I'm an editor, which means I love the nitty-gritty details. LOVE them. Lucky for me, the English language is rife with opportunities for persnicketiness. There are complicated rules about the placement of every word, letter, and dot. Making sure you follow the rules is what I do. So you might be surprised to learn this:
I do not believe you need to follow every single style and grammar rule all the time. Actually, I'm not sure I really believe they are "rules" to begin with.
True, academic and tech writing often demands adherence to rules. But in creative writing, fiction, and creative nonfiction, breaking style norms is a big part of style, maybe most of it. Even the most basic of grammar "rules" can be broken if they are purposeful. You already know this. Everyone knows. Picasso said, "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist," and we've all heard some reiteration of that phrase as some point or another. We know it, but do we believe it?
Before you just dismiss me now (an editor who doesn't follow the rules?? Gasp!), you should probably know that I am not alone. Read any writing or grammar blog for long and you'll notice they'll say some variation of the same thing. Even Grammar Girl herself admits that many choices in writing are style choices rather than rules. But in case you would like to hear it from someone with more authority than Grammar Girl, here are a few quotes from the Q&A section of the Chicago Manual of Style Online (In my mind, there is nobody higher when it comes to grammar):
Use your judgment.
Reexamine any rule you were taught that includes the word “never” or “always.”
It’s not wrong to add a comma in such a long sentence (even where it is otherwise ungrammatical) in order to give the reader a breather.
Your sentence is an example of a comma splice. Some readers will be distracted by it; some will consider it incorrect; a few will take it as one more sign that civilization is coming to an end." (By the way, CMOS lists comma splices as "controversial" rather than grammar no-nos.)
And here's my personal favorite:
There are various kinds of writing where cleaving to the CMOS rules would suck out all the life and character. There’s no shame in avoiding that.
Waaaaa? This from CMOS? The rulebook people themselves?
Actually, as you become familiar with CMOS, you'll notice that very few (if any) rules are presented as set in stone. The book is full of wishy-washy language like probably, and traditionally. Writers are always a little uncomfortable when I point this out. Actually, in my experience, it's the authors who are most strict about those absolute rules (even sometimes wrong ones) more than the editors. You'll hear things like, Never use passive language. Show don't tell. No summaries or infodumps. Stick to the proven plot points. Cut alll adverbs. Authors cling to that stuff like licked hard-candy to the bottom of your sock.
If you have other authors review your story, it will probably come back with every -ly adverb crossed out, every past-perfect tense eliminated, every rule strictly enforced, regardless of what those changes may do to the writing. However, ask why those adverbs or using the past perfect is bad, and those authors will respond with some variation of "its lazy," (uh...) "It's just bad writing" (ha!), or maybe even, "It's incorrect" (double ha!).
Despite our assertions that rules are made to be broken, we as writers believe in those rules with a religious fervor. Yes, I'm including myself, now. Even the suggestion that I might be questioning "show don't tell" has some of you searching through my blog for a grammatical error so you can comfortably disregard me.
I do believe in show don't tell, folks (well, sort of). I just also think conscientious writers—nay, artists—should have better reasons for their choices.
For instance, I usually suggest avoiding the overuse of adverbs in creative work, but not always. I don't think adverbs are inherently bad writing, lazy writing, or incorrect. But in some cases, they do need to be replaced with something more purposeful. Like instead of "happily jumping," you could write a more concise and visual "leaping." Instead of "angrily typing," you could write, "pounding the keyboard" (like I'm doing right now). Not just because it's changing two words for one, though that is part of it, but also because omitting adverbs can force you to either choose a more concise action verb or to describe what the scene and emotion look like in better detail. Omitting adverbs can go hand-in-hand with showing instead of telling.
But still, sometimes following that recommendation isn't the right choice for that moment, your style, or your story.
Sometimes an emotion or action is too complex to fit into one concise verb, and trying to describe what it looks like would not only slow down the pacing but also be ultimately unsuccessful anyway. Many of us can look at a friend's face and suspect instantly what he's feeling. We don't have to say to ourselves, Oh, his eyebrows are pulled low, and the corners of his mouth are down, so he must be upset. In fact, we probably don't even notice those details; we just notice that he is unhappy. Reading a story that never interprets any actions or expressions is a little like jumping into the head of someone who can't read social cues or expressions. After a while, this type of writing can feel blind and emotionless, just as writing with too many adverbs can be overly emotional or cheap. As with any other tool (yes, I said tool, not rule), the placement of adverbs should be thoughtful. Completely removing them from your vocabulary is extremely limiting.
Grammar and style rules are there for two reasons: first, to enhance clarity; and second, to add to style and voice. If you don't know why you are supposed to write in active voice, find out, and make sure it's appropriate for your story before spending the time to change everything. Don't discard a whole set of the tools at your disposal. Because, again, that is what all these rules are. Tools. Breaking them can be as useful as keeping them.
I think the main reason writers cling so readily to the rules is because blind obedience is infinitely easier than breaking rules artfully. Knowing when and how to break the rules is hard.
But breaking the rules and using the tools is the next step. It is what advances you on the path to becoming an artist. Now go forth and create!