Re: RAT Grammar

[jonoh1@juno.com]

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:17:56 EDT TravSD@aol.com writes:
>I resubmit: a predilection for the dotting of eyes and the crossing of 
>tees 
>is evidence to me that someone is overlooking essentials: talent, 
>passion, a 
>point of view and a sensibility that makes the heart sing. 

But, couldn't it also mean that that person is merely <assuming> the
talent, passion, point of view and sensibility as givens? And is then
trying, through the limited tools of the written word, to communicate
those various attributes in his or her own writing? And, perhaps
unfairly, assuming its presence in other peoples' writings. 

My point is 
>not 
>that people should not be concerned with the rules of language (they 
>must 
>certainly be learnt in order to be broken), but that all too often 
>UNTALENTED 
>people DWELL on SUPERFICIAL mistakes and completely MISS THE POINT of 
>fine 
>writing. 

And, on the flip side, UNTALENTED people can just as easily DWELL on
SUPERFICIAL scribblings that just kind of birth out of them willy-nilly
and spew onto a page and they assume that, having given birth to the
child, there is no reason now to raise it well. This, IMHO, MISSES THE
POINT of fine writing as well. These are pretty broad brushes here, don't
you think?


The numerous knee-jerk responses to the previous missive 
>reinforced 
>that point in concrete. 

Which "knee jerk" responses would those be? Are you sure you're not
mistaking an opposing view as reactionary?

A famous mixed metaphor from Hamlet: "...take 
>up arms 
>against a SEA of troubles, and, by opposing, end them." A sword is not 
>likely 
>to do a world of damage against a body of water, but which of you is 
>brave 
>enough to correct Shakespeare? 

I must admit to being somewhat baffled by this example. The metaphor
works perfectly for me. And as far as it's being "correct" or not, who's
to say? That's one of the beautiful things about Shakespeare, isn't it?
And it's perfect if you think on it. Of course a sword will not hold back
water. So where does that leave us? Hamlet's choices are to either
"suffer the slings and arrows..." or "take up arms" in (what some would
view to be) a losing battle. Quite interesting, actually. Plays right
into his lack of action.



Do you actually think you can improve 
>him by 
>imposing your grammar on him? 

You're cutting the ocean with a sword here. Nobody is saying that.

I challenge you to take your cherished 
>blue 
>pencil and do so. And would you change the spelling of "publick" in 
>Poor 
>Richard's Almanac? I kind of like it the old way: it has charm, and 
>the way 
>the New York Times spells it does not. If it comes to that, I'll take 
>charm 
>over "acceptable to the ironclad dictates of Strunk and White" any day 
>of the 
>week. And yes I am a professional writer, I have a piece coming out in 
>
>American Theatre in December and a play going up at HERE in January. 
>Please 
>attend, if only to throw dictionaries at the actors. 

My. Well, this is sounding more like some personal issues here. My
parents were instructors of English. I have exactly <zero> respect for
our hired halls of academia. They screwed my folks, they've screwed the
arts, they've screwed me and they're screwing young minds on a daily
basis. This does <not> mean that I will throw the baby (correct usage and
what painfully little I actually know of it) out with the bathwater (the
constraints placed gratuitously on budding writers). Use the system, I
say. Then discard it. But why would one throw dictionaries at the actors?
Isn't it the playwright one should aim for in such a case? Leave the poor
actors out of it. They have it hard enough.
Best,
Jonathan

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.