… but you know what you will get when you are caught.
The rules and norms of writing are not the same as laws. Either contribute something meaningful or fuck off.