Grammar-Bitches Beware
"Split infinitives are a crime," anal grammarians shout, "worthy of the most bloody of punishments."
Fah, I say.
I would like to heartily assert that such a strict and unwavering adherence to grammar rules is... well... slightly silly.
The problem I have with anal endorsers of grammar is that they don't seem to realize that so much of grammar (not ALL, but a lot) is a matter of taste and not necessity. The split infinitive, for example.
For those of you unsure of what a split infinitive is:
It is an infinitive that has an adverb between the "to" and the verb.
Examples
"Correct": "Boldly to go where no man has ever gone before" or "To go boldly where no man has ever gone before."
(And yes, I do realize that this is a sentence fragment, my anal friends.)
Bad and evil (the split infinitive): "To boldly go where no man has ever gone before."
Now, ladies and gents, no matter WHICH way I write this sentence, the meaning is undoubtedly clear. To use a split infinitive does not add confusion to its meaning. Thus, one must concede, it is a matter of taste.
I agree that we need to be able to understand the basics of grammar in order to be able to communicate (though people DO manage to succeed in communicating DESPITE an obvious lack of grammar skills), but really, folks, you need to just suck it up and realize that many of the grammar rules we latch onto are more a matter of taste than anything.
Why am I even concerning myself with this topic at the moment?
Well, over the past couple days, I've been reading Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
This is a book concerned with the blight and downfall of civilization due to our laxness with punctuation. Truss's feathers stand on end because of people's constant misuse of punctuation, most noticeably the apostrophe.
Potatoe's, 5 for $1.
Lynns cat ate her brother.
Both of these would make her skin crawl.
And to some degree, I sympathize. Punctuation (at least some of it) is necessary in making sense of a sentence. A misplaced comma can lend a whole new meaning. A lack of capitalization at the beginning of sentences can bring a reader to frustrated tears.
But I also have to say this:
Lynne Truss, you need to spend a couple bucks out of all the dough you made off this book and
GET A LIFE.
Much of the first chapter of this book is devoted to her compulsive (and it IS compulsive) abhorrence of inaccurate punctuation. She mentions and prides those fringe groups such as the APS (Apostrophe Protection Society) who make it their purpose in life to guard and protect our punctuation. And to this, I've gotta say, People: there's TONS of causes WAY more worthy of your time and energy. For example, the war in Iraq, helping the homeless in the United States and/or abroad, child abuse, the list goes on and on. In light of this more crucial and, yes, more IMPORTANT issues, it's hard not to think of Truss and her cohorts as slightly silly...
Really all Truss succeeds in doing is making herself look like an obsessive fool. Not to say that the book isn't a useful tool for those trying to learn grammar. Because it is. She has a playful and light tone throughout and tries to veer as far to the left of making it boring and dry as she possibly can. And I give her credit for that.
Then again, she also feels the need to keep reassuring herself throughout that she ISN'T in fact being an anal curmudgeon. And... well... she so obviously is that this gets old and annoying really really fast.
Reading this book has also gotten me thinking about another book that I read about a year or two ago, BR Meyers's A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose.
This book lobs a big wad of spit at the growing literary pretentiousness of popular writers (and their readers) nowadays; the Oprah Elite, one might call them. And despite the fact that I HAVE read some of the books Meyers attacks and, yes, have enjoyed some of them, I feel his pain...
In his book (which is an expanded version of the essay I've linked to above), he attacks the likes of Don DeLillo, E. Annie Proulx, among others. Let me retract and clarify: he attacks those who tout these authors and their books as the Second Coming, finally (and in a way long overdue). He picks apart these writers and their works, showing how, if they were in a fiction workshop nowadays and didn't have the big name and big head attached to themselves, their writing sure as hell wouldn't pass muster.
Thinking about both these books in relation to each other makes me realize this:
Writing and the enjoyment of writing is really a matter of taste, and those who are constantly asserting that one author is infinitely superior to another are missing the point.
Books are first and foremost a means of enjoyment. They are meant to entertain. And not EVERY person will be entertained by the SAME thing as EVERY other person. Hence, the vast rows of romance novels, mystery books, and classics at the library.
It is good to remind ourselves of this.
And despite the fact that perhaps this is not the point of Truss and Meyers' books, this is what I take from them.
Yes, there are rules of punctuation and rules of grammar, but some of the most fantastic and interesting writers are those who have BROKEN these rules.
And yes, there are perhaps "mediocre" writers out there; there may even be mediocre writers in sheeps clothing (such as Meyers would assert Delillo to be). But WHO CARES? Some people like reading them. Some people don't. IT'S A MATTER OF TASTE.
Point being, don't shut yourself off so easily to things. Don't get so blinded but something as silly as an apostrophe that you overlook all the other fantastic and lovely things traipsing down the opposite side of the road. Otherwise you'll really be missing out.
-------
