Fight Against English - General

Does bad spelling really take something away from something that would otherwise be visionary? Hakim Bey said, "If rulers refuse to consider poems as crimes, then someone must commit crimes that serve the function of poetry, or texts that possess the resonance of terrorism." What would incite more terror into someone than a blatant disregard for the English language? “This asshole is so crazy he didn’t have time to spell check!” I’ve said this a million times before but I’ll say it again... Literature is (not even debatably) a form of art. Why is it that it is the only form that has to meet a mainstream industry’s standards before it is allowed (allowed by even the PUBLIC) to become viable? More than that, it must meet this modern ideal of acceptable formal language. A painter can make a mistake in a painting and it somehow becomes more of a respectable art piece but if a writer makes a typo it renders their book unreadable. Language is one of those amazing things that we think we all understand but can’t really define (like the word “planet.”) It is more complicated than evolved pictographs, it is history and culture. It’s a spiritual expression and noise pollution. The way a person speaks and write says so much about them, so why do we suppress the potential it can have in literature? The grammatical mistakes and regional slang are a part of the story being written just as much as the story arc. Losing these qualities in editing is losing a part of the story teller’s voice and vision. Controlling language is the surest and quickest way to control people. People far smarter and eloquent than I have written books on this matter but it can be summed up fairly easily: Humans use language in their thought process more so than other animals who tend to think in pictures. Language is also the primary venue humans use to externally express internal concepts and concerns. To let businesses, and even society itself, tell us what the correct use of language is not only controls our free speech but also our personal thoughts. Literature should be the art form that combats this oppression! Every time you judge a piece of literature on this Webster’s Dictionary standard we have all been groomed (like the pray of a pedophile) to hold you might as well be buying IKEA furniture. Society has given us a box of words and rules and we have to construct it to their instructions or we nullify the warranty. (originally posted on [url]http://christystewart.livejournal.com/[/url])

Tl;dr [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply?" - SteveUK))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Christy;23221384]Does bad spelling really take something away from something that would otherwise be visionary? [/QUOTE] Yes, if I can't read it, it's message is null, learn your fuckin English. If literature isn't a form of art then why does it evoke emotions and why do people buy them? Sorry, but fuck off with that.

Uuh what are you talking about, planet can be easily defined: A celestial body with sufficient mass to be rounded, insufficient mass to undergo nuclear fusion, and orbiting a star or stellar remnant e.g. white dwarf.

if shakesPHERE w0ote hs wurks liek dis do u think tht peeps wuld have considdeered his wurk @ all?????

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;23221455]Uuh what are you talking about, planet can be easily defined: A celestial body with sufficient mass to be rounded, insufficient mass to undergo nuclear fusion, and orbiting a star or stellar remnant e.g. white dwarf.[/QUOTE] wat this whole thread is confusing

[QUOTE=BagMinge101;23221462]if shakesPHERE w0ote hs wurks liek dis do u think tht peeps wuld have considdeered his wurk @ all?????[/QUOTE] Great work. /thread Get out, Christy.

chingchong [editline]07:58PM[/editline] im confused

[QUOTE=BagMinge101;23221462]if shakesPHERE w0ote hs wurks liek dis do u think tht peeps wuld have considdeered his wurk @ all?????[/QUOTE] gois mui englistch ist su gud but wht im sying in sportnt i prauwmuz just lizzun too me i cn guid us 2 da fyootcheR!

This is pretty goddamn stupid, literature is replete with unconventional use of language. e.e. cummings, for one classical example

[QUOTE=Christy;23221384]Does bad spelling really take something away from something that would otherwise be visionary? Hakim Bey said, "If rulers refuse to consider poems as crimes, then someone must commit crimes that serve the function of poetry, or texts that possess the resonance of terrorism." What would incite more terror into someone than a blatant disregard for the English language? “This asshole is so crazy he didn’t have time to spell check!” I’ve said this a million times before but I’ll say it again... Literature is (not even debatably) a form of art. Why is it that it is the only form that has to meet a mainstream industry’s standards before it is allowed (allowed by even the PUBLIC) to become viable? More than that, it must meet this modern ideal of acceptable formal language. A painter can make a mistake in a painting and it somehow becomes more of a respectable art piece but if a writer makes a typo it renders their book unreadable. Language is one of those amazing things that we think we all understand but can’t really define (like the word “planet.”) It is more complicated than evolved pictographs, it is history and culture. It’s a spiritual expression and noise pollution. The way a person speaks and write says so much about them, so why do we suppress the potential it can have in literature? The grammatical mistakes and regional slang are a part of the story being written just as much as the story arc. Losing these qualities in editing is losing a part of the story teller’s voice and vision. Controlling language is the surest and quickest way to control people. People far smarter and eloquent than I have written books on this matter but it can be summed up fairly easily: Humans use language in their thought process more so than other animals who tend to think in pictures. Language is also the primary venue humans use to externally express internal concepts and concerns. To let businesses, and even society itself, tell us what the correct use of language is not only controls our free speech but also our personal thoughts. Literature should be the art form that combats this oppression! Every time you judge a piece of literature on this Webster’s Dictionary standard we have all been groomed (like the pray of a pedophile) to hold you might as well be buying IKEA furniture. Society has given us a box of words and rules and we have to construct it to their instructions or we nullify the warranty. (originally posted on [url]http://christystewart.livejournal.com/[/url])[/QUOTE] Although you talk so highly of the acceptance of mistakes in typography, I'm willing to place a wager that you took the utmost care to make sure everything in your little essay was well versed and written. It's the elitist people such as yourself, who thinks of themselves in a higher regard than the other, lesser peoples, who continue to contribute to the travesty of the hypocrisy of modern language.

Hey guys, if you comment on someone's ability to spell you are stifling his PERSONAL FREEDOMS and you ARE keeping SOCIETY DOWN man.

Also, sounding smart isn't that hard :downs:

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;23221504]Although you talk so highly of the acceptance of mistakes in typography, I'm willing to place a wager that you took the utmost care to make sure everything in your little essay was well versed and written. It's the elitist people such as yourself, who thinks of themselves in a higher regard than the other, lesser peoples, who continue to contribute to the travesty of the hypocrisy of modern language.[/QUOTE] I didn't go to great lengths in writing that. Nothing other than avoiding words I can't spell, though.

While I do agree that language is a form of expression so on and so forth, your argument is just borderline retarded. Spelling and grammar are a basic set of rules to apply by when trying to properly get an idea across. If you disregard those, your idea is equivalent to playing pictionairy with a 3 year old. You can regard language as a form of art, and that's why we have things like poetry where there is leeway for grammar, but there really isn't an excuse to misspell something, it doesn't add anything to your sentence as a mistake in painting might. (That was a terrible analogy, by the way) No one is controlling language, either. There is no police force or a government body cracking down people who can't spell or write grammatically, it is generally the public as a whole that set a standard, and it is more than a fair one for reasons I have already stated. Likewise, it is also the public that can change language, this is where slang originated, this is why our words and their meanings change over time, for example Shakespeare's time or not too long ago when expressions such as "The bee's knees" were used but no longer meet the standard of society.

[QUOTE=Christy;23221528]I didn't go to great lengths in writing that. Nothing other than avoiding words I can't spell, though.[/QUOTE] Apparently not [QUOTE](like the pray of a pedophile)[/quote]

[QUOTE=BagMinge101;23221514]Hey guys, if you comment on someone's ability to spell you are stifling his PERSONAL FREEDOMS and you ARE keeping SOCIETY DOWN man.[/QUOTE] brken enlich iz da fyoocher [editline]05:05AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23221560]Apparently not[/QUOTE] Actually Pedophile and paedophile are both acceptable.

[QUOTE=yodafart9;23221572]brken enlich iz da fyoocher [editline]05:05AM[/editline] Actually Pedophile and paedophile are both acceptable.[/QUOTE] Pray, you dimwit

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23221560]Apparently not[/QUOTE]Don't start that alternative spelling shitstorm, honestly.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23221580]Pray. you dimwit[/QUOTE] What if he were a religious pedophile? Like y'know...a priest.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23221560]Apparently not[/QUOTE] That was an exercise in guerilla memetics.

[QUOTE=BagMinge101;23221462]if shakesPHERE w0ote hs wurks liek dis do u think tht peeps wuld have considdeered his wurk @ all?????[/QUOTE] He did write incredibly low-brow plays which were basically the theater equivalent of South Park.

Apparently criticizing people not writing properly is oppressing people's freedom of speech and choice Becuz ritin liek dis tottly isnt anoyin rite guiz? XD

[QUOTE=Christy;23221595]That was an exercise in guerilla memetics.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DanTehMan;23221523]Also, sounding smart isn't that hard :downs:[/QUOTE]

No one else seems to be on your side, Christy, but I getcha. Have you read Cormac McCarthy? That man is an amazing writer, one of the few who I'd say are allowed to actually make up their own words. (I mean, who else calls the sun a "dawnstar"? That's fucking rad.) What you're essentially arguing is for taking poetic license to task in literature, using the connotative values of different words to evoke more complicated meaning. This is something that's much more readily done in a language like Chinese that connects loose concepts rather than words (such as "heaven" being a juxtaposition of the characters meaning "sky" and "gate", for example). This can doubtlessly be done, but most readers don't have the sensitivity to understand it, and if overdone it can cease being a matter of sensitivity and more a writer just making a bunch of shit up. However, I do believe that it can be done and agree by what you say, and there are doubtlessly writers who do this--but not the mainstream. I think it'd be more to the realm of poets. also ITT: a lot of people who completely missed the point editedit: though from what people are arguing maybe I missed the point or we all missed the point edit: maybe there is no point ed: maybe the point is that we are all going to die

[QUOTE=Mexican;23221614]He did write incredibly low-brow plays which were basically the theater equivalent of South Park.[/QUOTE] That mostly goes for his comedy work as a lot of his tragic plays are brilliant.

A few of you seem to misunderstand the context of the post. I am talking about professional literary artists. It isn't about talking liKe A rTaRd on a forum, it's about the resistance in the indistry that writers faces to not use language as the material instead of the means.

[QUOTE=Christy;23221669]A few of you seem to misunderstand the context of the post. I am talking about professional literary artists. It isn't about talking liKe A rTaRd on a forum, it's about the resistance in the indistry that writers faces to not use language as the material instead of the means.[/QUOTE] Again, e.e. cummings. Unless you're talking about something like the mainstream crime and drama and action books and shit, there's no push for this kind of stuff. Authors will, and always have been allowed to, utilize language in unique and new ways. If they didn't, they would be pretty bad authors.

[QUOTE=Christy;23221669]A few of you seem to misunderstand the context of the post. I am talking about professional literary artists. It isn't about talking liKe A rTaRd on a forum, it's about the resistance in the indistry that writers faces to not use language as the material instead of the means.[/QUOTE] what are you talking about apparently creative freedoms are severely stifled because writers aren't allowed to write things like 7-year old dyslexics that are prone to seizures? And not once have I seen an entire work disregarded do to a typo.

[QUOTE=Christy;23221669]A few of you seem to misunderstand the context of the post. [/QUOTE] More than half of your rant was about writers not being allowed to spell words their own way or use their own little invented grammar rules.