I think it reads and sounds better to write as people talk so let it flow, break the rules and let the critics cry.
I like the article--thanks for posting it. Maybe, in creative writing, we are better off thinking of them as "guidelines" rather than "rules." I do think there is a place for some uniformity of grammer, sentence structure, etc., simply for the sake of readability.
Conventions are there for a reason, and we love frameworks because they make things easy. Yet, for every convention, there is a brilliant writer bucking all the trends (Finnegans Wake comes to mind). Most conventions exist to make it easier for the writer to engage the reader and let them into his mind. For me, the rest is just style and can be chosen depending on the way you present your work.
I agree with @DueNorth. There's a Japanese saying, ironically formulated in English, which says "TPO". Time Place Occasion This was originally used to refer to the appropriate formality of western clothing being worn by Japanese men in the early postwar years when such things didn't have the general appeal that they do now, but it applies to writing "rules" as well. I teach academic English writing for a living, and violations of the mentioned rules (with the exception of ending a sentence with a preposition) are dealt with harshly because it's formal academic writing. A is A, but it's not B. Writing on a forum is less formal, and I use a lot of English that I would never tolerate in class there, but if someone writes a forum post in L33t, I'm going to put them on my ignore list pretty quickly. However, when I send a quick text message to a friend, I use lots of texting abbreviations, and depending on your story, narrator, and character, the use of perfect Queen's English could be just as off-putting and wrong as nadsat.
I really don't like the long sentences with multiple commas, unless it is a list. It just comes off as sloppy to me. I like my adjectives damn it! That is why I keep a thesaurus near my laptop for extra options.
Good article - thank you! I like the descriptor "prescriptivists." And the idea that I can take or leave whatever it is they prescribe.
From the link: I was never taught this. I have no idea who these people are, it doesn't even make sense. Maybe because that was a few hundred years ago. Never was taught that either though I've heard it. It doesn't make sense in fiction. Of course. This is rather cynical. That is not a grammatically correct comma rule. Reinforces my conclusion the author of this article doesn't know Jack about grammar. Who the hell says that? D'uh. I guess that sums up my opinion of this weird article, it exaggerates a faux problem. If you were taught this stuff, maybe you had a bad grammar teacher.
From the link... "Prescriptivists ...put them in books that they sold." (My emphasis) Because it strikes me that academics get judged on their publications, so she's just upping her professional profile...or maybe she just wrote an article to get paid for it...
The only part I disagree with is prescribed grammar. It's true that for thousands of years when language was taught, grammar was described, not prescribed. But the human situation is far different now. Without a prescribed grammar, however imperfect it may be, it would be hard to understand people across the nation and the world, particularly at the rate of change in daily life now. Not that it doesn't have its own problems, of course. For one, language is organic and as such needs to change with the times. Prescription impedes this natural process. "It was a way of ensuring that literacy stayed out of reach of the working classes." Which is a peculiar interpretation of their agenda, since a uniform grammar only makes it easier for the working classes to acquire. And it also allowed governments and leaders to inject their own morals into their people, as in what words were acceptable (such as profanity), what constituted blasphemy (for their religious sensibilities), and many other political reasons. That's where political correctness came from.
Within the main scope of language which is communication there is a lot of leeway and some redundancy. If you as an individual can see someone using the language 'wrong' while at the same time know what they meant then the primary purpose of communication has been achieved. Adhering to accepted guidelines is still preferable most of the time because of efficiency. Problem is that different people start to really care about these things at different points. There are a lot of similarities between language use/change and genetic changes in organisms. For individual organisms faithful reproduction of information contained in their genetic material is almost always preferable. Change (mutation) will usually mean either (very) bad news for the individual organism or no noticeable difference. It's rarely a positive. On the level of the population, however, change is necessary to keep up with the ever changing environment (both biotic and abiotic). So, while breaking the rules will sometimes make you an innovator or a visionary in the eyes of others, more likely is, though, that you will be seen as somebody who can't or won't use the language correctly (if the observers themselves know the 'rules' of course).
