I've seen several bloggers rant about different aspects of written communication (grammar, spelling, word choice, etc). They all have another common thread--those offended by the error don't want to offend those around them by correcting the mistake.

I can agree that there are some times when a mistake should not be corrected--bosses tend to sulk when publically corrected for an improper use of 'whose,' for example. But I find that most people respond positively to a friendly correction, and will often ask for editorial review, realizing that fewer errors in their documents equates to better understanding by the readers. I understand the desire to rant or rave about issues as grave as dangling participles, language is a living process, highly dynamic, and adapted for current usage without guidance. To me, reaching the audience is more important than adherence to rules.

Which do you consider more relevant-strict compliance with rules, or effective communication? Do you think that both are possible? Does the writer's ability alter your opinion of the content?

Which do you consider more relevant-strict compliance with rules, or effective communication?

***Mav forgive me but isn't that a loaded q

Do you think that both are possible?

***Sure, why not

Does the writer's ability alter your opinion of the content?

***Often

Probably it is a loaded question. But, and this is where it amuses me, it seems that most of the articles I read contain some error of their own. It seems the ranters have blinders on and see just one error that aggravates them, whilst ignoring their own mistakes (which are likely equally aggravating to someone else).

...Which do you consider more relevant-strict compliance with rules, or effective communication?

I think that to communicate effectively, you have to consider your audience. For example, when writing for pre-schoolers, you shouldn't use university-level words.

Tailoring your writing to your reader does not, however, mean lobbing the rules. The rules were drawn up to help make your writing clearer, not muddy it up.



...Does the writer's ability alter your opinion of the content?

It depends upon what I'm reading.

If I'm reading a paper aimed at the business or scientific community, written in the native language of the writer, yes. If the writer can't be bothered to edit himself, how do I know he bothered to make sure the facts he's presenting are correct?

If I'm reading a fashion or music (pop/rap) piece in which the writer is conversing with his audience, no. The piece is aimed at a specific reader, and the grammar used may be particular to that segment of readership.

If I'm reading a book to entertain myself, I'm not bothered by one or two errors; they can simply be oversights by an editor.

If I keep finding spelling or gramatical errors, it'll irk me though. Too many errors force you to re-read sentences, even paragraphs, to understand meaning. It disturbs the flow of reading.

Hmm--time can be a factor, too. Shakespeare is unreadable to me. And wasn't there an item not too long ago that said many of today's children don't understand what Mark Twain's characters are saying?