In the literary world, I agree. Toss the rules of grammar. While they may show intelligence in your work, many real people don't tlak like that. The fact is, the human mind can read the written word, even if it is mis-spelled. Just as long as lal hte letters are there. You knew what I typed in that deliberate mis-spelling. You know you did!
George Orwell wrote an interesting essay titled "Politics and the English Language", that is releavant to this thread. Anyone who is interested can find it here: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
Hello. The essay is in proper grammar because the editor of the literary magazine mentioned above requested an essay in the "king's English" about some of my opinions after he saw The Wolf Larsen Manifesto: Let's Smash the Literary World into Bits with a Wrecking Ball. I am not against the usage of conventional grammar - except where it interferes with creative expression in literature. Thank you all for your comments. I appreciate that you debated in an intelligent manner. Cheers, Wolf Larsen
I completely and vehemently disagree with this statement. Grammar and good English are the very tools of good writing. Without them we would flounder and fail.
"Proper English can be the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off of a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse." I'm not sure who said it.
I agree we cld ezly gt rid of grmmr n rplace it with the way we wanna talk or bttr its faster 2 type in like a txt. Who needs cptl lettrs wen u have 2 spend time making a dbl press on the keypad etc etc etc leetspeak or 13375p34k 2 b pr3(!(3 !5 4/\/07h3r a173r/\/47!\/3 I have two uncles called jack, and I have to say that I would prefer to help one uncle jack off a horse, than to help my other uncle, jack, off a horse. has anyone here ever been forced to help their uncle jack off a horse?