I hope you at least correct basic grammar :)
I've always been a decent speller. For some reason the way words form in my brain helps me understand spelling. I don't know any of the English rules I learned about grammar or spelling I just kind of have a feel for it. Grammar though has never been a strong suit of mine and is more akin to a "Wasteland." (HAH)
I used AIM a lot in the latter middle school years and high school but for some reason I rarely remember using "net speak." I always feel good when I write well so I try my best although most the time my writing is just a bunch of prattling and ranting. The only time I ever substitute a "u" for a "you" is in a long text message where I can't fit everything into the 160 word max or when I have to fire a message quickly.
As far as reading posts with bad grammar? As long as it's both legible and discernible I'm fine. In fact I find them kind of funny sometimes, especially the foreigners. I also don't like to give people shit for bad spelling because I had a friend who was absolutely awful at it.
My problem tends to be that I don't proofread. My mind often thinks farther ahead then where I'm typing and I'll skip words or even substitute other words in. I've type "way" instead of "where" and "for" instead of "from" plenty of times. In fact I guarantee I've already done it in this post somewhere and you'll see a little "edit" at the bottom later ;)
I hate writing but I tend to be decent at it. In my whole academic career I've never gotten a grade on a paper lower than a B. Maybe I've had easy teachers and I really do suck at writing but I still take a small shot of pride in knowing this.
"djcubez" wrote:
I like to think of myself as a good writer. (Even if I do tend toward the "pedantic" style.) Part of the reason that I tend not to worry overmuch about the rules of grammar is that I was never "taught" them. I learned how to write, I'm convinced, by unconscious imitation of other writers.
In short, I read. I've always read. A lot. And so I have, sort of by osmosis, picked up the habits illustrated by other writers.
Sometimes that gets me into trouble. I use nested clauses far too often. And hanging out with academics for most of my adult life means I really have to watch out for passive voice. (Neither of those are "grammar" problems, though, just bad diction.)
But, in general, that reading experience means I intuitively tend to know "what works" and "what doesn't work." Whether its because of a rule of grammar being violated, or some other problem, I often can't say -- because I never had one of those English teachers who hammered 101 different rules at us. Indeed, about the only time I ever really have been taught "rules of grammar" is when I've taken foreign languages.
(Which may say something, but I'm not sure what. I do know that, like me, a lot of people have trouble with foreign languages. And I wonder if it is because they have to try to substitute "learning from the rules of grammar" because of their rush to learn the language quickly rather than by reading experience as the "home" language often develops.)
Djcubez, you said, "I hope you at least correct basic grammar." Yes and no.
Certainly a lot of my red ink does correct grammar along the way: for example, I'm always highlighting problems where the subject and verb don't agree in number. But the reason I do it is not because it breaks a rule but because, as my red ink points out on the student paper, it confuses the reader and makes him slow down to re-read.
And making the reader slow down too often is the kiss of death if you want the reader to pay attention.
Rourke may be a faster reader than most of us, but he describes exactly what readers do. If as writers we make people slow down too much, we lose them. People are busy. People don't have time to figure things out like a teacher is (sort of) paid to do.
If a reader decides that a person's writing is too much work to read, that is *always* the writer's problem. No one has an inalienable right to be listened to. People are going to listen only if you as a writer provide them enough value, at low enough listening cost.
Frankly, sometimes writing is a pain in the ass. I don't hate writing, but I often hate the time it takes. When I was in college, I used to use "1 hour for 1 page of draft text" as a rule of thumb. Now, 30 years later, that same draft text more often than not will take 2-3 hours. And professional typically takes me several drafts.
Take the "letter of reference" that every professor writes. (One benefit of my not being a favorite teacher is that I don't get as many as some, but I still get several requests a semester.) I have to budget a minimum of 3-4 hours of time for each 1-2 page letter. Because, even though I've written enough of them that some of the language is close to boilerplate by now, it's next to impossible to get them done quicker.
And that's from someone who claims he is a pretty good writer.
Because what I'm not -- and what most people are not -- is a "natural" writer. Good writing takes time. A lot of it.
Which is why Internet writing cannot be expected to work as well with readers. Alll of us are in a hurry.
We don't have time to write tomes like this post. (Because I'm going to really pay in the next couple hours because I now have to cram an extra 40 minutes worth of class prep into 40 minutes less.)
Or even read them.
So I'll stop now.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)