Only in writing, lest we have anarchy. I feel the same way. Writing is by the author but it is for the reader. Rules in writing are major guidelines and when broken they cause a dramatic effect.

Excellent post. I just want to be me and be casual in my writing without bothering the rules. It that possible? cuuriousPaul

curiousPaul,
Did I say that? That was my name in another forum! writer one

Thank you all, you've made my day. Paul/Writer One

Yes, good points. I fully agree with most of them. However, I don't think there is any 'rule' forbidding short sentences. I think the general rule is to vary your sentence length as much as you can. Using short sentences to convey urgency works a treat, but using short sentences elsewhere is fine as well, as long as they are intersposed with long sentences and medium-length sentences. Sentences that are all the same length—whatever that length may be—create a rhythm. This can be distracting if the rhythm isn't intentional.

That's one of the reasons I always read my writing out loud as part of the final edit. It's amazing how things read perfectly on paper but are so obviously wrong when you hear them.

Excellent! I edit and read the post every time I edit it. I have a fanatic about spelling and editing. But I have been told I do not make the correct words come out after the first sentence. I am doing the subject and predicate right, but after that members are telling me I am not flowing with the appropriate words. Writer One

Believe me I try to construct sentence lenghts as short as possible and paragraphs as well. But my problem is after the first sentence with the subject and predicate, I tend to babble. For some reason the words I use, seem inadequate even if each word has a subject and predicate.

I am a fanatic about using the right word within the sentence and the right sentence in the paragraph. After the first sentence which has a sentence and paragraph, I seem to babble after that and the story has no flow. I have been told that the story has nothing to do with the flow of the piece.

The flow of the piece is a journalistic term meaning, what's written. Thoughts please. Writer One

Story trumps all rules!

I think I get what you're saying here ...maybe that a writer should tell the story they want to tell, and to heck with what people THINK they should be telling instead.

However, unless you're just telling the story to yourself, your story must resonate with your readers. And if the readers don't know what you're talking about, or get stopped by all sorts of things such as bad grammar, unintentional sentence structure repetition, awkward phrasing, dialogue that seems aimless, etc, then your story has been derailed to some extent.

"Rules" ...or—as I prefer to call them—"tricks of the trade" ...are there to make sure your story reaches your readers in a format they can understand and enjoy. You want them to be absorbed by your story, not distracted by stylistic glitches. In that sense, story doesn't trump rules.

My point is this:

The point of writing is the impact of reading. Reader must get something he/she did not have before reading.

There are a lot of rules. Every rule has some kind of area where it is valid. Outside that area it either is valid or not or is partly valid or...

Rules and story have some overlapping. Sometimes 100%. Sometimes only 60%. They may overlap in some part of story but not the other.

No rule is valid all the time, everywhere.

Something must tell writer where, when and how rules are valid - or not. Story and the impact of the story are that indicator.

This is how story trumps all rules.

In other words...

Yes, I think I get what you're saying now.

You're saying that what the writer wants the story to do will determine what rules the writers chooses to follow (or break?) Yes, I agree—if that's what you mean.

Before, I was worried that you meant a story's content matters more than the way it's written. My point was that the way it's written will determine whether or not a reader 'gets' it. I reckon we are on the same page here.

Plus writer should know why some rule occupies certain area of communication.

Example:

There are rules about how to make yourself understood. If someone misunderstands intentionally for some purpose that is important to him/her/whatever, you jump in to the trap if you try to make yourself understood. Then avoidance is your best option.

Another example:

You think information as a toolbox. Someone else thinks information as means to show off and fight in dominance hierarchies. You don't have common ground, but you can make some point clear.

Third:

You want to make complex humour to intelligent but tired and stressed audience. You make your comic multidimentional, complex but keep pace in a walking or jogging speed. You don't run, fly or drag race.