I have said I don't like it, and I'll also say that it's wrong. Both are obviously opinions. The story you linked to (on the NPR site, no less) seems to defer to that well-known group of grammarians known as 'people who identify as genderqueer'. I think I'll continue to take my SPAG cues from 'experts' with less of a political agenda. You may be able to find a columnist on Mother Jones (or worse) who disagrees, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to slip a 'singular they' (or a comma splice, for that matter, and no, dialect or dialogue doesn't count) past a competent professional fiction editor.
Not sure how it can be objectively wrong when we created English and have always edited and revised it to our liking (see thou/you for a relevant revision), but okay. I guess well-known groups of grammarians such as the ADS aren't up to your level of expertise since their opinions don't line up with your own My issue was with the assertion of 'pride' in living in 2016 and observing 2016's conventions, when singular they obviously isn't something we unilaterally agree on today.
To strike terror in the hearts of our enemies and feed them the tools of their own ultimate destruction. Also, possibly, because of creative writing courses?!? That may have been another thread...
I was a book-aholic. I loved to read. But when I bought a book called ''The Dictionary of Grammar", I knew I needed help.
A properly-applied writing guideline should make the writer think, "Huh. Never though of that. Now that it's caused me to have new thoughts, I might change aspects of my writing as a result. Or I might not." It should not cause them to say, "OH MY GOD I HAVE POSSIBLE PASSIVE VOICE SYMPTOMS I'M DOOOOOOOOOMED!"
Actually I think rules are important in writing. All rules have exceptions; that doesn't make the rule useless. But completely ignoring rules leads just to bad writing.
I don't like contractions in narration unless it is absolutely unavoidable, but in dialogue contractions are alright. (I know, I is a strange one ) Actually put this to practice, but I had some pretty tough English teachers in high school and college. Beat into my noggin that contractions will make ones work look 'lazy'. Wooden characters/action/dialogue really annoy my poor brain. Be more productive to drag ones privates over broken glass. Brings two authors to mind, and neither will be dignified with a name, but most know who I speak of. Also the use of big words when the content/character would not have a clue what they mean without a dictionary, let alone the poor idiot reading the illusion of intelligence where none is to be found. If the characters/story do not mesh, then you have a made a faux pas. Doesn't happen often, but when it does it shows the poor thought put in on part of the author. For the lay persons: Using big complex words with not so smart characters/story=Done fucked up! I like immersion when I read, and flow (similar and yet different to music) to keep that level of immersion. There should be a good balance of smooth and rough throughout, but nothing like the jagged edges of glass now firmly planted in your poor butt cheeks. Shouldn't be too smooth or too rough. Kinda like a roller coaster with elaborate twists, curves, and loops. The tension should fit the theme and/or scene/situation. A suburban soccer mom (football mum, for my non-American friends) having a wild love triangle with her husband and the mailman, should not have the same amount of intensity as a war-zone with body parts, organs and all hellish nightmares. Unless said soccer mom (football mum) just so happens to be be having an affair with said mailman, who just so happens to be the gimp of the 60 year old school lunch lady, who just so happens to be a bomb disposal technician. Then, maybe then you can have a bit more intensity. Wow! That escalated quickly...but I think you get the idea. Now the only thing left to worry about is reading some weird romance drama about a cheating soccer mom (football mum) having an affair with the mailman, who is the gimp of an elderly lunch lady that diffuses bombs on the side. Either that or I just created some new off the wall fetish. (shrugs) That was slightly painful, but I think I will live. (Please do not attempt dragging your bits over broken glass, unless that is what tickles your fancy.)
Two things: First, bad writing by what standard? What's "bad" to one reader might not be so to another. Second, strict adherence to the "rules" is no guarantee that the writing will be good. There's a strong chance that said strict adherence will merely lead to dull, safe writing that challenges nobody and is immediately forgettable. I think I'd rather slit my wrists than adhere strictly to the rules.
With respect to your point that English is constantly changing and evolving to meet our needs, singular they is still considered incorrect and inappropriate to use in formal works by the history department at the Big Ten college I attended. I consider the professors in that department (collectively) to be a pretty distinguished authority on grammar seeing as most of them are published and have been writing as long or longer than you and I have been alive. Granted, I'm sure fiction authors have more leeway to use whatever grammar they like than authors of non-fiction history books.
Once again: "poorly" by what standard? Strict adherence to the rules is, to me, lazy writing - writing without putting in effort to achieve any effect above the basic conveyance of information. It's just letting the "rules" do the work so the writer doesn't have to apply any critical or creative energy. Ever read James Joyce? Vladimir Nabokov? Anthony Burgess? Cormac McCarthy? Thomas Pynchon? Any of dozens or hundreds of other proud rule-breakers? I guarantee you that writers like these put in far greater effort than just about any slavish rule-follower you could name. Good prose does not automatically from adherence to the rules. Bad prose does not automatically follow from breaking the rules. This may seem counterintuitive, but it's true. Breaking the rules requires hard work, creativity, a lot of focused thought. It is not easy writing. It can result in dazzling reading, though! EDIT: I just checked your profile and it said that one of your favorite writers is Faulkner. He was a great one for breaking the rules. What gives?
I don't want to speak for @theamorset, but I think a lot of the criticism of rule-breaking and rule-breakers stems from the idea that it's so hard to do what you're talking about--break rules effectively--without coming across as an uneducated dilettante.
oop. From what I've read of @minstrel's work here on the workshop threads, I'd say he works his little squirrel tail off on his writing. His attitude isn't lazy at all. He's just saying creativity doesn't adhere slavishly to rules. I agree with him. The Impressionist painters broke every rule in the book (and were much disliked at the time and fulminated against by painters of the 'old school') but now ...well people recognise what they were doing. Hard to believe they were the rebels of their day, but they were.
Of course it's hard. Almost anything worth doing is. Look at the work of Picasso. To many, I suppose, his paintings look hopelessly childish and silly. To others, he was the most brilliant and innovative artist of the 20th century. One thing I'm pretty sure of is this: If he'd stuck to the rules, he'd have been just another run-of-the-mill painter. He dazzles and amazes because he broke the rules in highly creative ways.
Well, history books are fantastic to read if you're a fan of history and they contain information you're greedy for, but as a general rule they don't exactly grip the imagination, do they? As pieces of writing, I mean. Formal writing does have more rules in play than creative writing, simply because interpretation and enjoyment isn't really the goal of the formal writers. They just want to document whatever they're writing about in a scholarly fashion, in scholarly language that other scholars work with. I'm not saying some of these writers aren't readable—in fact many are—but a historical writer has a different goal from the fiction writer. Just because they both use words, doesn't mean they both use words the same way. I spent years UN-learning 'expository writing,' in order to be able to write a novel. It wasn't easy. I struggled against my conscience to write my first non-sentence, for example, yet, that's exactly what was needed in that piece, in that place. My biggest writer flaws (which I still struggle against) are over-writing, over-stating, over-explaining. I also had to break the habit of 'summing up,' in case the reader didn't quite get what I meant. These were not considered flaws when I was writing for high school and university, so I learned them, and I learned them well. Unlearning them? Still working on it.
I'm of two minds with this statement. One, is that I completely agree and find this to be true for some writers. They either don't want to study their skill, or use them so poorly they need an 'excuse.' Two, is that strict adherence can leave to a stilted, or no individual style. Agents and publishers are constantly saying, "we're looking for a fresh style." They're smart enough to recognize when an author is doing something for a purpose and when they just don't know what the hell their doing. I feel they've seen enough to give a writer the benefit of the doubt first (in seeking that 'fresh style'), then decide whether they like or agree with it. I think #2 just is just as valid as #1, and though I can improve and am actively doing so, I certainly don't feel I write poorly. There are certain things I do for a reason fully aware of knowing "better."
I think that's not true. The impressionists did not break 'every rule in the book'. Just some of them. And obviously, they weren't disliked by everyone, not even among the older painters. Even at the time they painted they got lotsa shows and sold lotsa paintings. The fact is that they adhered to a good many very important rules.
