Musings on the Wild World of Writing & Editing

Archive for February, 2013

The Twinge of Teen Paranormal Romance

I grew up reading strong female characters: Hermione Granger from Harry Potter and Liesel Meminger in The Book Thief. They may have been bookish and awkward and shy, but they had an internal combustion that fueled them on (and of course, later on, Katniss Everdeen literally burned on). I admired these characters for their pluck and tenacity; as a teenage girl, I saw myself in them and what I wished I could be. Throughout high school, I basically ignored Twilight and only considered it while reading a chapter in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, because the chapter basically said that vampirism is almost always a metaphor for sex. After graduation, I decided to go ahead and read them and see what the fuss was all about, and I wanted to be able to legitimately say they were awful. 

I’m not going to spend an entire blog post on how bad the writing of those books are; if you’d like to see an entire website about it, click here. Quick disclaimer: I did enjoy reading them in the way that you enjoy eating an entire bag of Cheetos puffs in one sitting or chewing on gummi worms during a bad movie. But the greater messages of the books upset me in their treatment of young women.

Again, I will spare you the comparisons of Hermione Granger and Katniss Everdeen versus Bella Swan, because it’s just so easy: Hermione Granger continues fighting to defeat the Dark Lord even when the love of her life walks out, and Katniss Everdeen helps lead a revolution while her love is being tortured (granted, Katniss does have one too many breakdowns in Mockingjay but whatever). Bella Swan curls up in a ball on the forest floor when Edward leaves her, and she lives in a nigh-catatonic state until she begins flirting with another boy. Her only true happiness comes from Edward or Jacob, never from within. Message received: life has no meaning without a boy in it to tell you you’re special.


The reason why I’m taking the time to write about this issue is because I read this article today. In it, Tara Isabella Burton confirms what I’d worried about all along: most, if not all, books in this category preach the same message–that you only have value if a boy loves you. And this is a genre that has its own section in Barnes and Noble. Burton lays out the formula for these books, and Bella Swan (ugh that name) fits all the categories:

  • Ambiguous in description but always “intelligent”: Bella Swan is described as good in school and pretty, but apart from knowing that she has dark hair and eyes and is clumsy, she could basically look like anyone. This is convenient because it allows the reader to imagine herself in Bella’s spot because she is so damn bland. The fantasy is easier to complete–Edward isn’t necessarily telling Bella how much he loves her, he’s telling you
  • Vampirism is a safe way for Bella to explore her sexuality without actually going all the way (despite that awful baseball scene in book 1, she and Edward don’t hit home base until three agonizing books later). These books provide a proxy for sexuality through vampirism or magic or some other fantastical world.
  • Bella is loved not for her intelligence, wit, or charm. Edward loves her because he cannot read her mind and her blood smells special. And yes, I get how creepy that sounds, and we even get to learn the Italian for it: la tua incantante or something. She is loved because she is “unique” to Edward, not through common interests or her personality. She is inherently special to one person, and only one man can see that. She is not special based on her own merit or to herself.
  • Bella’s female friends are basically seen as annoying, cumbersome, or irritating. She only has a mind for Edward. I get it–young love, whatever–but so many girls are too quick to throw away friends to hang out with a boy. And instead of proving that that behavior is dangerous and detrimental, Meyer makes it seem okay in the end because she marries Edward at the age of eighteen (or maybe nineteen but what difference does that make?) Yes, this is the message we are sending girls–get married right out of high school; it’s okay if you don’t go to college because you’ll be a wife and mother and that’s all that matters.


I’m glad that these books get teenage girls to read; I really am. But I cannot fully support an entire genre that teaches girls that their greatest value only comes from outside of them, that they are only worth something when a boy is validating them. This is dangerous and untrue. The truest lesson is that only when you love yourself can you love others or let others love you. I used to not believe this, but I do now, and I know this much to be true: you will never truly be happy until you believe you deserve someone healthy and whole who will treat you well. Emma Watson plays Hermione in Harry Potter and Sam in The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which leaves us with this quote: We accept the love we think we deserve. If we teach girls that they only deserve love from other people and not themselves, they will only evaluate themselves in how others see them. Their only sense of self will come from external sources, rather than building an identity based on introspection. We cannot and must not let this lesson for girls when they turn the last page. We owe them more than that. Please read, but please know that your value lies beyond what a boy thinks of you. A girl needs to know she is a person who deserves love and affection from herself above all others.

Like Herding Cats

From elementary school through most of high school, I believed the rules of grammar were fixed–immutable, inexorable. Apart from creative writing, the conventions of grammar were stable and set; I liked how definitive they were. Illogical and idiosyncratic though they were, the rules of grammar made sense to me–I used to diagram sentences in my head when I spoke or read. I no longer diagram in my head, but I’ll freely admit my nerdiness unabashedly and unashamedly. Grammar came easily to me, perhaps because I read so often and internalized syntax and usage. The more you read, the more you can tell when something “sounds” wrong (as a grammarian, your reason for something being incorrect should never be that it “sounds” wrong, but I catch the error because it sounds weird and then identify the technical issue). Spelling is similar but more visual: the more you see words and the patterns of spelling, the better your spelling will be. Lesson here kids: read and read often.

Le Francais, c’est plus qu’une langue

That was the motto of my high school French club: French is more than a language. When I began taking French in high school, I took to its grammar almost effortlessly. Part of the reason is that while English is not a Romance language, many of its words have Latin roots, and some of the word order is similar. Because I felt so grounded with English, French wasn’t too much of a stretch. Plus, a mind for grammar will ostensibly do well with any language. Many people find  the French language maddening because of its odd pronunciation, its ridiculous subjunctive, its ludicrous number of verb tenses. But I liked it. I liked conjugation tables, and I liked learning new patterns of spelling, and I liked putting together the pieces of a sentence. For me, English and French grammar and spelling exercises were like candy in homework form. Once I was about to vomit from a plateful of trigonometry, I sat back, relaxed, and worked with future and conditional. It was relaxing (if you’re still with me at this point, I applaud you). I’ve basically been waxing nostalgic about my love for grammar because of what I’m about to say next: English grammar is contradictory, antiquated, and nonsensical. And there’s no such thing as “standard” English.

It All Comes Back to the Nazis

For those of you who don’t waste time on the Internet, Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies states that the longer an online discussion continues, the probability of a comparison to Nazis approaches 1. Basically, the longer an online forum goes on, the more likely someone is going to call someone else Hitler or the Nazis. So, I’m going to go ahead and fulfill Godwin’s Law and start talking about grammar Nazis.

Part of the reason I’ve been so absent from posting is that my life has been in a state of massive change. I found a job in New York, NY, and I moved at the end of January. I’ve been settling into my new job and recovering from culture shock (my Southern/Midwestern sensibilities sometimes clash with the New York ethos), and my daily exhaustion has prevented me from posting. My job is in client support, so most of my job is speaking with clients and helping them use our product. Although I was grateful for the job and liked the work environment, part of me began to worry that I wouldn’t use my training as a writer and editor. I took my first chance to prove my skills when an internal memo came around with an FAQ about the company (we just launched, so we are still familiarizing ourselves with how to address issues in the system and answer questions). Although it was internal, I marked it up and copyedited it, sent it to my boss, who passed it on to our Chief Marketing Officer. He was impressed enough to start sending me stuff to edit and write. I got to choose the style guide for our client support team as well as media relations–I chose Chicago, because the Oxford comma needs a defender from the evil AP. Speaking of which, I once took a course that included peer editing. One of my peers was a journalism major, and she kept crossing out all my commas. I kept adding in commas to hers. Both of our papers were technically correct, but we merely had different philosophies on punctuation.

Which brings me to the fact that now I am the resident grammar nazi of my department, I get questions about grammar, and it’s so hard not to qualify my responses with, “Well in this case it would be this, but sometimes if you want it could be this.” I also have to dispel a lot of what gets incorrectly taught in schools: you can’t begin a sentence with a conjunction; you can’t end a sentence with a preposition; etc. If you ever need help definitively addressing these issues, I recommend Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins: The Careful Writer’s Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules of English Usage by Theodore M. Bernstein or The Transitive Vampire by Karen Elizabeth Gordon.

I digress. When I’m feeling particularly feisty, I go on long rants about prescriptivist versus descriptivist grammar; open versus closed punctuation; the punctuation and spelling variations between UK and US usage (I’m looking at you, realise). I have a nice, sturdy set of reference books to dispel ambiguity when questions of grammar arise, and these books only add fuel to the flames of my grammatical passion: Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Webster’s Usage Dictionary, Chicago Manual of Style, and The Copyeditor’s Handbook by Amy Einsohn. For anyone who wants a full and spirited debate on all things grammatical, Einsohn is your gal. She discusses various grammar schools of thoughts, words that cause the most heated debate, and the tiny nuances of language that dictate how we edit and write.

How in the hell did we get here? 

How, you might ask, did we end up with so many conflicting grammar rules and pet peeves among individuals? To summarize briefly, blame Latin. A lot of our ridiculous grammar rules come from British elites several centuries ago who wished to “perfect” English by making it imitate Latin, the language of the great Roman empire. An immediate issue becomes obvious: Latin is the basis of the Romance languages, but English is a Germanic language. The two are both Proto-Indo European language, but they come from different families. The biggest example of this issue is the old-school rule that you cannot split infinitives. The basis for this rule is that in Latin, you literally cannot split an infinitive because an infinitive is one word. The other is the old standby that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition. Neither one of these rules is particularly enforced, depending on whom you ask. I am sure that my grandfather will insist that you cannot split an infinitive until the day he dies.

My grandfather is an example of a prescriptivist, a person who wants to preserve standard written English, and his less obsessed grammar counterpart would be a descriptivist, someone who is more concerned with actually employing language as it is really used. If a writer were to follow every bizarre rule in the prescriptivist handbook, he or she would be reduced to ridiculous and ambiguous wording that would obscure meaning. In all honesty, placing a preposition at the end of the sentence to communicate meaning is much more effective than obsessively preventing an ending preposition with odd or wordy phrasing.

One of the best birthday cards I ever received had two girls sitting at a restaurant. One girl said to the other, “Where’s your birthday party at?” The other girl responded, “You shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition.” When you opened the card, the first girl said, “Where’s your birthday party at, bitch?” We should not always write like we speak, of course, but there is something to be said for writing in a style that is easily understandable.

Please don’t misunderstand me; certain grammar rules exist for a damn good reason. You may not confuse there, their, and they’re; you may not mix up its and it’s; you may not create a plural with an apostrophe. These rules exist because if you make those mistakes, you obscure the meaning of the sentence; however, a sentence that does not follow the screwball rules of English but is perfectly understandable is preferable to the alternative.

Some people might want to scream that I am promoting the corruption of the language and wish to do away with all standards of grammar. Not at all. I will still stand by that the active voice is better than the passive, that vague pronoun references are confusing, that incorrect comma usage is maddening, and so on. I’m merely promoting that we let go of some of the ridiculous grammar rules that have sprouted over the years and have stuck, like bits of urban myth and folklore. They no longer serve any real purpose apart from making some writers feel superior to others (even if those writers’ writing is nigh incomprehensible).

Retreat to Move Forward

I work in an office, so I often hear “corporate speak,” which most often includes incorrect word usage to the extreme. For example, I’m currently preparing for battle on the fact that you cannot use “clean” to describe accurate information or data. 30 Rock often mocks this corporate speak and the overuse of acronyms within the corporate environment–watch “Retreat to Move Forward” for some of the best examples or the 4th season Christmas episode. I admire the corporate world’s creativity with language, but please, please, please, let’s avoid the overuse of acronyms and the obsession with catchy phrases. It’s not helping anybody. We already have words for that–we don’t need to use a new word whose denotation nor connotation is remotely close to what you mean.

So as I move forward in the corporate world, I will do battle for those rules of English that help create clarity and meaning, but I might let a few fall by the wayside, those that are outdated, confusing, and impractical. They’ve long outworn their welcome in the grammar books.


%d bloggers like this: