Let's Throw Grammar In The Garbage!

Who Needs the Queen’s English?
​

Let’s Throw Grammar into the Garbage Can!
​

(Originally published by the Dana Society Journal in February, 2006)
​

An Essay by Wolf Larsen



Writers, poets, and playwrights should mold and bash language into whatever art form they wish to create. Traditional Grammar in creative works is unnecessary, and can often be an obstacle to the creative impulses of the writer. The writer should concern himself more with creativity, and less with correct grammar. The writer must do with language as he pleases. The writer should help destroy “standard” English, at least within the realm of contemporary literature.



Language must be the servant of the writer, and the writer must be a god over the realm of words. The role of language is to lie down in front of the writer and beg to be ravished by him. In order to create a higher literary art the writer should throw off the straightjacket of grammar whenever necessary. The writer must create with the intensity and passion of a freed madman rampaging on the streets.



Traditional grammar is not necessary in creative works. Take note that poetry and music are cousins. Literature often has a rhythm that makes grammar unnecessary, just as good verse has a natural flow that has made the rhyme obsolete. Many of the traditional rules of grammar are destined to go the way of the rhyme in poetry, at least in creative works.



Writers should think of their literary creations in much the same why they think of sex. Correctly obeying all the rules of grammar while in the throes of literary creation is like having sex with your clothes on. An artist of words should write with the same intensity as passionate sex. All boundaries to expression should be smashed open with pens that crash through everything like sledgehammers.



Grammar lends legitimacy to “standard” English, which is the spoken and written medium of communication of the elite. Of course, how convenient for the upper classes that their way of talking and writing is considered “standard”.



Why should the mode of speaking of the most privileged members of our society be considered “standard” English? Why shouldn’t the rich and constantly evolving language of poor blacks in the ghetto be considered “standard English” instead? People from all over the world do not crowd in giant concerts or tune into their radios to hear the privileged members of our society recite “standard” English. There is a worldwide fascination with hip-hop for good reason. Hip-hop glorifies the “standard” English of the black American ghetto, which is far more exciting and rich in contemporary culture than the “standard” English of Park Avenue. Take note that rap music has brought a resurgence of interest in poetry.



Standard English is constantly under siege from the influences of the black ghetto and immigration. Writers should stop defending “standard” English and should participate in its downfall. Gutting “standard” English and its rules of grammar will free the writer to express himself more freely than ever!



Another reason to throw “standard” English in the garbage is that it is not worth saving. The English language originates from invading barbarians of different tribes and races all babbling and babbling to each other for thousands of years on the British isles. This of course helps explain why English is such a course and ugly language in comparison with the romance languages. If it wasn’t for the civilizing influence of the French language brought over by the Normans English would probably sound as ugly as German.



The defenders of “standard” English who obsess over its grammar are obstacles in the necessary evolvement in what has become the most important language of the world. Instead of rejecting the growing international and cosmopolitan influences of an evolving language we should embrace these changes. The further that English evolves away from its barbaric Anglo-Saxon heritage the better. If purists and traditionalists want a language with unchanging rules of grammar then let them learn Latin.



More than ever the time is ripe for a rebellion against grammar and tradition. With the invention of word processing there is no excuse for literature to remain one of the most backward areas of the art world. Word processing, because it makes change, experimentation, and innovation easier, is an important development that can help writers, poets, and playwrights to free literature from its chains. Look at how painting has constantly revolutionized itself over the past one hundred and twenty years. Artists of the written word should do the same!



When we have sex most of us do not invent a bunch of rules to make the experience less enjoyable. Why not eliminate the rules in literature? Why shouldn’t literature be as exciting and decadent as sex? Let us free literature from the constraints of grammar like two lovers throwing off their clothes and diving into a natural frenzy of joy!



Established rules of music, painting, and sculpture have been thrown in the garbage by innovators like Stravinsky, Picasso, and Rodin. The result has been a constantly changing art that is exciting and fresh. Painters and sculptors deposed of a rigid faithfulness to representation, and the result has been an explosion of artistic brilliance. Just as the painters deposed of rigid representation creative writers should depose of grammar whenever it gets in the way of expression. One obstacle to artists of the written word is the straightjacket of grammar, and its anal obsession with the placement of commas, colons, semicolons, etc. Who cares if a sentence is a fragment? Who cares if a sentence is a run-on? I wrote a 200,000 word run-on sentence. I slashed and cut it down to seventy-thousand words. It’s called The Exclamation Point! The idea of writing a run-on sentence occurred to me while I was sitting in a café in Amsterdam, Holland. I would never have dreamed up such a wild book if I had been loyal to the rules of grammar.



Writers should do with language whatever they please. Any obstruction to expression must be obliterated into dust with the sledgehammers of our pens. Imagine that while you’re trying to make love to someone an old grammar teacher is yelling at you, “PUT A COMMA THERE! AND CHANGE THAT COLON TO A SEMI-COLON! OH NO! THAT SENTENCE IS A FRAGMENT!” It would be terrible, wouldn’t it? Why do you write under the same circumstances?

Copyright 2005 by Wolf Larsen. All Rights Reserved

 

"When we have sex most of us do not invent a bunch of rules to make the experience less enjoyable"

We don't put our penis a lady's ear and assume she'll enjoy it either. Grammar is an agreement between the writer and reader that aids communication. A little flexability is worked in but if a writer just decided to stop using normal sentence structure I doubt I would read their novel.

Gramar-- I vote that we keep it. By looking at how you actually wrote this article I'm not sure that you are so anti-grammar either.

 

I'm all for grammar. I'm not one to be nazi about it since I can appreciate a well placed sentence fragment from time to time but there needs to be some degree of form if you ever want anyone to understand what you're saying.

Go for it, though. Give it a shot and see who's buying.

 

The result has also been Cy Twombly, Keith Boadwee, and Duchamp's urinal.

 

i wasn't really sure exactly what the writer had against grammar, then realisation struck like a hammer with the last sentences.

"The idea of writing a run-on sentence occurred to me while I was sitting in a café in Amsterdam, Holland. I would never have dreamed up such a wild book if I had been loyal to the rules of grammar."

 

I don't believe it's a good idea. Think about studying in schools incorrect, ungrammatical books! Poor kids would get confused!

 

This is why you have editors/betas/proof readers.

The creativity has free reign during the first draft, then with the words in place they can be organised into something coherent. Punctuation and the emphasis it creates is important. Ultimatly why would you write something people cannot follow?

 

Man,I ain't never seed nuttn lik kat tare..

 

Go ahead. Write without proper formal grammar. Then people will read it and let you know if they liked it.

 

I agree with the starter of this thread.

The poets, beatniks, songwriters and other artists formed a revolution in communication.

Language is all about communication and if we can communicate effectively, we don't need all the anal grammar dogs.

 

Some of my favourite authors cheerfully ignored "the rules" ..... james joyce... roddy doyle... irvine welsh and Robert Jordon (deffo not one of my fave authors) never seems to have bothered learning the rules in the first place, it don't seem to have affected the popularity of their work *shrugs*

the trick is finding a publisher who will actually read past the first page..... 99% will simply throw your manuscript in the trash if your grammer/spelling/punctuation/format etc are not perfect....

 

They're out there, sure. William Gibson went through a phase where he abandoned a good degree of grammar - that's about the same time I stopped buying his books.

I also remember a big internet 'to do' over Ann Rice abandoning her editor for her last novel. That lady got flamed to high hell, not only because her shitty book had grammar issues but because her online breakdown was one of the most appauling examples of poor grammar ever.

We hold our authors to high standard and so we should; we pay them to communicate. If you want to do something like abandon grammar for the 'art' of writing then you better be as good as James Joyce or else it's just going to be unreadable crap. (Unless you think JJ is unreadable crap, too. ) These modern writers are starting to learn this.

 

This kind of article seems designed to inspire people who don't want to take the time to learn how to actually write.

 

I have to agree that grammer can get in the way of creativity. I threw it away a long time ago. When I'm in a stream of thought, theres no time for it.

 

grammar is soooooooooooooooooo bad it just ruins everything everythig would be better without gramhar because theen we could all just do what we like ppeeople would be happy whoevver posted this was a genious who wouldn't want to meet them i know i would

but, in all seriousness, we NEED grammar. it's designed to make a passage sound more life like. now, i'm not a stickler about "that isn't a complete sentence" or ruining "creativity" but there comes a point where it just doesn't make sense. i mean, in 9th grade our teacher gave us this grammar exercise, and it was this long passage with no grammar, and we had to read it, and then answer questions about what the passage was about. well, it turns out, that if you read it one way, (putting imaginary periods in different spots and such) it was a love letter, but if you put them in other places, it was actually a letter of rejection. it really shows you just how important grammar is.

 

I disagree - I'm completely certain that Irvine Welsh and probably anyone else who's ever been published knows "the rules" inside out and back to front, it's just that they choose not to follow them all the time.

I think Grammar is important - in a way I'm glad that there is a linguafranca of English we can use, otherwise there would be a lot of confusion. There is a time and a place for standard English (which isn't at the exclusive reserve of "the elite", the upper classes don't actually tend to use standard English, it's more of a Southern-Middle-Class thing) and a time and a place for non-standard English.

However, I agree, artists shouldn't let grammar stand in the way of expression. If you're writing and you say "no - that's not correct grammar, I won't write that" then you're not creating, you're editing.

Can I point out that the original author of this thread used fairly standard English throughout?

 

Just make sure your readers will understand what you are saying, that's the only thing that really matters.

 

if we can communicate effectively, we don't need all the anal grammar dogs.

If in "breaking the rule" you've made things more clear, rather than less clear, almost no one will criticize it. It's already acceptable to do this if it adds clarity where proper grammar would be more ambiguous ("some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation," as Strunk stated it in his classic The Elements of Style, 1918).

 

And thus the nail is hit on the head

 

I don't really think understanding is as important as getting a feeling that inspires imagination that includes a mental picture. Only understanding words is boring to me when I read a book. I have to make up a movie in my mind to go along with it, and that takes emotional involvement.