On Grammar Nazism

It is too hot. I do not refer to a subject in that sentence because I don't feel I need to reference one. Everything is too bloody hot. I do not appreciate the sensation of being sautéed, much less without judicious seasoning. And so the nonsense has already begun to emerge. I can't help it. Anyway, the heat today is such that I am occupied only by imagining waxwork exhibitions around the country being reclaimed by force by nature, Simon Cowell's oblong bonce bubbling and weeping to the ground in a cascade of simulated flesh, followed swiftly by his liquified mammaries as feckless museum staff rush to recover the atrophied mass. This is all perhaps a hyperbolic assessment of the weather but I feel it accurately describes my own state of discomfort.

It is the anger precipitated in me by this heat that leads me to the savage tirade that is about to ensue. This is a topic that has been clawing at my insides for quite some time and it, perhaps wrongly, continues to disgust me in the greatest way possible. The phenomenon is that of the ruthless grammatical pedant. It even has a popular term now, and the Grammar Nazi movement boasts a huge membership. I will propose in this blog post that these people can all go and, for want of a better expression, fuck themselves (or as Christopher Hitchens so elegantly described this phrase, 'attempt an anatomical impossibility.')

I cannot possibly recall how many times I have seen arguments - naturally on the internet, where one is granted a certain degree of both anonymity and physical distance - which run smoothly and appear to be coming closer to an approximation of truth, when someone will misspell something or make a mistake with a completely insignificant piece of grammar and will be absolutely pilloried for it. I cannot describe how speedily this infuriates me. Correcting someone's grammar in this way, with the wicked intent to generate embarrassment, is seen as socially acceptable. People for some reason think it either validates their argument, or rather devalues their opponent's, or creates comedy. It does neither. In fact, the ridiculous incursion of grammar into every fucking argument has precisely the reverse effect on the buffoon who feels their argument is so poor that they must make recourse to grammatical, personal jibes. Their argument suddenly looks anaemic, in need of extraneous aid, and their disposition is highlighted as one lacking humour, creativity, tolerance, or disobedience.

Perhaps one reason for my abomination of this blasted habit in argument is that I don't like to be criticised. This perhaps is true, though I rarely voluntarily sit in the company of people liable to deploy this non-sequitur. The inference is what really aggravates me - the inference is: 'Your grammar has failed, therefore the reason behind your argument is undermined.' I fail to see the logic here.

An additional reason for my hatred is that I cannot bear to be corrected, or see someone corrected, by someone else who is not at all perfect in the subject they so mightily preach on. This is sanctimonious, greasy foul play. People should not have to feel that a typo, or even deliberate error, will derail an argument.

More importantly than this - who cares? Why does it matter that your adversary omitted an apostrophe? Argument is not an editorial submission; at least, not an editorial submission with regards to grammar. The focus of an argument should be on the underlying principles. As long as you can marshal your thoughts in a comprehensible way then you should not be penalised. In trifling debates on the internet, grammar should not determine truth.

I don't think grammar has ever been as zealously praised as it is today, and I've lost count of the amount of letters or manuscripts of past poets' works I've seen that have omitted apostrophes and such. Perhaps it bespeaks fault on my part but I don't find this offensive and I don't judge any party for it. I make reference to him in every blog post but I'm not tiring of it so I'm going to recidivate... Byron was one of the most literate people who ever lived and he very frequently abbreviated or omitted punctuation in his letters. This was done largely for economy - it was expensive to send long letters in the 1800s (a state we are returning to...) and grammar could easily be compromised if meaning remained intact. This is analogous to Twitter with its character limit. And this brings me to a similar point, which is that some people patrol Twitter in the most pathetic way imaginable, trawling through tweets and highlighting poor grammar for 'comedy'. I follow, or rather did follow, someone who used to enjoy doing this, who said he 'searched for common spelling and grammar errors' for material. I found a great empathy for an existence as tragic as his must be. To highlight a grammatical error in an argument is one thing, but to spitefully do this on Twitter, which is itself a place for nonsense and frivolity, is quite another.

Here we reach a crucial point which is ineluctably damning for the advocates of - actually, I refuse to refer to invoke its idiotic appellation any longer - Grammar Land jingoism. Namely, does poor grammar, through mistake or otherwise, indicate a lesser intellect? If yes, then you are simply mocking those above whose intellects you would place your own, which is malice. There is no place for malice in equanimous debate, and a lesser mind does not necessarily mean lesser beliefs besides. If no, then why bother to bring the point up at all? It cannot possibly outline a weakness in the argument's author.

I could go on about this for too long, but I feel I would be emulating the misplaced ardour against which I fulminate. Correcting grammar to win an argument is counter to promoting reason, and correcting grammar for no reason besides maleficence is counter to promoting kindness. This habit calls upon all of man's worst vices - superiority, spite, sadism, and a desire to win at all costs. Do not mistake my position on grammar itself - it is useful in the same way as mathematical notation, but poor mathematical notation says nothing of the mathematical principles underpinning the work. I try to use good grammar when I can but I won't go out of my way to correct others in their use of it. To correct either ignorance or error is equally unkind. I am no editor and no teacher. And I certainly will not substitute prissiness for reason.