New Trend: Bad Grammar = Style!

[Jibby-bi]

Okay, is it just me or is there a new trend forming in the literary world. A bunch of people who like to call themselves "writers" write stories and novels thinking they don't need grammar. If you even try to help them, give them a few pointers, they tell you (and their fans) that a lack of grammar is a part of the story. It's okay to have an 122 word sentence (yes folks, I'm serious 122 words) because it's written in first person or adds to the tone of the story.

When was the last time you saw a published work with ten or so grammar errors in every sentence? Why do these people think that ignorance and stubbornness about grammar will get them published and make them a good writer. I guess as long as your story has a bunch of vampires, is set in the future, and includes a school of children practicing magic you're all set.

The most annoying part about this is the authors or their fans try to excuse the grammar mistakes and explain them by using big fancy literary terms. What is going on? Is this a new thing? Opinions?

[Darkened Star]

It's been going on forever, they just never get published so no one really notices them. Now, with so many forums for writing and services like fictionpress on the web, they have a place where they can put their stories and feel pleased about it, ignoring all of the flames.

[Jibby-bi]

Quote:

It's been going on forever, they just never get published so no one really notices them. Now, with so many forums for writing and services like fictionpress on the web, they have a place where they can put their stories and feel pleased about it, ignoring all of the flames.

I think I love you.

It drives me up the wall, then when I actually try to give a good review people call me stupid for not going along with the stylistic bad grammar.

[Billy Vagrant]

I think this has a bit more to do with literary paradigms and shifts in thinking at the academic level, more than with an increase in mediums (although the lack of accountability in electronic press is more than likely a huge factor).
Personally, I would think that a lot of the reason for this whole trend you speak of goes to postmodernism, and trying to re-invent the ideas of what a story can be. And, for a lot of people who don't really get that concept, that means bending whatever "rules" they see (such as grammar) simply for the sake of bending them, trying to create a work that is "new" or "different."
Not that post-modernism is bad, or that playing with established rules to create is bad, but latching on to a bad gimmick in the name of innovation would probably count as such, eh?

[Jibby-bi]

Quote:

I think this has a bit more to do with literary paradigms and shifts in thinking at the academic level, more than with an increase in mediums (although the lack of accountability in electronic press is more than likely a huge factor).
Personally, I would think that a lot of the reason for this whole trend you speak of goes to postmodernism, and trying to re-invent the ideas of what a story can be. And, for a lot of people who don't really get that concept, that means bending whatever "rules" they see (such as grammar) simply for the sake of bending them, trying to create a work that is "new" or "different."
Not that post-modernism is bad, or that playing with established rules to create is bad, but latching on to a bad gimmick in the name of innovation would probably count as such, eh?

Definitely, I think these people are just lazy. I also think they write as much as fast as possible to feed thier ego with comments.

[Jibby-bi]

Not using grammar of form isn't always a bad thing but it has to be appropriate. ee cummings wrote amazing poetry and completely ignored grammer and form.

[Billy Vagrant]

I would definetely agree with your comments about the laziness. I wasn't trying to say that it's a conscious decision on all of these people's parts to try and be postmodern writers, I just think it's the school of thought that is trying to justify them. It's become such a bad thing in writing criticism to just go ahead and say that a story/idea/whatever is just simply no good. Hence, these people are able to justify their overwhelming crap with the "you just don't get my Art" defense.

[Jibby-bi]

Quote:

I would definetely agree with your comments about the laziness. I wasn't trying to say that it's a conscious decision on all of these people's parts to try and be postmodern writers, I just think it's the school of thought that is trying to justify them. It's become such a bad thing in writing criticism to just go ahead and say that a story/idea/whatever is just simply no good. Hence, these people are able to justify their overwhelming crap with the "you just don't get my Art" defense.

True. Nothing annoys me more then people who post "Ur story sucks"and never say why.

[Billy Vagrant]

Quote:

Not using grammar of form isn't always a bad thing but it has to be appropriate. ee cummings wrote amazing poetry and completely ignored grammer and form.

This is true, also (and sorry to double-post, this comment just wasn't here before and I really wanted to reply to it). Where appropriate, riding grammar like a cheap sheep is a great way to present a story. "Trainspotting" would be the most apt example, off the top of my head. Really gets the point across, but I always have to read the damn thing out loud if I'm going to be able to read it at all.

[Bloom_Wnd]

Yes, it's unquestionably laziness. I usually ignore them and don't even bother flaming; at that stage in my writing development, I would have either cried and never written again, or risen to an "You don't get my art" type defense. The difference, of course, is how long you stew in that stage. If anyone with bad grammar is reading this, pay attention: It is hard enough getting published with good grammar. Save yourself the pain of multiple rejections, if that's what you're aiming for.

[Billy Vagrant]

Yeah, "ur story sucks" doesn't really constitute constructive criticism, does it? But, at the same time, an author (here I'm thinking of the "you just don't get it" crowd) kind of has to be able to give a decent reason why it doesn't. It's kind of mutual responsibility, I think.
That is relevant to what you were saying, right?

[Talamai]

Absolutely. And it's not just grammar, it's bad writing in general. I've seen some terrible writing passed off as style. I've commented on some things that are unreadably choppy and crappily written (not so bluntly razz ) and been told by the author that that was their style and I didn't get it.

Not that they'll ever be published. But it's kind of irritating to see them attract posses of gushing online fankids all the same.

[finalrain]

Jibby-bi

Not using grammar of form isn't always a bad thing but it has to be appropriate. ee cummings wrote amazing poetry and completely ignored grammer and form.

It isn't really appropriate to say that E. E. Cummings "completelye ignored grammar and form," he knew them, but broke them with purpose. That's what gets a lot of our "budding poets" into trouble, they don't really know the difference between ignoring grammar and form, and purposely breaking grammar and form for artistic reasons.

[Billy Vagrant]

You know, I know that for 90% of writers out there, the final goal is publication, but I don't think that the obstacles in publishing some illegible drivel is really the main problem in it. I think the main problem is that it causes a failing in what should be the main goal of writing, the communication of ideas.

[Bloom_Wnd]

Quote:

Jibby-bi

Not using grammar of form isn't always a bad thing but it has to be appropriate. ee cummings wrote amazing poetry and completely ignored grammer and form.

It isn't really appropriate to say that E. E. Cummings "completelye ignored grammar and form," he knew them, but broke them with purpose. That's what gets a lot of our "budding poets" into trouble, they don't really know the difference between ignoring grammar and form, and purposely breaking grammar and form for artistic reasons.

While he sounds like an interesting guy, I can't say I've ever read his poetry. But if it worked, kudos for him. However, this is a seductive trapping for many budding writers. A little hint: You can only break the rules once you know them. And once you know them...you might find you're not quite as keen to break them anymore. It takes a very special kind of writer with the gift to break those rules - and another hint: you're probably not the one. Sad, but ultimately true. A little modesty never hurt a writer.

I'm just speaking to grammar-breakers in general, nobody particularly in this forum.