Penelope

Kimberly - you know I think your two sense makes far more sense than the two cents version. I think I'll adopt it.
Kitten - I read and reread the response and for the life of me I don't know how you reached that implication. I didn't see it anywhere. By writing that I wonder what you are referring to. Now there is something that I will use as an example. Interpretation. Writing can be viewed in many different ways. The more a poem is read the more it has a life of its own. Readers add their own experiences to it and it develops a personality. I don't think much of people insisting that a poem means this or that. As far as I'm concerned the only one who can state the true meaning is the author.
If a writer does not know which their/there/they're to use - they shouldn't tell other writers their usage is correct, especially if it isn't.
Pointing out errors is a courtesy in my opinion. Mocking someone for making errors I reserve for the ones who are punctilious in their critiques. The highest conceit belongs to those who believe their writing is above improvement.
I should point out that Kitten spends more time in the prose department of LitOrg, otherwise this statement by her could be taken as narrow minded.

__________________
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Ronald Reagan ~ 1981

Poetry Editor @ Sacred Twilight

Kitten Courna

Thanks, Penelope.*smile*

__________________
Cadmus: Poor child, like a white swan warding its weak old father, why do you clasp those white arms about my neck?
Euripides; 'The Bacchae'

overheadalbatross

Basic grammar usage (they're/their/there or your/you're or it's/its) is necessary for proper writing. I don't mean just in essays, but in novels and poems. I don't care if you use fragments and run-ons to help strengthen your mood (so long as they're done properly), but not knowing Freshman-level writing skills just drags your whole work down.

__________________
Overhead the albatross hangs motionless upon the air.
And deep beneath the rolling waves, in labyrinths of coral caves..

Kimberly Bird

Gee wiz overheadalbatross, I think some of us stated that fact already.

Kimberly

overheadalbatross

Well, of course, but I just like to make myself feel special by hopping right on the grammatical-purity bandwagon.

__________________
Overhead the albatross hangs motionless upon the air.
And deep beneath the rolling waves, in labyrinths of coral caves..

AdamR

Got room for another?

__________________
"Excellence in all things, and all things to the glory of God."
- Motto of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

Fantasia

::laughs:: The thing about this thread that it's covered so much ground in a relatively small number of posts that it's hard to add anything more!

But my two centavos (which isn't even 1% of a penny's worth) will be heard nonetheless. I find that grammar and punctuation are important in writing, but perfect syntax doesn't make a good writer. A good example of this would be Jim Theis' "Eye of Argon". He had all the elements of a story; he had a solid structure; he had a plot and his punctuation and grammar was near perfect, but it made one hell of a bad story. Worse of the worse. So bad that its awfulness was its greatest asset as far as being read goes. My point being, good grammar and punctuation is generally important, but it couldn't save a badly written story. To follow that up, a good story could be made better if grammar and punctuation is improved, but the fact is, it was a good story to begin with.

As far as personal experience giving ones writing depth goes... it's difficult to put a label on how it should or shouldn't apply, especially in poems. Poems are so personal and reflective of the author's emotions/thoughts that whether or not the poet actually experienced something s/he's written about seems immaterial. Now as far as writing prose is concerned, I believe that actual experience isn't a requirement, but in some cases it may be important. Story tellers could refer to research of all kinds to be able to make a story realistic, but what I think a story requires is that an author should be prepared to tackle the subject matter on hand. Whether the preparation is done by externally gathered data or by personal experience is up to the author, so if you ask me whether a twelve year old child could write things about sex, I'd say maybe, maybe not. I could only judge it when I read it.

__________________

"God says he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're f%#ked." --Stephen, from "Braveheart"

gabriella

__________________
You write by sitting down and writing - Bernard Malamud.

strangedaze

I agree with the folks that say mastery over syntax and grammer and such is a necessity, and that the ones who have the firmest grasp on language are the ones who can most effectively break the rules and mold it to sui their own needs.

Onto what was said about people writing how they feel the "ought to", I am in total agreement with this theory. Often times I find myself assimilating an author's style into my own, and when this happens I sometimes lose my own voice and style. At the early stages of the writing life - the level I admit I am at - I don't think that is a bad thing at all, and I'm inclined to agree with whoever said that if your writing 'sucks' it's best to learn the rules and stick with the basics. Once you have a firm grasp on things and have developed your own style and technique, then can you start bending and shaping what you've learned through experience (and practice) and really break into new ground.

Just a few thoughts.

-SD