Well, obviously SOME people liked them, just like some people like writing that breaks all the rules. But in fact, they had a hard time at first, and the academic painters were not happy at all. This from the Wikipedia article about them—even the word we use to define them was coined as a satirical put-down. "The Impressionists faced harsh opposition from the conventional art community in France. The name of the style derives from the title of a Claude Monet work, Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise), which provoked the critic Louis Leroy to coin the term in a satirical review published in the Parisian newspaper Le Charivari..)" Here's a screen shot from the same Wikipedia article:
I don't think writing by the rules is lazy at all. You only have to look at the workshop to see how much time and effort people have to put into mastering the basics. It takes a lot of skill to be able to convey the information you want. I'm not a ruley person, but I do think it's nonsense to say abiding by "rules" is easy.
Of course, a writer can choose to not follow rules without ignoring rules. I'm not an art critic, but Picasso's earlier work certainly seems technically proficient to me. He was completely aware of the rules and did his time learning how to follow them. Then he chose not to follow them (or at least not all of them). I think we can usually tell when a writer flat-out doesn't know the rules and when a writer knows them but chooses not to follow them. Usually. And I'd agree that someone trying to write without even knowing the rules is taking the easy way out (and will likely not find success). But that doesn't mean it's easy/lazy for a knowledgeable writer to consciously choose not to follow rules.
I contend that the rules exist to help keep beginners from falling on their asses. Experienced writers don't really need the rules and, in many cases, feel constrained by them. They don't want the rules; they want to write with freedom.
I'll drag this thread back to its roots and offer this sort-of corollary to the singular they, but it's even more offensive to my ear. Let's call it the 'plural is': "There's six to choose from." "There's thirty students in my English class." Or is that OK too, since some hack probably used it two hundred years ago?
In my own writing.. the word 'it'. It is useless. Completely. Describe clearly what It means or .. *insert swearword*. But I am getting better in catching IT
@Earp: Is there're ever used? I know they're is used, but I can't think I've ever seen there're, probably because it's just easier to write 'there are'. Somehow I've managed to find a book that switches tenses all the time. Sometimes in the middle of sentences, sometimes in between paragraphs. I'll paraphrase an example from the book: 'We hastily take our seats on the train which gave off a very magical vibe. I place my bag on the seat beside me and my friend quickly slips onto the bench opposite, sliding the carriage door closed. The door itself appeared to be made of glass...' The first sentence is the worst. I couldn't read more than a few paragraphs because I was sat there begging it to choose a tense and stick with it. It's not just me, is it? On another note, there's a published series of books I read (the book above isn't published, just popular) that really did my head in while I was reading it. It put speech marks in at the end of a paragraph regardless of whether the speech continued with the same person. So it had: "Long, eloquent speech." "Speech continues by same person." "Other person speaks." The worst part was that there were no 'this person said' marks or anything. So I'd read through a whole block of speech without having a clue what was going on and it was such a shame because the story was good and it ruined it for me. Is this common?
Do you have documentation of it being common two hundred years ago? If you're claiming an equivalence, you should do the research.
I mu I must admit I've lost track of this thread now, but am I correct in my assumption that dialogue is excluded when it comes to these 'gripes'? I say that because I don't see anything at all wrong with Earp's example here? It fact to my ears it would sound quite ridiculous to use 'there is' during dialogue. Even in the narrative, come to think about it. "I'm staying out here where it's safe! You can go in on your own." "Oh, don't be such a coward. There's nothing in there, I tell you!" I don't see anything wrong with contractions at all; There's nothing here. There'll always be an England. Where've you been till this time? All perfectly fine and acceptable to my ears.
@OurJud: It just says no spelling and punctuation comments, as far as I can tell. I don't think Earp was referring to dialogue, anyway. I thought they were quoting text, although speech marks were used, so I might be wrong. In any case the issue with the contractions is with plural cases. 'There's six' is equivalent to 'there is six', where it should be 'there are six'. Fine in dialogue, because that's how most people say it, but not so good in plain text.
I think it's all about trusting your ears, whether that's writing fiction or formal texts. If you consider yourself to have a good ear, you know when something doesn't sound right. At least I like to think I do.
Admittedly, all the examples you provided work without the contractions, unlike Earp's examples. But yes, it is good to work by ear, as I'm finding out. I didn't realise until recently you don't have to leave out the 's' after the apostrophe on everything that ends in 's'. It makes more sense now that I have the option to spell it how it sounds.
This one's not so much a gripe for me, more a grey area I'm not entirely confident in executing correctly. This is Peter's car (singular - apostrophe S) The members' car park (plural - S apostrophe) But in what cases would S apostrophe S be correct? His name is John Peters. Has anyone seen John Peters's car? Looks silly to me.
This is a style guide choice--without a style guide, both Peters' car and Peters's car are correct. The style guide tells you which one it wants you to use.
There are some where I can't imagine not using it... Like... Dallas's weather is wonderful, or Texas's population has been growing. (I like to follow the rule of "if you pronounce the 's', include the 's'")
I liked this idea, until I tried saying the second one out loud and it came out "Texasiz..." then it sounded all wrong. It's a funny one that, because there's no other way to pronounce Texas in the possessive. For whatever reason, Dallasiz doesn't sound so silly.
Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. There's (there is) should always refer to a single entity. In my first example, it should be there're (there are) six to choose from.
One very specific style gripe here... authors writing 'phone, with the apostrophe. I've only seen it in two books but it bugged the hell out of me. Okay, technically there are missing letters but come on! Sometimes you have to roll with the evolution of language instead of being a stickler for rulezzz. Although I do write Hallowe'en instead of Halloween so I'm just a massive hypocrite really.
Yup, which is why I'm baffled by folks whose ear would reject."There are a horse.", but not "There is two horses."
