Allow Me to Explain Why You Should Learn the Rules of Grammar

My current reading book is Muriel Barbery's The Elegance of the Hedgehog. In it, a student asks the language teacher why people learn grammar:

"You ought to know by now," replied Madame Never-mind-that-I-am-paid-to-teach-you. "Well I don't," replied Achille, sincerely for once, "no one ever bothered to explain it to us." Madame Fine let out a long sigh, of the "do I really have to put up with such stupid questions" variety, and said, "The point is to make us speak and write well."

 I thought I would have a heart attack there and then. I have never heard anything so grossly inept. And by that, I don't mean it's wrong, just that it is grossly inept. (under the section called " Profound Thought No. 10")

I'd like to take a moment to explain why we learn, or should learn, grammar.

Read this:

It is from Joshua Marie Wilkinson's Selenography, and it is actually just a snippet of a many-pages-long poem.

One reason to learn grammar is so you can mold language in ways you otherwise could not.

Most obvious: "Static" is not a verb, so per grammar, this is ridiculous. But instead, it makes total sense and the strangeness of it makes us pause to soak it in, whether we want to pause or not. Actually, each line break is strange enough to cause the reader to trip, making this difficult to get through ... on purpose. Wilkinson is ripping apart phrases, causing what journalists call "split" lines. By all rights, it should be

storm-heavy planks & storms enough
to call you on the telephone
& static your pause.
I know...

But it doesn't, and that forces you to conjure these images, tripping every time a sudden change forces a new one, paying total attention whether you like it or not. Both the line breaks and the incorrect word choice does this.

Why learn grammar? To gain control of your own words, to make them do what you want instead of the other way around.

Another example of tight control, this time following all the rules:

Jose Pina Castro, an Ontario, Oregon, man who pleaded guilty to mayhem for biting off part of a woman’s ear in Caldwell, will spend 10 years in prison with five years fixed, 3rd District Judge Christopher S. Nye ruled Wednesday.

This is what journalists call a "lede," which is a fancy word for the point of the story, almost always the first sentence. Ledes, when done correctly, are chock-full of information, and it would be difficult to understand it all without grammar's help. Things we learned from that one sentence:

1. Who? Jose Pina Castro. He is from Ontario, Oregon.
2. What'd he do? He bit off a woman's ear; but more recently, he pleaded guilty to doing so. Turns out "mayhem" is a word that means you got rid of someone's body part.
3. Woman? Yeah, she's from Caldwell (Idaho).
4. What now? He's going to be in prison for at least five years, probably 10.
5. Says who? Christopher S. Nye, who is a judge in the 3rd district.
6. When did he rule that? Wednesday.

All that info (minus the "mayhem" definition, that was thrown in as a fun fact from me), in one sentence. One! It was not in the least bit confusing or exhausting to read. This can be attributed to smart grammar.

Another reason for grammar is so we can be precise and not confuse anyone.







Point made.

Quick recap: Three reasons to learn grammar (umbrella reasons, but I didn't want to lecture for too long). First, so you can break the rules of grammar on purpose and make your language work for you. Second, so you can be a language master and do things like squash tons of info into itty bitty spaces. Third, so you don't confuse anyone.

That last reason is the primary one. Grammar is there so no one gets confused. If you're a writer, however, consider those first two reasons. Control is the reason for grammar. It allows you to say what you want to say in whatever way you want. If you know the reason for a rule, you know when to break it and how to do so in a way that won't confuse people. Poetry is the main opportunity to ignore grammar. Dialogue is another invitation for purposeful grammar neglect. There is not always a need to break the grammar rules, though; usually, you can practice correct grammar and, using the second reason, create beautiful and efficient works of written art.

Does that answer your question, Achille?

How to write letters to the editor and op-eds

Craziness at the office this week meant I had the pleasure of adding parts of two jobs onto my regular one. Thankfully, I was given overtime, so no complaints beyond mild insanity. One of the jobs was putting together the opinion page; this means I did some op-ed reading.

Turns out people need help writing them.

I was the Opinion editor for my college newspaper for three and a half years. I have some suggestions when it comes to writing letters to the editor and op-eds (longer, but same concept as a letter to the editor).

1. Direct your rant. When most people take the time to write to a newspaper, it is because they are upset and want to bash some sense into everyone. That's all fine and good, but please don't ramble on and on. Rambling makes you sound less intelligent, frankly. It's like the difference between an attorney presenting an argument and an old man shouting from his front porch that he hates so and so.  Please refer back to school: Writing an opinion piece is essentially the same as writing an argumentative essay. Part 1) Introduce your subject. Part 2) Present your argument, and be sure to include examples and/or statistics. 3) Finish with a call to action. If you don't have a call to action, you are wasting space, because you aren't inviting change. You are just grumbling.

Example: This week, I nearly ran over the chicken crossing the road. I have heard many stories of others doing the same, so I think it is time the city rounds up its wild chickens and either relocates them or else distributes them among the farmers nearby, for their own safety and ours.

In real life, situations and arguments are more complex, but I think you get the point.

2. Stick to your point. This goes with the rambling. Please address one issue, and one issue only. Doing more than that paints you as a complainer and no one will listen to you. Plus, it undermines that beautiful essay format you had going on.

3. Sound like yourself. It will be more interesting to read and more people will read it. Include personal stories if applicable and ditch the third person. Tell people why you care; this best shows them why they should care.

4. Cut the excess. People are more likely to read it in its entirety if it is short, and if you can make your point with one example, don't use three. In the example above, I put in one example and said there are others; since the other examples are only needed to show that this wasn't an isolated incident, I didn't need to retell each.

Is each sentence necessary? What can you get rid of? This is usually one of the first things I edit for, and not just in opinion or newspaper pieces.

5. Don't write often. People give you less credence if you label yourself as a frequent complainer. I would say write in three times per year, maximum. Otherwise, you are writing for the sake of attention, not the issue. If you want to express your opinions more often, become a columnist, lobbyist, activist or politician.

Last: Have someone else read it before you submit it so you can be sure you don't sound like a jerk or an idiot.

Short poetry (random, original)

The doctor had a big gut,
the sort that looks like it would
fall
into
his
legs
were his belt not there to squeeze
his insides upward.


In the morning, before
the others get up,
the carpet like crisp snow
beneath your feet


They had two pillows between them,
the one lopsided and the other
altogether flat.


The moon, like a child's
smudged flour thumbprint in the sky
amidst spilled rock candy.


I wonder — if one massaged
the earth, would the mountains
sink
or align?


The thing I love about Greece
is the color white.
And about the color white —
bright stillness.

What's Elizabeth Reading? ...James Clemens (and a discussion of rogues!)

Let it be known that Shadowfall, by James Clemens, was the first book I read with my husband after we got married.

I married a guy who claims he isn't annoyed by my frequent analytical comments and predictions about where the story is going. Since I interrupt at least once a page, this is a true miracle and I consider myself greatly blessed.

The experience is probably akin to having a backseat driver while you're reading. "You do realize that x just happened, right? This character can't undo this decision." "Do you think they're really dead?" "Oh, I thought you were about to ask me what I would have done to create a better plot twist."
I'm almost annoyed at myself, honestly. Imagine reading with your English teacher in your head, and I think that's what I'm putting my husband through, poor soul.

Perhaps I wouldn't have spoken up so much if this had been a better book. Frankly, Clemens needed a better editor to do a final look-through. He repeats key information as if telling you for the first time, some words are misspelled (not an issue with the author, that's an issue with the editor), and right before his climax, he had several pages' worth of informational dialogue that tired me out. It wasn't an I-can't-put-this-book-down book for me, though my husband enjoyed it and kept wanting me to read more.

I did enjoy the story, though, and the magic system was original and well-thought-out. The basic concept is that there are two types of gods, all of which live in the world and walk around like any ordinary creature: rogue gods and civilized gods. The difference lies in whether the god has bound themselves to a region of the land or not. One of these civilized gods is assassinated, even though they are immortal, and one of our two main characters is blamed. He then needs to go find out who really did it ... and figure out what the blazes that murdered goddess did to his body, because now he has a daemon living inside him. Meanwhile, there is a little girl who has a pet dog made of brass and molten metals that no one but her can see, and she is just trying to become a servant to one of the gods (she's in school for it). Life isn't kind to her, however, and even when she does begin serving a god, things quickly go downhill.

It is a great story with great potential, but from what I can tell, the series has stopped after the second book. It's on pause, technically, but it's been on pause for a few years now.

I blame it on Clemens's charming rogue character.

A good rogue can make or break a book. They are your Flynn Rider, Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, Rumpelstiltskin (from "Once Upon a Time"), Irene Adler. The person who has messed-up ethics but you continually forgive because they are so darn charming and witty.

This is Rumpelstiltskin. He has quite the fan base.

Clemens's rogue is named Rogger, and he isn't witty enough. Actually, most of his jokes are stale, cliche jokes that aren't funny anymore. Author Brandon Sanderson said in the podcast "Writing Excuses" that when it comes to his rogue characters, he will sometimes write "SAY SOMETHING WITTY HERE" and move on until he comes up with something good enough. Then he goes back.

The stale jokes don't breathe enough life into Rogger to make us love him, and that left me with wondering what the heck he was doing in the story most of the time. That was his other major flaw, actually; he had not motive to stay with the main characters. Other than the fact that he was introduced and never really left, he really is just there to fill in the rogue character void, and as I said, he doesn't do a good job of it.

I would claim he is a waste of space--except that every fantasy story needs a good rogue.

Clemens's other major problem is his overflowing use of informational dialogue and telling instead of showing all his backstory, but that's a whole 'nother blog post.

HOWEVER. My husband enjoyed the book immensely. It isn't his new favorite, but he wasn't nearly as displeased as I was. So if you want an intriguing read and are willing to give the author some leeway in ability, check this out. Just realize that you can only read books one and two as of right now.

What's Elizabeth Reading? ...Deborah Harkness

New job (promoted! Full editor now, and I get to write, as well), new house (in a slightly sketchy area of town), and new phase in life—I’m married and loving it.

It has been much too long since I last wrote a post, and that has more to do with trying to settle into a schedule than with a lack of subject matter.

But to get me back in the groove of blogging, I give you Deborah Harkness’s “All Souls” trilogy, books one and two. I haven’t quite gotten to three yet.

I started A Discovery of Witches because my mom recommended it to me multiple times — she kept forgetting she had already done so. On top of that, though, when I went to see about checking it out from the library, it was checked out. And checked out. And checked out. Waiting list-type checked out. There must be something about this book, right? I finally managed to get my hands on an audio copy and so checked it out on the spot for my frequent five-hour drives down to Utah and back (wedding planning).

After I started listening to it, I started to cringe a little inside. I mean, the plot revolves around a woman who falls in love with a beautiful vampire. Cliché 1 (Thank you, Twilight). Cliché 2: The woman is a witch who stubbornly doesn’t want to use her magic (that’s in almost everything, it seems). Cliché 3: The woman has two aunts who are her only family, who are also witches (Sabrina the Teenage Witch, anyone?).

But then you start breaking away from the stereotypes. The witch, Diana, is a science historian descended from the infamous Bishop and Proctor lines—think Salem Witch Trials. Witches are an exclusive bunch, but so are vampires and demons, the other type of creature roaming around, and none of the groups mix. It's literally against the law. Diana’s aunts are lesbians and partners (only one is her biological aunt). And Harkness likes to talk about smells a lot.

Most books don’t do that, especially the scents thing.

I won’t say I was in love with the first one, but the fact that I moved on and listened to the second instead of meandering elsewhere should tell you something: THE DANG STORY WASN’T FINISHED YET.

Most of the time, a first book in a trilogy or series is meant to stand alone. Things come to a conclusion that is satisfying for the reader—just in case the publishing company decides against publishing the follow-ups. Most trilogies have a standalone first book that introduces a conflict and settles it. The second book looks back at the first to create a new and bigger conflict, then the conflict is settled in the third. So it is really two main story arcs. Example: Star Wars IV ends with the destruction of the Death Star. Star Wars V ends with Han Solo frozen and the Dark Side undefeated. Stars Wars VI finishes it all off.

But Harkness didn’t do that. Her main story arcs are the romance between Diana and the vampire Matthew and the quest to find a manuscript. Neither arc finishes in the first or even gets a hint at being finished, and it felt so incomplete that I had to move onto the next one for the sake of closure. The reason I haven’t read the third, though, is I stopped driving so much and I got my closure by the end of the second book. Also, the romance started being graphic about bedroom things and I just didn’t feel like listening to more of that. I mean, give the characters some privacy already. I tried teasingly confronting my mom about recommending that sort of book to me, but she says she doesn’t remember that happening.

Ending the first without true closure was a bit of a gamble on Harkness’s account, but it worked out so well for her in the end.

If you are in the mood for a modern-day fantasy romance novel, consider this book. Harkness is a history professor at USC and knows the box she is working inside, even though she did jump on the Twilight bandwagon, which drops her down a notch in my book (sorry, just being honest).