Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
There's no excuse for bad grammar!
Some random person made this statement, "There's no excuse for bad grammar', on a random writer's forum. I immediately thought, "Yeah, there is."
Once again I began to think of English Language vs English Literature, and the primary purpose of story-telling.
In my opinion, the primary objective is fast and effective communication with your target reader. Therefore, the requirement is to speak 'their' language rather than appeal to Messrs Strunk and White who are far too busy to read your scribblings.
I set out to disprove the 'bad grammar' statement - a new novel was born. The opening reads . . .
Just for the record, Mom died *before* giving birth to Charlie. People think she died during childbirth. It sounds nicer that way, more romantic, like Mom was a hero or something, but it's a lie.
The truth is Mommie Dearest got wasted, drunk out of her mind, and wrecked the car on the freeway. The doctors salvaged the baby from Mom's mangled-up body. But this is all strictly *need to know*, *classified* information – Charlie don't know none of this, and we like to keep it that way, for her sake, and for the sake of Mom's good memory. It's doesn't make us liars, not really. Everybody has deep family secrets that need to be kept, don't they?
Trust me, that whole day was real weird. Charlie wasn't like *us*. She wasn't one of *us*. But we seen her being born in the hospital. We watched through the glass when they ripped her out of my dead mom's belly, so she was definitely Mom's daughter, and my new baby sister.
The baby was covered in blood when they took it out, and it didn't exactly cry like a normal kid either. It squealed like the creature in that Alien film. Here's the thing, when we went to see the baby after they'd cleaned her and put it in an incubator, it was . . . the baby had kind of a tan. She wasn't black, as in Wesley Snipes black, but you could tell she wasn't Snow White.
- What I'm seeing is the 'bad grammar' (part of the literary voice) is accelerating the story, forcing the reader to create characterisation and backstory themselves.
"Throwback!" may not be a story that I'll ever finish, but we write, we analyse, we learn. I think during the first six chapters (written in defiance) I've answered several questions of myself. "How long can I tell for?". "How far will a voice carry you before you have to put some meat on the plate?"
- What is this writing lark all about anyway?
Once again I began to think of English Language vs English Literature, and the primary purpose of story-telling.
In my opinion, the primary objective is fast and effective communication with your target reader. Therefore, the requirement is to speak 'their' language rather than appeal to Messrs Strunk and White who are far too busy to read your scribblings.
I set out to disprove the 'bad grammar' statement - a new novel was born. The opening reads . . .
Just for the record, Mom died *before* giving birth to Charlie. People think she died during childbirth. It sounds nicer that way, more romantic, like Mom was a hero or something, but it's a lie.
The truth is Mommie Dearest got wasted, drunk out of her mind, and wrecked the car on the freeway. The doctors salvaged the baby from Mom's mangled-up body. But this is all strictly *need to know*, *classified* information – Charlie don't know none of this, and we like to keep it that way, for her sake, and for the sake of Mom's good memory. It's doesn't make us liars, not really. Everybody has deep family secrets that need to be kept, don't they?
Trust me, that whole day was real weird. Charlie wasn't like *us*. She wasn't one of *us*. But we seen her being born in the hospital. We watched through the glass when they ripped her out of my dead mom's belly, so she was definitely Mom's daughter, and my new baby sister.
The baby was covered in blood when they took it out, and it didn't exactly cry like a normal kid either. It squealed like the creature in that Alien film. Here's the thing, when we went to see the baby after they'd cleaned her and put it in an incubator, it was . . . the baby had kind of a tan. She wasn't black, as in Wesley Snipes black, but you could tell she wasn't Snow White.
- What I'm seeing is the 'bad grammar' (part of the literary voice) is accelerating the story, forcing the reader to create characterisation and backstory themselves.
"Throwback!" may not be a story that I'll ever finish, but we write, we analyse, we learn. I think during the first six chapters (written in defiance) I've answered several questions of myself. "How long can I tell for?". "How far will a voice carry you before you have to put some meat on the plate?"
- What is this writing lark all about anyway?
Comments
In intros I'd lay on grammar / dialect traits fairly heavily . . . the I'd probably back off for general readability (much like writing 'fortissimo' at the head of a score. When entering a lengthy transition I'd 'remind' the reader the narrative voice attributes . . . but that's just 'my way'. Better a writer develops their own path than follow another's, no?
If by path you mean style, I think yours would be confusing.
Novels are rarely read in one sitting. I know from writing several stories at the same time there is a requirement to reset and reinforce the narrative voice from time to time.
And also the theme behind many novels is 'the journey'.
People change, and one of the subtleties in the change may be dialogue. Every line of a novel serves a purpose.
As I've said before . . . "Becky weren't no kind of mother to them kids. She weren't no more than a kid herself." - an excellent opening line.
The reader will make assumptions as to setting, social background etc . . . that's a lot of setting and backstory the writer can skip straight over. But once that line has achieved its objective . . . why continue?
I'm still undecided whether Joyce is a literary genius, or a five-star p*ss-taker.
I admit to finding it hard going.
I read that first within a different context than I think you're intending. Mixing up the grammar deliberately for the narrator's voice or any spoken dialogue is fine.
My impression was that it was referring to people that send of manuscripts with poor grammar. Whether it's because they're unaware it's bad, not bothered to try and improve it or (probably worse) expect an editor to fix it for them.
In my mind, poor grammar and spelling is one of the biggest things that will break the immersion for me. Learning it is possible for most people. For those that struggle (dyslexics and non-native English speakers), there's always paid proof readers/editors that can look over work before you submit it.
With that reasoning and explanation, I agree. If you're submitting a manuscript that you're trying to sell, there's no excuse for bad grammar.