It seems to go even more off the rails with Mitchel later on, and his sudden decision to go and kill all the humans. They must have changed writing teams or something.

I took an English class a while back that was based around science fiction, and I can say it was one of my favorite classes I’ve ever taken.

However, if the codpiece makes a comeback, I’m taking up some sort of projectile weapon and using them for target practice.

Okay, maybe not. But the thought is funny.

I’m more of a descriptivist myself. I don’t think there is necessarily an uber-correct grammar, but I think, as one teacher so eloquently put it, you must know the rules before you break them.

Unfortunately, the push toward more and more standardized testing hasn’t helped student writing. Large classes and standardized tests hurt even the best teacher’s ability to help students with their writing, and that includes learning about diction, audience, and purpose.

Any of us who use the internet live in as rich a textual environment as any that’s ever existed, and it’s important for students to learn things about diction and audience that may not have been as important before. Heck, until the 20th century, plenty of schools didn’t even bother to teach English because who cares what people do with that purely utilitarian language: the real test of knowledge is Latin and Greek! (This is part of what led to so many English grammars being based on Latin, even though the languages are … somewhat different…)

From a linguistic standpoint, it’s all quite fascinating, and I wish more students were taught not “the rules” but the history and (il)logic of the rules — I advocated this to a class of English Education majors last year, in fact, but the problem is that they themselves don’t have any sense of “the rules” being anything other than dictates handed down by some Grammar God. Some people complain about English teachers not knowing those supposed rules and thus not being able to teach them; I think the problem is deeper — too many English teachers, in my experience, have a head full of all sorts of rules, most of which are little more than idiosyncratic preferences. Any class that includes The Elements of Style should also include Geoffrey Pullum’s critique of it, and then set the students to researching and debating it all. Such an exercise will teach them more than an entire year of tests and quizzes on the parts of speech.

David Crystal, one of the world’s experts on the English language, has written a couple of good books about such things — The Fight for English and Txting: the gr8 db8. And the Language Log blog is a wonderful resource, too. (Obviously, my sympathies are with the descriptivists and historicists, even though I flinch whenever someone confuses lie and lay. We’re all allowed our pet peeves! Indeed, I give my students a list of mine…)

That definitely makes sense. Thanks for the response, and that link is cool. Lots of good analysis there.

I like the advice to read a magazine before submitting, and I do try to read as widely as I can in the genres I write in. I think, if I were editing a magazine, I’d include that sentence advising folks to read the magazine before submitting.

That said, I have a hard time writing to an ethos. I can write to a theme, but that’s different. I’ve actually tried to consciously internalize a “feel” or “style” of certain magazines I admire. The results have been frustrating.

I suppose I’m more of a grip-it and rip-it fellow, and most of the stuff I’ve written falls beneath a pretty traditional storytelling banner.

I was actually thinking a little about this yesterday. Few writers write truly remarkable books. By remarkable, I mean books that change how people think.

Instead, they trade on style and story, which is all well and good. My favorite writers are Ray Carver and Stephen King. King’s writen dozens of novels, but only a few are remarkable books (The Dead Zone and Wizard and Glass among them, I think). I keep buying his stuff, though, because I admire his style and he spins a great yarn.

The Road, by McCarthy, is my favorite book of all time, though I don’t admire his style (the prose is beautiful in spots, but on the whole the nontraditional punctuation can grow thin). I love that book because of its remarkable messages of love and determination and responsibility.

At any rate, thanks for the response, and sorry for the long post. I look forward to the next installment of Sybil’s Garage!

Hey Matt,

There are five fingers and a pair of thumbs in that picture. That’s a HUGE hand!

In terms of your stories, I think you guys do a great job. This is an excellent publication.

By traditional plotting, what do you mean? Are you talking tropes (premature burial, haunted house, demonic possession) or archetypes (vampire, werewolf, zombie) or both?

Just curious. I’m still prety traditional, so my occassional journeys into “slipstream” (not a fan of the word, really) feel forced.

Best,
Dan

And it was Spencer, as I recall, who swiped some powerbars, not Greer (as Greer, I believe, was busy having a ‘discusison’ with Camille).

Yeah, I sorta missed how Scott and Chloe suddenly had a relationship. Must have happened in between episodes

Also, I object to the notion that faith in Jesus absolves one of sin. Not only does this transference of guilt amount to idol worship, but it begets the scapegoating of the Jewish people. I don’t want Jesus or anyone else to suffer for my sins; I accept personal responsibility for my actions.