Smile Politely. Speak Directly. A Champaign-Urbana Culture Blog

I think we could let it slide if it was in quotes. "where's the party at?!" is a common phrase. But if it wasn't in quotes than yeah, they should have caught that.

Things such as making sure not to end sentences with prepositions and trying not to split infinitives are simply conventions, and if a convention becomes practically irrelevant, why should we continue to clutch onto it? Language and communication are dynamic entities, which is what makes them exciting. Sullen grammarians and conservative linguists don't seem to understand that at times.

This was not a work of fiction, of course, where conventions can acceptably be thrown out the window (note the split infinitive - it sounded better that way). But does journalism always have to be so wooden? The news headline is attempting to be fun and hip by alluding to a fairly recent (2001) rap song. Although it's certainly up for debate, "To where should one apply in order to reap the benefits of many a soiree?" probably would not work as well in achieving that aim.

Also, you may want to run at least a few spell checks on your article if you're going to be critiquing a student media syndication of an AP article that used a preposition as its final word:

"Almost all of us got 'OUT' degrees here, too."

"Obviously, you are not a golfer."

Fixed the TYPO - which is a clearly different kind of mistake, but since you are obviously more than a little sensitive to the fact that a writer at SP.com questioned the title on the DI's front page - you must have forgotten that Mrs. Bursoni was, in the end, questioning whether or not journalism, as you put it, has to be "so wooden."

I, for one, feel like AP style, and the like is for the birds. As a graduate of the U of I english program, I quickly learned that bullshit like style and proper grammar generally suck the life out of most writing.

There are others at SP.com that disagree strongly -- and as such, we try to adhere to a style all our own.

Anyhow -- let the debate begin!

Is proper style and grammar an important part of journalism? Or can we just get our point across by writing the way we speak in the world of new media?

I vote for the latter.

Word.

Good catch on the typo UofIparty-goer.

I always turn to the Grammar Girl.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ending-prepositions.aspx

I think this is one of those instances in which the evolution of our language is evident. And just like the others have commented, I think the media should be an outlet for the people to express themselves, as themselves, for themselves. While it's also important to keep proper grammar alive, it's also important to not put things up in an ivory tower.

Seth, you have some very good things to write about the importance of grammar in strong writing. I only disagree slightly. Good writing that reads like the fluid motion of conversation is not easy to produce. As Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote, "Easy reading is damn hard writing."

In my opinion, we must first learn how to write correctly before we start manipulating language beyond the stale conventional rules of grammar. You write very well, which shows that you have learned the rules at some point, and you know how to write conversationally, which shows you are not bound by those rules.

For years, I have listened to people complain about the lack of importance of grammar. They just want to express their ideas without that nasty hindrance. However, grammatical mistakes in their writing hinder the reading of those potentially good ideas. To me, many people are lazy in the construction of their writing, and if given the chance to skip the tedious step of learning the rules, they will give all kinds of reasons to get around those rules. Let's set a strong foundation before becoming too creative with things we don't really understand.

For better or worse, Sp.com, The Daily Illini, and any other publication have the ability to set the trends in writing, including the rules of writing. Therefore, writers and editors at those publications have a great responsibility to change our writing culture. I would rather see those publications set the highest standards for strong writing, including intelligent manipulation of rules, than ignoring conventions because they no longer understand them.

Great article, Justine!

Bob -

With you 100% on that. I believe in proper grammar. I am glad I got the education that I did, though -- I can't say much of it had to do with my public education. I was raised by two english majors -- so, that's why I know where what goes when.

BUT - I think that proper AP or Chicago Style is really boring, and mostly antiquated. What people need is facts, information and substance. Where to use and en dash or em dash or whether to refer to something as being MORE THAN as opposed to OVER can die a painful but fast death as far as I am concerned.

To me, if it can be understood, Style means very little.

Proper grammar, however, is a necessity. But rules are made to be broken -- and if one knows they are doing the breaking, then I say, "So be it."

dangling prepositions isn't incorrect -- that's an antiquated belief. it's just preferred that you don't, you wouldn't write that in a paper.

don't think that because there was a common phrase that we're not smart students -- many of the university's programs are in the top 3 in the country. it's almost insulting that anyone would think that because a colloquial phrase was used to illustrate a point that it means we're not an intelligent school.

Elle -
Thanks for writing in. Your opinion is truly valued here -- as we keep up with the217.com regularly.

I think, again, you may have missed that it was clearly pointed out that most of us at SP.com also got our degrees at the U of I, (I have my bachelors here and I'm going back in the fall for my masters) and what's more -- that this was merely a way to inspire some debate about whether formal grammatical structure is relevant in today's hyper-fast media-driven society.

That said -- thanks for reading -- and please don't feel like we don't see that U of I has plenty of attributes. Again, we are all semi-proud graduates.

I was merely poking fun at journalism -- ourselves and my writing and editing included.

MLA, APA, Chicago Style...I understand their basic use in documentation and research, but I never understood why they all have such a matrix of rules. Why one space after a period instead of two? Why two spaces instead of one 15 years ago? Why no period after some dates in citations? Those styles quickly become more confusing than helpful.

I couldn't agree more, Seth. :)

My column in the Hub was a paradigm of grammatical virtue.

I am certain my loyal readers will both concur.

"I, for one, feel like AP style, and the like is for the birds. As a graduate of the U of I english program, I quickly learned that bullshit like style and proper grammar generally suck the life out of most writing."

Seth, this is absolutely ridiculous. Once you, or anyone who writes for SP, gets to the level of a, say, Cormac McCarthy, then we can debate how flexible grammar and style become part of a larger picture. For general journalism, which last time I checked is what SP aspires toward, proper grammar, usage of punctuation, correct spelling, et cetera is essential for establishing any sense of integrity for the publication. If SP wants to be a blog free of any established conventions, then so be it. Otherwise, some copyediting would go a long way on this site, at the DI, and at the News-Gazette. That says nothing of fact-checking, content editing, and the general quality of writing and research.

Of course a style guide is a boring read; it's meant to be a reference tool, not toilet reading. If you aspire to be the best at what you do, then perfection must be your goal. That means having editors and writers on staff who understand language and appreciate its correct application. Just because a piece of writing is stylistically in step with a guide doesn't mean it's been drained of all meaning or impact. And you can't logically root for proper grammar in one breath and in another declare that the usage of "over" versus "more than" is without merit.

Bob - "I would rather see those publications set the highest standards for strong writing, including intelligent manipulation of rules, than ignoring conventions because they no longer understand them."

A-fucking-men.

i think the di was smart in not editing the headline. they saw it for what it was: a) catchy-enough header for the article, right on topic; b)pop culture reference for the kids; c) tongue-in-cheek play making much the same point made in this article: too much party, not enough education. really, i'd say it was an above average headline.

keep language fwee

Entertaining column, Justine. And wow, Bob, you the man (to use another popular grammatically-challenged phrase). Very well said.

As a (very) part-time copyeditor, I have a love-hate relationship with Chicago style, though the hate is mostly due to intimidation. In many ways I love the rules, and that there is an answer for virtually every grammatical question in that grand 956-page manual. I remember being perhaps the only student in sixth grade who enjoyed diagramming sentences (now a completely lost art form, I fear). But, at the same time, I've always struggled to fully comprehend some the finer points of grammar, mainly because I don't particularly care about labeling gerunds, participles, prepositions, etc. as such. Instead, I copyedit moreso based on whether or not it "sounds right" in my head. Perhaps my employer and other copyeditors might not like to hear that, but I believe it works for me. Thanks to my solid linguistic education in my Catholic suburban grammar school, I'm able to recognize when something isn't working, and if I can't define the "rule", I at least know when to look it up. I've been told by friends who went to the public grade schools in my hometown that they did not receive the linguistic training that we did in the private school, for whatever reason. (The same seemed to be true for handwriting/penmenship skills, on which a entirely separate column could be written...Is there a point to having good handwriting anymore? I'd say yes.) I'm saddened that it seems that my preteen daughter hasn't received the focus on grammar in the Champaign schools that I would have hoped for (though she's certainly learned things I never did, such as Spanish, starting in kindergarten).

I'm not trying to toot my own horn here whatsoever, only back up the previous observations that a strong foundation is a must, and from that can blossom a lifelong love of words (though I've seen from friends that being force fed that "foundation" can just as easily turn people away from a love of writing!). I'm all for rules being broken, as long as it is done so for a reason and not just due to laziness or stupidity (though I wholeheartedly agree with Doug that serious journalism is not the place for such rule-breaking, in the majority of instances). As you may be able to tell from the above, I happen to have no
problem writing run-on sentences. However, there is one grammatical issue that I will fight to the death over: serial commas (aka the "Oxford comma", as popularized by Vampire Weekend...they don't "give a fuck" about them, those yuppie bastards). I'm strongly pro-serial comma, and those of you who think otherwise are just plain wrong.

All that being said, I recognize that copyeditors and those that truly care about the smallest details of grammar are an odd breed. I freely admit to reading "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" and enjoying every minute of it. I find a very strange bit of joy in the analness of finding poor grammar or, worse, misspelled words here and there. The other day I was browsing through the booklet that came with the GTA: Vice City game, and the not-quite-a-word "particpants" jumped out at me. I've never understood how there can be basic misspellings in any type of professionally published materials (I'm looking at you Daily Illini), but particularly those that must go through twenty sets of proofs like the GTA booklet. What the dilly yo?! (...to bring this all full circle)

Just for kicks and some leisurely grammatical reading, everyone's favorite book, Strunk's "The Elements of Style", is available online in its entirety for absotively posilutely no fee here.

Sorry this was so friggin' long. Thanks for bringing the topic up.

I, djward, and a chorus of others proclaim, "LONG LIVE THE SERIAL COMMA!"

Doug -

OK, dude. But you have been gainfully employed as an editor yourself. As such, your perspective is a bit more refined regarding the written word, wouldn't you agree? And last I checked, 99.3% of folks who read wouldn't know, or care to know the difference between AP or Chicago Style or what the fuck it even is.

How is what I wrote "absolutely ridiculous?" It's an opinion, Doug and one that I have the right to publish, not only as the founder of the magazine, but as someone who reads all sorts of journals, blogs, mags, books etc etc.

Just because my perspective or opinion doesn't align with what you or what others consider to be traditional or status quo, doesn't, for a second make it absolutely ridiculous. It makes it a... difference of opinion.

And that you would classify it as "absolutely ridiculous" makes your comment absolutely ridiculous.

I am glad that SP.com has editors that see it both ways. Keeps it interesting. We aren't abandoning any usage of style. I am just stating that, personally, I don't much care about it, or for it.

Perhaps you love Cormac McCarthy, but I grew up on John Barth -- and he likes to get a bit loose with his grammar, and I always appreciated his writing for that.

I never stated that grammar wasn't important; in fact, I believe I said the opposite — and I very much believe in a solid foundation of grammar. And I think it's important to have an understanding of style.

You wrote:

"...you can't logically root for proper grammar in one breath and in another declare that the usage of "over" versus "more than" is without merit."

Sure you can, Doug. That's my whole point. You just can't see it because you are hung up on the "rules."

Oh shit! Jim Edmonds just hit his second home run. A grand slam. For the Cubs.

Burn!!!

Seth,

Sorry, to clarify: your OPINION is absolutely ridiculous.

Happy?

And actually, you did say that proper grammar wasn't important, or was, at the least, something that gets in the way of good writing. I'll quote again:

"As a graduate of the U of I english program, I quickly learned that bullshit like style and proper grammar generally suck the life out of most writing."

Then you contradicted yourself with your next comment.

That's why editors and rules and style guides and dictionaries and English courses exist: to keep people from contradicting themselves in public.

-Non "gainfully employed" editor

OK - you got me, Dougie.

But, in the end — I was pretty clear: proper grammar, style — all of it — good to have a sense of it, and definitely important to learn it — but in my opinion — fairly unnecessary and mightily boring on the whole when discussing its relevance in new media.

We can agree to disagree.

Like I said, I am glad to have both sides at SP.com.

Doug, Seth, Bob, Justine, et al -

I am certain all who have commented will concur:

"One cannot place too much emphasis on proper grammar usage."

Best,
Don

"Why one space after a period instead of two? Why two spaces instead of one 15 years ago?"

This has to do with an advance in technology---typewriters vs. computers. When people used typewriters, fonts were monospaced---all characters from i's to W's were alloted the same space. You added an extra space between sentences to add a visual break. Most material and fonts nowadays are proportionally spaced and the extra space is unnecessary with kerning and the like.

However, this is really only a must in printed publications. You can do whatever you'd like in your own personal writing. But if you submit it for publication, just know some typesetter is gonna run a search & replace and strip all those double spaces out....

This is an interesting dialogue that’s ensued here, and one that seems increasingly important as technology allows media (and “media”) outlets to proliferate at an unprecedented rate and with lesser and lesser awareness for what constitutes correct language usage.

So what is right? What is allowable? And forgivable? All subjective questions, you could subjectively argue, but at the end of the day there’s honestly little room for disagreement when it comes to, say, the semicolon or (to choose an example that’s reared its head in this thread) the em dash. The em dash, for instance, is not a quirk of the Chicago Manual of Style, nor is it a pesky little monster that emerges from the pages of the AP Style Guide. No, the em dash is in fact a grammatical feature of the English language. Its function is not subjective and its place in the English language, really, is not up for debate. Grammatical rules, no question, can be a pain in the neck, but they exist to stymie the onset of chaos and (a personal pet peeve) sloppiness. The rules of the English language begin with a collection of 26 letters that each have a set look and set sound attached, and everything else grows out from there.

Is there a little room for variation? Sure. Sometimes a firm em dash helps you make a point where a comma just doesn’t get the job done — if you know what I mean. But — to throw em dash in — where really it doesn't belong — is just sort of, well, wrong. This isn’t an assault on the English language. It’s an appreciation of it. A sign of respect.

It’s true that the annals of history are replete with great subversive linguists (one mentioned by a commenter would be John Barth — and we could all pick our own James Joyces or Flann O’Briens or Ogden Nashes, if we’d rather) but we need to acknowledge that, as another commenter implied, the effective manipulation of language and grammar comes only after a mastery of the rules and purpose of that language. That means that you don’t scratch your head at the difference between the dash, the en dash and the em dash and decide: Screw it! It’s too confusing! I wanna do what I wanna do! Laziness is neither the job of the poet, the novelist nor the journalist.

And especially not the journalist. Or the editor of a journalistic publication — Smile Politely or otherwise. Consistency and accuracy are the cornerstones of a publication. You can decide; for whatever reason; that you’re going to use semicolons in a funky way in your publication. As ill-advised as misuse may be, that’s the prerogative of a publication’s editorial staff. But what’s critical is consistency. Don’t write the number 12 as a numeral in one clause and spell out the number twelve in the next. That’s illogical, inconsistent and bound to lose the trust of the readership. Instead, define standards and stick by them. This shows, at the very least, that you know what you’re doing. But it also establishes a sense of awareness, of professionalism and of respectability.

And this is why style guides exist. This is, essentially, why grammar exists. No one style guide, at the end of the day, is universally better than the rest. And of course, there are occasions when deliberate manipulation of language, grammar or style is a fine and even commendable idea. (The AP example mentioned at the beginning of the article and repeated in the D.I. may be exactly such an instance, as a colloquial application of language well suits the subject matter being introduced.) But ignorance of, or disdain for, the rules of language is no excuse. Writers and editors do have a responsibility to the language they steward, and unless there’s a damn good reason for doing it wrong, I can think of plenty of reasons for doing it right.

Chris -

I appreciate what you are saying — very much. And I appreciate that you didn't call my notions or ideas "absolutely ridiculous," even if you may think it.

Yours is a great argument and one I respect, even if only for the way you presented it.

I still maintain though, that rules — be it style or proper grammar or disallowing instant replay in baseball, inherently, are sometimes meant to be broken — and perhaps, eventually, CHANGED.

And everything happens within a certain context.

I think it's subjective. Honestly, for the same reason that I don't necessarily buy into each part of the Bible, I can't buy into the AP style guide all-in either. It's just who I am. And if there are people out there that feel like my journalism suffers because of it, honestly, I could care less.

In my opinion, all things are open to change. And in my super-duper-ever-so-humble opinion, if I want to use an en-dash in the same fashion as an em-dash, well then fuckin-A, dawg.

And just the same — I can spell dog, D-A-W-G, and get away with it. No problem.

Perhaps that's part of the reason why I started my own little outfit, instead of writing for someone else.

Though, I am glad that SP.com has a style guide in place — and I am glad to have learned about it. I am glad that I am still learning about it and I will continue to adhere to it to the best of my ability.

I like learning new things, but just the same, I like to pave my own path, too. So, I walk a tight rope sometimes.

So, who is right? Certainly not me — and in my opinion, neither are you.

Your argument is far more academic, and perhaps, more compelling than mine. And for that, I am thinking a bit more about style and grammar, even now, seven hours ahead, all the way in Amsterdam.

I would, however, state loudly that calling anyone's opinion on something like this "absolutely ridiculous," is, in and of itself, absolutely ridiculous.

I have found, through bitter experience, that throwing people's opinions in the trash like that disingenuous and rude.

Staying open-minded to ideas — to new ideas especially — equate into a type of progress that I never want to be rid of.

Shit. Preposition. End of sentence. You got my point though, right?

Word.
Love from Holland.

s

Seth,

Keep hammering on the same point all you want. I'm not retracting my statement about your statement. It was a ridiculous thing to say. Absolutely. To argue that proper grammar and style "suck the life out of most writing" is a ridiculous statement. I don't mind if you don't own up to it.

Go have some fun on your honeymoon and stop replying to this thread.

I am having fun on my honeymoon. We were dancing with 10,000 GLBT last night because it's Gay Pride weekend here. And all while eating take away "Chinees" food and smoking spliffs on the street. But yes, thanks for reminding me to do so. I seriously have trouble separating work and fun sometimes.

Doug - homie. I made much larger points than that, was entirely clear on where I stand, and it's you that keeps hammering on one small, flippant comment that I made. I take it back, OK? Or rather, I amend it: "Proper grammar and style suck the life out of some writing."

And I stand by it.

Good point. Point taken. Whatever.

So, thanks.

I have learned a few things about where I stand on grammar and style. Starting to find more importance in it all.

Go GIRL! Don't let them intimidate you. Given the number and ferocity of comments, you hit a nerve.

Does someone have a problem with autority or just women who have standards?

Foriegn students from countries with standard laugh at the D.I., not just for grammar but for content, fact checking and sloppy plagerism.

I apologize, I don't know the rules. But I don't claim to have a degree from a top ten university, college or highschool.

One of the most important uses for grammar in our 21st century hasn't been mentioned yet. Protection against phishing scams! If everyone ignores grammar, including our banks, PayPal, and our email providers, we'll never be able to figure out which emails are from authentic sources and which are just scams. Right now grammar is our best defense against these nefarious plots. Without grammar, we'd be hopeless!