Writers: About Those Rules (Grammar, Word Choice, Style)

(This is about writing, not religion -- unless your religion is your writing.)

In the New Testament, we often see Jesus calling the Scribes and Pharisees, and hypocrits in general, to repentance. Among their sins, He names the tendency to focus too much on the letter of the law and not enough on the spirit thereof.

In particular, He chastises them for making it harder for others to get into the kingdom of heaven. (See Luke 11, starting around verse 39, but especially 52; also Matthew 23, especially verses 13 and 15.)

But I don't recall much recorded in which He chastised people for bad grammar or bad word choice or unfashionable language style.

In LDS scripture, we see a note that Adam had a perfect language.

No, wait. It says, "pure and undefiled".

Now, that fact was important for us, but the language itself seems not to have been as important. We don't have his language, so we can only speculate as to its nature, particularly, in what way it was pure and undefiled.

Does that mean he used perfect grammar? Or does it mean something else?

Where did the grammar rules for any language currently in use come from? Who wrote our dictionaries and our manuals of style?

We might suspect it, but linguists will tell us it is true. The grammar, dictionaries, Thesaurses, style manuals, all of the tools we have for analyzing what we have written come from our own hands. The language itself predates them.

And?

I am not arguing that skill with language is bad. It helps to be able to be precise when we speak or write. Precision is not evil, unless it is used for evil.

And I admit it, by the way. I am not nearly as precise in my Japanese as I am in my English. Up until just a few days ago, I have been unwilling to attempt to write fiction in Japanese.

I will try to help fellow writers with grammar, word choice, style, structure, and other tools of technique. But I often feel at conflict with myself in the attempt.

Here's why.

Even though linguists call the rules things like "rules of production", those rules are not used in producing speech or rhetoric. They are used in producing analyzable strings of the sorts of symbols that linguists use to analyze.

The best use of grammars and dictionaries is as aids in understanding what we've written.

And manuals of style are artifacts of fashion. They are in constant flux.

If you need a technical report, sure. Use that manual of style. Lots of other reports-kinds of writing work best when they follow some manual of style.

When writing fiction for a closed genre, there are manuals of style. (But they still exist in a state of flux.)

But.

Closed means closed. Here's another hint from linguists. Meaning is not found in reproducing what has been done before as much as it is found when creating something new.

That means that your style as a writer exists in the tension between your efforts to follow the rules and your occasions to break them.

I have tried to help several authors whose grammar and word choice are less than standard. I think of four specific cases where my help seems not to have helped.

I myself was waylaid by a structure Pharisee in a writers group where I participated briefly last year --

My first novel did not need a hook in the first chapter. It was not intended to be a bestseller. An ordinary sort of hook will get in the way of that story. Yet, I let that (well-intentioned, I think) more experienced writer induce me to get a lot of practice writing myself in circles, trying to get that hook into place.

Practice is practice, and is not completely useless, but I needed to be working on other things by now, and that novel is not yet finished. The delay is in no small part caused by my spending too much time focusing on the wrong things. I was trying to put a hook in when I needed to be fixing the metastructure.

And this is where several of my friends are now stuck. They are focused on hooks, grammar, word choice, style, flow, and other such things when they need to be focusing on other things. Or, perhaps, taking a break and reading, or writing something else, or getting out into the real world, so they can come back and look with fresh eyes.

Some of them need to do what I ultimately did -- throw several months of edits in the junk pile and go back to a previous version from before they started listening to the wrong advice. One, in particular, may need to throw multiple months of edits in that junk pile and just publish the novel.

With its warts.

And I'm not actually convinced that my efforts on my first novel to avoid misleading people by my references to the Church I belong to are completely necessary. I may still be doing too much re-write instead of just clearing a bunch of unnecessary linkage from my first novel, where it sits in one of my blogs.

With its warts and non-standard features and love handles and such.

I was raised on books that didn't make the best-seller list. I don't remember some of their names. The grammar was wrong in many, although it tended to be consistent.

I say, wrong. I should say, non-standard, because there is no wrong grammar without context, and a novel is its own context.

So, what am I saying?

Writers, do not fear Microsoft's grammar checker.

Turn off the spelling checker, too. Only run the spelling checker once a day or so, and don't believe everything it tells you.

Keep the mechanical grammar checker turned off.

Emphasize that. You do not want your grammar sounding like it was written by a cookie-cutter.

Are you in a panic? Settle down. Microsoft is a company that claims to sell 80-20 solutions. Even if those claims were accurate, that's twenty percent wrong. But it's more like 20-80 and a lot of bluster. These guys are salescrew. What they sell is confidence.

You know, the Music Man, but with no heart.

What you need is confidence, not grammar checkers. Sure, your first novel may not be the best. You can polish it a bit, but there comes a point where you improve more by leaving it behind and writing the next one.

Why? Because the next one allows you to build new skills, and some of those are the skills you need to get that first one polished right.

(Don't be afraid to come back in six months or six decades and see what you can do with the ones you left behind. Arthur C. Clarke did that with Against the Fall of Night and produced The City and the Stars. I personally prefer the former, but both are good SF novels, and he thought the latter told the story better according to his older self's point of view.)

So you don't have the confidence? What instead?

If you can find a group of readers (beta readers is a well-used term right now, critique group is another) who can help you in useful ways without encouraging you to chase your tail, such a group can be useful. If they don't help you with the confidence after a little while, thank them and find new people to help.

Prayer helps, if you know God. If you don't know God or don't believe, meditation and listening to your heart is another way to describe it.

It's not wrong to learn the rules, but you must write new stuff to learn the rules better than you know them now. (This rant is too long, or I'd explain that. But it's another mathematical principle.)

The reason you write is to communicate something meaningful to people. Rules can only help about twenty percent of the way. The rest is the work you put into getting the message into the media.

Why Tarō Can't Communicate -- 太郎は人の話が通じないのは何だ！

(Test Question -- 試験問題)

Choose the correct answer:
正しい回答を選びなさい:

(1) What is your job?

　　A: My job is an English teacher.
　　B: I teach English.

You've seen this in the newspaper ads:
新聞広告で見たことがあるかもしらない：

×　A: My job is an English teacher.
○　B: I teach English.

But this is wrong.
間違いです。

Here's the real answer:
正解は以下の通りです。

△　A: My job is an English teacher.
○　B: I teach English.

Here's an even better answer set:
もっと適切な回答があります：

△　A: My job is an English teacher.
○　B: I teach English.
○　C: I am an English teacher.
○　D: My job is teaching English.
△　E: My job is to work as an English teacher.
○　F: I work as an English teacher.

It is true that A is not the best phrasing for the assumed intent. 確かに A は推測の意味にしては、最適な言葉並びではありません。 It is also true that E is way too wordy. E は正に言葉が多すぎます。 But they are not without meaning. しかし、意味がないとはいえませんし、 and the assumed intent is within the range of possible interpretations. その推測の意味は可能な解釈の範囲の内に入ります。


The best interpretation of 

My job is an English teacher.

would be something like

My job is something that teaches English.

and this is not incompatible with the assumed meaning.

では、 

My job is an English teacher.

の最適な解釈は

私の仕事は英語を教える物です。

と言えば、想定の意味に反論しません。

There is a problem of semantics.
意味について議論はできます。

A job is a thing and an English teacher is a person.
仕事は物です。英語先生は人です。

So it makes a person seem to be a thing.
この文によって、人がモノにされようとします。

So it would not be the preferred expression.
推薦する表現になりません。

Not totally wrong, but not preferred.
完全に間違ってはないけど、推薦される表現ではありません。

But you can't explain this when you are focused on preparing students for the test. There's no time.
テスト中心勉強しているとこんなのを説明することはできません。そんな暇ありません。

And this is the problem.
ここでは原因が診えます。

Too much of current curriculum is focused on tests.
現在の教科過程は試験集中しすぎています。

Tests cannot test everything like this. Therefore, they cannot teach everything like this.
試験はこういうところを綺麗に探ることができません。したがって、こういうところを充分に明かすこともできません。

Students need time to read things that there will never be time to test.
生徒らは考査するための余間がどうしてもできないほどの、たっぷりな読書が必要です。読書するほどの時間が必要です。

And they need time for discussion, time to talk about the things they have learned.
そして、談話の時間が必要です。学んだことを話し会う時間を必要しています。

If there's too much test prep homework, there's no time to learn.
試験向きの宿題が多すぎると学ぶ余地がありません。

That's why Tarō can't communicate.
これが太郎くんの話し会いができないわけです。人の話が通じないわけです。

More on this subject here:
またここでこの話をとりあげています：
http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2016/09/grammar-rules-in-japan.html.

Religion vs. Religion

In various forums you find arguments about religion, which religion is better, which is less evil, atheism is obviously superior to religion (and the correct way to believe), us vs. them.

It's always at best an approximation to assert binary sets, but there are two kinds of religion: false and true.

That doesn't help the discussion, at all, does it?

Okay, there are two kinds of religion, one which turns a blind eye to truth, and one which seeks truth. And it's always the other guy's religion that turns a blind eye to truth.

Does that help?

Arguing against the other guy's religion is not a good way to communicate. (And I find myself in a dilemma any time I'm talking with someone who claims a religion which includes as a precept the requirement of arguing against all other religions.)

And discussing religion with atheists is a particularly difficult job, because the atheist has often really convinced himself that believing in the non-existence of any God is somehow automatically superior to believing in the existence of any God.

Well, some people resolve the problem by refusing to discuss religion.

I prefer to resolve the problem by looking for points in common. Some people find it threatening to even consider points in common, but it's generally much easier to communicate when there are points you can agree on, and I think communication is generally a good thing.

Well, it's hard to find points in common when you don't know the other guy's assumptions and definitions, so I'll put down some of the definitions and assumptions I operate by, which I think I can sort of hope to find common ground with.

Maybe in another post.