I have to say, I have little room to criticize the sticklers out there. My nickname in my high school history class was "Grammar Nazi." I was the copy editor of four different newspapers. I corrected people who confused "good" and "well."
But it appears I am moving away from that. Reading about the Enlightenment focus on grammar and punctuation as a means to convey an argument, rather than colloquial language, was almost frustrating for me. I know I have no place to judge history, but this appears to be choking out pathos when expressions and familiar language are removed from the equation.
This is not to say that I don't appreciate grammar, but I believe that this period laid the groundwork for the modern editing process. When I hand my paper to a peer for review, I am never expecting this individual to hand it back to me with, "comma splice" and "capitalize here" written all over it, but it almost always happens. I want that paper to be evaluated for content, argument, and overall meaning, and this is so muddled by the focus on technical aspects of language. It's like memorizing formulas in mathematics, without understanding how they work; what's the real point? Will that information be memorable ten years from now?
Obviously misuse of a word (their v. there, &c) is much more of a glaring error when evaluating work. I can understand the need to adjust that. But, a comma splice, like, the ones I have used in this sentence, can be overlooked if what I am saying is meaningful. When the reader is fixating on a minor error that doesn't necessarily impede credibility, the message is completely lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment