Woe is I, with apologies

Patricia T. O'Conner and
her husband, Stewart Kellerman.
From www.grammarphobia.com

I will begin with apologies to Patricia T. O'Conner. I don't know her. I'm sure she's a lovely person. However, in this, and the next few posts, I may have less than kind things to say about grammar, even though she's written a well-respected book about it (Woe is I). Some have even called her book, "Invigorating and entertaining..." (Publishers Weekly). Really? I believe those are two words are as antithetical to grammar as any in the English language.

I really want to like grammar. Apparently, having good grammar is a quality that makes me credible as a writer. Perhaps. If so, then I guess my goal will be to always have a really good  proofreader by my side. But I think credibility for writers is so much more than grammar. Credibility is about making your meaning understood with the words you choose. And by meaning, I mean the ability for a writer to do things like bring the reader into a different reality; let readers in on an inside joke; bring the most iron-souled reader to tears without completely understanding why; keep the reader coming back for more. Grammar has its use in the world of writing, to be sure. But does anybody really CARE whether I used a commas or semicolons as separators when I was listing how I defined making meaning understood earlier in this paragraph? I know what my answer is.

Much to Ms.O' Conner's credit, it appears that even she agrees that some rules are antiquated. Her second-to-last chapter, "The Living Dead: Let Bygone Rules Be Gone" gives me some hope. After skimming the chapter, while I agree with most of them, I'm sure the English majors (for whom I work) will laugh out loud, and I'll still get the nasty red marks on my papers. (Heavy sigh.)

So, Ms. O'Conner, I'm sure you've had to overcome your doubters, and I will join their ranks. I hope you persuade me to see grammar as amusingly as you seem to. Then, perhaps, I will begin to care more about it.