Breaking the rules in fiction.

OK, let’s talk about grammar (no, not the old lady sitting in the corner of the room smelling of aniseed but words, our tools).

Want to hack an editor off? Then litter your manuscript with poor grammar, split infinitives, wrong spellings. If your story is outstanding, the editor may put up with the problems, if it’s touch and go on acceptance then they could tip the balance against you.

But does it matter? A friend of mine, knowing how pinicktey I am on spelling, showed me a passage in which every word was spelled incorrectly and yet the meaning was clear due to word shape. ‘Why does spelling matter?’ he asked. I think it does, as does good punctuation. But grammar? Not so sure.

All this comes to mind when I read a thought-provoking article on the excellent Guardian website.

In it, Steven Pinker argues that some rules are there to be broken. He says: “Among the many challenges of writing is dealing with rules of correct usage: whether to worry about split infinitives, fused participles and the meanings of words such as fortuitous, decimate and comprise. Supposedly, a writer has to choose between two radically different approaches to these rules. Prescriptivists prescribe how language ought to be used. They uphold standards of excellence and a respect for the best of our civilisation and are a bulwark against relativism, vulgar populism and the dumbing down of literate culture.

“Descriptivists describe how language actually is used. They believe that the rules of correct usage are nothing more than the secret handshake of the ruling class, designed to keep the masses in their place. Language is an organic product of human creativity, say the Descriptivists, and people should be allowed to write however they please.

“It's a catchy dichotomy, but a false one. Anyone who has read an inept student paper, a bad Google translation or an interview with George W Bush, can appreciate that standards of usage are desirable in many arenas of communication. They can lubricate comprehension, reduce misunderstanding, provide a stable platform for the development of style and grace and signal that a writer has exercised care in crafting a passage. But this does not mean that every pet peeve, bit of grammatical folklore, or dimly remembered lesson from Miss Thistlebottom’s classroom is worth keeping.”

I agree. A single word sentence, for example, is not grammatical in the pure sense but, boy, can be effective. A long sentence may be grammatically correct but it can strangle pace. All grammatical rules are there to be bent or broken, I would contend.
You can read Steven’s guide to breaking the rules at http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/steven-pinker-10-grammar-rules-break.

So what rules do you break and why? You can join the debate at our Facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/inscribemedia

John Dean