Interview Annie Carlson: From English Bachelor degrees to video games

[Shannow]

I always love people who scream "YOU DO NOT START SENTENCES WITH AND."

Funny because we were taught that starting sentences in English with "but" or "and" was actually acceptable.

And Pet Semetary was one of the few books I ever read more than 50 pages of and didn't finish. In its case I stopped 40 pages short of the end. And that was as an impressionable teenager...

 

[Forest Dweller]

Pet Semetary was the book that made me stop reading King. Not because of the writing, though, but becase...

Spoiler

...everyone gets fucked in the end. At least everyone that is important to the story and that the readier is bound to care about. In true shitty horror movie fashion. And it wasn't even in a realistic evil-triumphing fashion. It was more like a deus ex machina that worked in favor of the bad guys.

 

[Solaris]

Don't English majors who write for a living know that you do not end a sentence with a preposition?

I have no doubt she is well aware of all of those rules. Real writers, ones with actual talent, know that such petty rules are less important than how a line scans or word choice or proper use of analogy or good ideas. Anyone can follow such basic grammar rules, but the ability to write well is a gift that is exceedingly rare. Read any truly great writer and see how much attention they pay to those sorts of rules. I find it is usually the people who can't write for shit that are the most pedantic about following "the rules". The point in fiction writing is to make the reader see what you want them to see and feel what you want them to feel. To immerse them in your world. Everything else is subordinate to that goal.

Absolutely.

It never ceases to amaze me on forums where you'll have a poster go into great detail and insight on something and then some fuckwit comes along and shoots it all down just because the grammar 'isn't quite right'.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I would not give a fuck because languages are evolving, only the backward conservative nitpicker insists on the status quo.

Of course every language represents generations worth of experience, so it's a good idea to stick to that, but if you come up with something better, it should be tried.

Did you notice that ancient languages like latin had a shitload of grammar rules, while the probably most accepted modern one (American English) has very little? Shows a clear trend for simplification imo.

 

[PrzeSzkoda]

And remember kids, you don't do no double negatives, ya. Because an old twit said so ages ago.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

You know, I'm always surprised how many people think "English major" means "GRAMMAR major." I majored in English LITERATURE, to be precise, with a secondary focus in creative writing. My areas of specialty were modern/contemporary literature, and Shakespeare. Now THAT motherfucker knew language. If a word didn't exist that he wanted? He just fucking made it up. Some didn't stick (like "smilets"), but many others did.

My MOM was a grammar major, and as a young kid it was always interesting to see her raise an eyebrow at "Mom me and Andy are going to go to the arcade" and her archly ask "Andy and who?" My brother would always ignore that. I never got it wrong. (THIS DOES NOT, however, mean that I am incapable of fucking up other rules. Hoo boy, is that ever true)

And the English language is such a bastard child of every other tongue. As someone once said, English doesn't "borrow" words from other languages, it knocks them out, drags them into an alley, and rifles through their pockets for interesting turns of phrase. A good writer should understand the rules, but know them well enough to wring their necks and twist them around to their liking. Same with genre. And that's why Jonathan Lethem is my favorite author. Read Motherless Brooklyn and Girl in Landscape for some truly excellent mad-scientist-caliber tweaking and blending of genres. Excellent work.

 

[Lyric Suite]

My areas of specialty were modern/contemporary literature

 

[PrzeSzkoda]

http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF099-Grammar_Wizard.gif

If someone's hell-bent on maintaining nonsensical rules, enforced on the language by someone's idea of what SHOULD be right, they're a failed linguist. Baisically, it means they don't know shit about language.

Annie Carlson wrote:
My areas of specialty were modern/contemporary literature

Elaborate, biatch.

 

[denizsi]

I have no doubt she is well aware of all of those rules. Real writers, ones with actual talent, know that such petty rules are less important than how a line scans or word choice or proper use of analogy or good ideas. Anyone can follow such basic grammar rules, but the ability to write well is a gift that is exceedingly rare. Read any truly great writer and see how much attention they pay to those sorts of rules. I find it is usually the people who can't write for shit that are the most pedantic about following "the rules". The point in fiction writing is to make the reader see what you want them to see and feel what you want them to feel. To immerse them in your world. Everything else is subordinate to that goal.

Not that I strongly disagree, but I'd rather say that authors great by the virtue of their writing are those who cleverly bend and twist rules and often redefine them, but still guided by them; not those who just pay less attention to them.

That's what rules are there for: to be bent and twisted, not to be outright ignored. Would you appreciate literature written in a fucked up mixture of 1337 speech and the stereotypical gangsta-nigger talk with the (in)comprehensibility of the average Bethesda employee? (Not that any mixture of either of these would _not_ be fucked up). I'm sure there would be innumerable amount of people who'd find it evolutionary and call it quality writing.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Elaborate, biatch.

It wasn't written in 19th century by a monocle wearing german guy with a big ass mustache. Don't you know anything?

 

[PrzeSzkoda]

Elaborate, biatch.

It wasn't written in 19th century by a monocle wearing german guy with a big ass mustache. Don't you know anything?

Oh, you mean, like, R. A. Salvatore?

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

My areas of specialty were modern/contemporary literature

Bababadal­gharagh­takammin­arronn­konn­bronn­tonn­erronn­tuonn­thunn­trovarrhoun­awnskawn­toohoo­hoordenen­thurnuk.

 

[MLMarkland]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.

Terrible grammar.

 

[Azarkon]

Also self-censorship. What a dick.

 

[MLMarkland]

Also self-censorship. What a dick.

Fucking good point.

 

[Xor]

I thought Tale of Two Cities was really fucking boring, anyway.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Modern/contemporary: basically shit covering F. Scott Fitzgerald onward. There's kind of a hazy line on where "modern" lit starts, some say 1945 or so, but I went "Fitzgerald," the dept. head agreed with me, and on I studied. THE END. I prefer that area because 1) I like emergent genres and 2) I can't fucking stand 19th century writing, holy shit, paid by the word NO KIDDING. Also "contemporary" is like, 25+ years ago. It's a vague fucking title. Shakespeare is almost refreshing because it's ONE FUCKIN GUY. (maybe)

 

[Lesifoere]

I confess I'm not fond of modernists or post-modernists. Hate most of them, actually, hate them with great hate.

I've not read King beyond that one short book--Carrie--but nothing about it was remarkable. I wonder if I'm missing out; not having read him means I can't join in the hate of yet another mediocre yet commercially successful author. But I guess that I've got Salvatore, Meyer and JK Rowling covered, which will have to suffice.

I always love people who scream "YOU DO NOT START SENTENCES WITH AND."

Funny because we were taught that starting sentences in English with "but" or "and" was actually acceptable.

It's a real treat: you can distinguish the idiots who take every word mouthed by incompetent English teachers literally from the people who know how to use the language (or who are actual students of linguistics) by this very thing.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Modernism = era of writing.

Post-modernism = style of criticism. Also total bullshit.

 

[Spectacle]

It's a real treat: you can distinguish the idiots who take every word mouthed by incompetent English teachers literally from the people who know how to use the language (or who are actual students of linguistics) by this very thing.

The internet would be far more readable if idiots would actually follow those rules, though. People should know their limitations and leave language improvisation in public discourse to the experts.

 

[Lesifoere]

Modernism = era of writing.

Post-modernism = style of criticism. Also total bullshit.

Technically, there're many writers and artists who identify as post-modernists, so there you go.

 

[Lingwe]

Don't English majors who write for a living know that you do not end a sentence with a preposition?

I often hear people saying "where are you at?" despite the fact that "where are you" would work perfectly fine as well. Not ending sentences in prepositions is a rule created by prescriptionists. The descriptionist philosophy says that if the speaker and listener both understand what is being said then it is grammatically correct.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Why do you need all those meaningless genres/subgenres/sub-sub genres? Just say which writer is good and who is crap, based on arguments..

People should know their limitations and leave language improvisation in public discourse to the experts.

People (like you) should know their limitations and leave opinions to smart people.

 

[Kane]

People should know their limitations and leave language improvisation in public discourse to the experts.

I disagree.

 

[Lesifoere]

Why do you need all those meaningless genres/subgenres/sub-sub genres? Just say which writer is good and who is crap, based on arguments..

Some genres are all crap. For example, almost anything that identifies as "romance" or "paranormal romance" is bound to be utter shit, so you can avoid entire sections when in a bookstore or library. Some stores even helpfully put books into the "Movie Tie-ins" shelf, which is another thing to shun. Very useful, those genre/sub-genre labels.

More seriously, I guess it sets boundaries and scope for literary criticism. Medieval texts are evaluated on different grounds from Victorian fiction: you wouldn't attempt to psychoanalyze Beowulf or Roland or read Old English poems in terms of colonialist politics, for example, whereas Victorian novels were rife with it. Gothic horror employs certain tropes, sometimes to mock/subvert them, but those tropes wouldn't work well anywhere else. Certain writers of certain eras rejected and rebelled against the traditions of other movements or other periods, such as the polarity between romanticists and realists. There're long and mighty disputes concerning different areas of drama.

On the other hand, though, sometimes genre is just a way to put on airs. Ask a literary writer who puts fantastic elements in his fiction and he'll probably insist that he's writing magical realism, damn it, not fantasy! Hell, ask Terry Goodkind. Hahaha.