The Only Authority
Mar. 1st, 2004 09:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rinueFor one of Patrick's classes this semester, he was required to buy Diana Hacker's Rules for Writers. I had never heard of this book until Patrick bought it last month, but since then it has become my very favorite object of grief. I throw it around, dance on its grave, poke at it with sticks - that sort of thing.
Admittedly, part of my ire is reserved for Patrick's teacher. We already own the MLA Handbook, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA Guidelines, Strunk & White's Elements of Style, two different Scholastic guides for writers, and who knows what other grammatical reference materials; I can't imagine that this book provides any new information that will dramatically alter my views on the adverb. (Ah, the perfidious adverb. When will that devilish rascal learn to settle down?) However, my despite of the book is aroused by more than its abject redundancy. In short, I am profoundly offended by the arrogance of the title.
Rules for Writers? Better grammarians than Diana Hacker have not presumed to be so authoritative. Manual of Style, Guideline, Handbook: these are appropriate labels because they recognize that language changes and that every writer adapts a unique voice. Some people use dashes where others place semi-colons; others disagree on whether to use an apostrophe when pluralizing a number. To call these things "rules" when they are merely opinions diminishes the strength of true rules like subject-verb agreement. Besides, if Ms. Hacker's "rules" are hard and fast, how can the book be in its 5th edition?
Further investigation reveals that any number of contemporary authors have written essays on their own rules for writers - things like "never begin a story with dialogue" or "prologues are always unneccessary." The sheer, unmitigated gall!
In veneration of these writers' incredible conceit, I have skipped right past rules for writers and hereby establish:
ROMIE'S RULES FOR EVERYONE
Rule 1: Cut your hair short. I don't have any justification for this rule, but I like to keep my hair short, so this must be true for you as well.
Rule 2: No postmodernism while drinking. If you want to talk about how the room is spinning or how you can't feel your legs, that's fine; it's basic narrative. If, however, you talk about how amused you are that you're drunk, you're making a smarmy attempt to control your lack of control. Not only is this pathetic, but it shows a reprehensible moral relativism; you're never wrong because you don't commit to your decisions. To you I say, "in or out. In or out! We can't air condition the world!" Also, stop hogging the peanuts.
Rule 3: "Shouldn't" is a literary device. If I ask you to do something, and you say you "shouldn't," that is without meaning. Either you agree to, or you don't. Either you want to, or you don't. Don't force me to take responsibility for your choices.
Rule 4: Paint your damn walls. I don't care what color. It can even be white, as long as it's a white you chose. Don't give me crap about your apartment complex's "approved colors"; you can KILZ over just about anything. Besides, we could totally take those guys in a fight, especially if we develop a good theme song beforehand.
Rule 5: Croquet is way better than golf. Now that this is in The Rules, it has moved from mere opinion into the realm of indisputable fact. You say you prefer golf? Well then, I suppose when you draw a triangle, its inside corners add up to more than 180 degrees. Loser.
Those are the only rules I am prepared to reveal at the moment, but I assure you that the other rules are very important. They are essential to your quality of life. If you don't follow them, there is no way you will ever be happy or actualized. For a copy of "Romie's Complete Rules for Everyone," please send $20 and a stamped, self-addressed envelope to the address revealed in Rule 6. Otherwise, enjoy your life of despair and poverty, sucker.
Admittedly, part of my ire is reserved for Patrick's teacher. We already own the MLA Handbook, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA Guidelines, Strunk & White's Elements of Style, two different Scholastic guides for writers, and who knows what other grammatical reference materials; I can't imagine that this book provides any new information that will dramatically alter my views on the adverb. (Ah, the perfidious adverb. When will that devilish rascal learn to settle down?) However, my despite of the book is aroused by more than its abject redundancy. In short, I am profoundly offended by the arrogance of the title.
Rules for Writers? Better grammarians than Diana Hacker have not presumed to be so authoritative. Manual of Style, Guideline, Handbook: these are appropriate labels because they recognize that language changes and that every writer adapts a unique voice. Some people use dashes where others place semi-colons; others disagree on whether to use an apostrophe when pluralizing a number. To call these things "rules" when they are merely opinions diminishes the strength of true rules like subject-verb agreement. Besides, if Ms. Hacker's "rules" are hard and fast, how can the book be in its 5th edition?
Further investigation reveals that any number of contemporary authors have written essays on their own rules for writers - things like "never begin a story with dialogue" or "prologues are always unneccessary." The sheer, unmitigated gall!
In veneration of these writers' incredible conceit, I have skipped right past rules for writers and hereby establish:
ROMIE'S RULES FOR EVERYONE
Rule 1: Cut your hair short. I don't have any justification for this rule, but I like to keep my hair short, so this must be true for you as well.
Rule 2: No postmodernism while drinking. If you want to talk about how the room is spinning or how you can't feel your legs, that's fine; it's basic narrative. If, however, you talk about how amused you are that you're drunk, you're making a smarmy attempt to control your lack of control. Not only is this pathetic, but it shows a reprehensible moral relativism; you're never wrong because you don't commit to your decisions. To you I say, "in or out. In or out! We can't air condition the world!" Also, stop hogging the peanuts.
Rule 3: "Shouldn't" is a literary device. If I ask you to do something, and you say you "shouldn't," that is without meaning. Either you agree to, or you don't. Either you want to, or you don't. Don't force me to take responsibility for your choices.
Rule 4: Paint your damn walls. I don't care what color. It can even be white, as long as it's a white you chose. Don't give me crap about your apartment complex's "approved colors"; you can KILZ over just about anything. Besides, we could totally take those guys in a fight, especially if we develop a good theme song beforehand.
Rule 5: Croquet is way better than golf. Now that this is in The Rules, it has moved from mere opinion into the realm of indisputable fact. You say you prefer golf? Well then, I suppose when you draw a triangle, its inside corners add up to more than 180 degrees. Loser.
Those are the only rules I am prepared to reveal at the moment, but I assure you that the other rules are very important. They are essential to your quality of life. If you don't follow them, there is no way you will ever be happy or actualized. For a copy of "Romie's Complete Rules for Everyone," please send $20 and a stamped, self-addressed envelope to the address revealed in Rule 6. Otherwise, enjoy your life of despair and poverty, sucker.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-02 03:36 am (UTC)Goddamn you.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-02 03:49 am (UTC)And I keep meaning to comment: IT'S FEET. IT'S OUR FEET! Damn, my feet are ugly.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-02 09:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-02 03:51 am (UTC)::wants chinese food::
-Romie
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-02 03:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-02 04:02 am (UTC)-C