Etiquettes in Writing?

[cacian]

should there be etiquettes in writing?
If so
why?

[togre]

Should there be etiquettes for writing is an almost meaningless question, since there are etiquettes for writing currently. Sure they vary widely depending on the type of writing in which one is engaged, but they exist. I'm defining etiquette as "a set of conventions of grammar, vocabulary and style that is generally agreed upon as 'appropriate' by those who read and compose a particular type of material."

For example if you are writing a term paper in text-eese you will fail. If you write a text with "whereas's" and "the afore-mentioned party's" you will not be understood and probably will be mocked. There are more or less precise or rigid expectations of these types with ever mode of writing.

As to the "should" I suppose it makes sense that there are some agreed conventions--without the agreement communication becomes increasingly impossible.

[cacian]

Thank you for the reply.
I meant etiquettes in terms of mannerism/attitudes/topics..
Grammar is beside the point.
I means sifting the parfanelia of grammar and accents and everything else.

[cafolini]

Should there be etiquettes for writing is an almost meaningless question, since there are etiquettes for writing currently. Sure they vary widely depending on the type of writing in which one is engaged, but they exist. I'm defining etiquette as "a set of conventions of grammar, vocabulary and style that is generally agreed upon as 'appropriate' by those who read and compose a particular type of material."

For example if you are writing a term paper in text-eese you will fail. If you write a text with "whereas's" and "the afore-mentioned party's" you will not be understood and probably will be mocked. There are more or less precise or rigid expectations of these types with ever mode of writing.

As to the "should" I suppose it makes sense that there are some agreed conventions--without the agreement communication becomes increasingly impossible.

I think you have it upsidedown. Without the agreement, communication multiplies and becomes increasingly possible where it was not. Maybe you don't feel like handling it, or you believe in chaos.
But chaos is only an indifference type inference from orders we deem inconvenient. That you do not know the order doesn't mean it does not occur.

[Charles Darnay]

Based on my understanding of etiquette, I do not see a place for it in literature - except when it is part of the story itself of course. Etiquette to me is a form of stifling, a sort of "good-nature" censorship - so then we get into censorship in literature...

[Buh4Bee]

I may be missing something here, but my understanding of etiquette in writing has to do with letter writing, emails, and business letters. In this case, yes, there is etiquette that should be followed, although in many cases it is not.

[cacian]

I may be missing something here, but my understanding of etiquette in writing has to do with letter writing, emails, and business letters. In this case, yes, there is etiquette that should be followed, although in many cases it is not.
By etiquettes I mean a certain format/manners/some kind of guidelines to follow in order not to offend readers.

Based on my understanding of etiquette, I do not see a place for it in literature - except when it is part of the story itself of course. Etiquette to me is a form of stifling, a sort of "good-nature" censorship - so then we get into censorship in literature...

The point of etiquettes/guidelines is that it avoids censorship.
I know that I can write about certain and not others that is considered etiquettes.

[cacian]

so what would say are your etiquettes in writing
For example it is best to avoind writing about 'INCEST' or 'VIOLENT SEX'.

[Alexander III]

Based on my understanding of etiquette, I do not see a place for it in literature - except when it is part of the story itself of course. Etiquette to me is a form of stifling, a sort of "good-nature" censorship - so then we get into censorship in literature...

Essentially:

20th century term for positive censorship - etiquette

21st century term for positive censorship - Political correctness'

[Alexander III]

so what would say are your etiquettes in writing
For example it is best to avoind writing about 'INCEST' or 'VIOLENT SEX'.

Honestly I think the best and truest etiquette is writing what you know about.

Writing what you don't know about in the majority of cases comes out horrible, so the proper writer etiquette (for the sake of his readers) should be to sticking to writing what he knows of.

If in your life you have experienced incest, it is fine to write about it and eliminate the readers with that experience. If you have not experienced incest, and write about it as "imagined" it is rather unpolite making the reader read something which often comes out as pretentious and cliche.

[Ecurb]

Honestly I think the best and truest etiquette is writing what you know about.

Writing what you don't know about in the majority of cases comes out horrible, so the proper writer etiquette (for the sake of his readers) should be to sticking to writing what he knows of.

If in your life you have experienced incest, it is fine to write about it and eliminate the readers with that experience. If you have not experienced incest, and write about it as "imagined" it is rather unpolite making the reader read something which often comes out as pretentious and cliche.

I think Tolstoy should never have written "War and Peace", since he never experienced Napoleon's invasion of Russia. In addition, Nabokov should never have written "Lolita", unless he had an affair with his wife's nymphette daughter. Sophocles should surely have avoided writing "Oedipus Rex", since as far as we know he never married his mother or murdered his father.

Also, writers rarely want to "eliminate readers with that experience" -- they want to GAIN readers, not eliminate them. (I think Alexander may have meant "illuminate".)

[tonywalt]

You can write anything you like, unless it's politically incorrect.

[cacian]

I think Tolstoy should never have written "War and Peace", since he never experienced Napoleon's invasion of Russia. In addition, Nabokov should never have written "Lolita", unless he had an affair with his wife's nymphette daughter. Sophocles should surely have avoided writing "Oedipus Rex", since as far as we know he never married his mother or murdered his father.

Also, writers rarely want to "eliminate readers with that experience" -- they want to GAIN readers, not eliminate them. (I think Alexander may have meant "illuminate".)

well in that case the whole of ''war and peace'' and ''lolita'' for example is all a world of fantasy because it is about repression and frustrations.
How else would you explain fanataisies of any kind.
what you don't have you do want badly because there is nothing else to think about or to do.
As to Oedipus Rex I am not sure how this fits in but it sounds rather sickening to think one can involve one's self in such writing without having suffered it.
I am at loss to why it was if it wasn't.

[cacian]

You can write anything you like, unless it's politically incorrect.

what is politically incorrect?
It depends on the person right?

[Ecurb]

As to Oedipus Rex I am not sure how this fits in but it sounds rather sickening to think one can involve one's self in such writing without having suffered it.
I am at loss to why it was if it wasn't.

I'm just giving Alexander a hard time. Tolstoy actually agrees with Alexander (sort of). The reality, though, is "autobiography" is the form of literature in which one writes about one's own experiences. "Fiction" involves writing about imaginary experiences (for the sake of fun, I am oversimplifying Alexander's reasonable, but not clearly expressed, point).

[tonywalt]

what is politically incorrect?
It depends on the person right?

Politically incorrect is whatever the mass media feeds us as politically incorrect. It could be words, descriptions, labels, or certain beliefs. The "sheeple" (people who follow whatever the current dictates, even while saying that they do not) will slavishly follow the rules

Cacian, you sound like a person who loathes political correctness.

[stlukesguild]

Charles Darnay- Based on my understanding of etiquette, I do not see a place for it in literature - except when it is part of the story itself of course. Etiquette to me is a form of stifling, a sort of "good-nature" censorship - so then we get into censorship in literature...

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written, that is all." - Wilde


cacian- By etiquettes I mean a certain format/manners/some kind of guidelines to follow in order not to offend readers.

The point of etiquettes/guidelines is that it avoids censorship.
I know that I can write about certain and not others that is considered etiquettes.

I'm with Charles here. What you seem to be describing as proper etiquette is simply a notion of self-imposed censorship... or an informal notion of what is or is not "in good taste"... "offensive"... "disturbing"... etc...

As usual, Oscar Wilde was right (see quote above). The finest art is not always tasteful. Sometimes it is offensive... disturbing... uncomfortable. As an individual I always have the choice not to read it. As a parent or teacher I have the responsibility to decide what is of is not "appropriate" reading for my children. As an artist, the notion of allowing etiquette or proper manners (or political correctness) dictate what I may or may not convey smells of censorship (no matter what terminology you choose).

[kensington]

Charles Darnay- Based on my understanding of etiquette, I do not see a place for it in literature - except when it is part of the story itself of course. Etiquette to me is a form of stifling, a sort of "good-nature" censorship - so then we get into censorship in literature...

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written, that is all." - Wilde


cacian- By etiquettes I mean a certain format/manners/some kind of guidelines to follow in order not to offend readers.

The point of etiquettes/guidelines is that it avoids censorship.
I know that I can write about certain and not others that is considered etiquettes.

I'm with Charles here. What you seem to be describing as proper etiquette is simply a notion of self-imposed censorship... or an informal notion of what is or is not "in good taste"... "offensive"... "disturbing"... etc...

As usual, Oscar Wilde was right (see quote above). The finest art is not always tasteful. Sometimes it is offensive... disturbing... uncomfortable. As an individual I always have the choice not to read it. As a parent or teacher I have the responsibility to decide what is of is not "appropriate" reading for my children. As an artist, the notion of allowing etiquette or proper manners (or political correctness) dictate what I may or may not convey smells of censorship (no matter what terminology you choose).

I understand this, but I tend to forget it over and over. If you've lived your whole life thinking that so many things are wrong, then automatically you just think, "Oh no, it's wrong!! It's completely wrong!"

[cacian]

Politically incorrect is whatever the mass media feeds us as politically incorrect. It could be words, descriptions, labels, or certain beliefs. The "sheeple" (people who follow whatever the current dictates, even while saying that they do not) will slavishly follow the rules

Cacian, you sound like a person who loathes political correctness.

Oh no I do not loathe it.
I find to be over the top and exagerated.
It can go overboard and stop you from expressing yourself 'naturally'.
I find obstructive because it makes one more self aware then not.

[cacian]

Charles Darnay- Based on my understanding of etiquette, I do not see a place for it in literature - except when it is part of the story itself of course. Etiquette to me is a form of stifling, a sort of "good-nature" censorship - so then we get into censorship in literature...

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written, that is all." - Wilde


cacian- By etiquettes I mean a certain format/manners/some kind of guidelines to follow in order not to offend readers.

The point of etiquettes/guidelines is that it avoids censorship.
I know that I can write about certain and not others that is considered etiquettes.

I'm with Charles here. What you seem to be describing as proper etiquette is simply a notion of self-imposed censorship... or an informal notion of what is or is not "in good taste"... "offensive"... "disturbing"... etc...

As usual, Oscar Wilde was right (see quote above). The finest art is not always tasteful. Sometimes it is offensive... disturbing... uncomfortable. As an individual I always have the choice not to read it. As a parent or teacher I have the responsibility to decide what is of is not "appropriate" reading for my children. As an artist, the notion of allowing etiquette or proper manners (or political correctness) dictate what I may or may not convey smells of censorship (no matter what terminology you choose).


As usual, Oscar Wilde was right (see quote above). The finest art is not always tasteful. Sometimes it is offensive... disturbing... uncomfortable. As an individual I always have the choice not to read it
Although I kind see how he means to go about it and there other ways to express discomfort and disturbance.
The question I am asking is what do you want to get out fo your reading?
Do you want to feel good about a piece of literature or do you want to feel depressed and shocked?
I simply cannot understand why I would want to read disturbing things.
I personally do not understand how these offensive/disturbing/uncomfortable things do contribute tomy well being when I am quietly relaxing whilst reading.
I consider reading as a hobbie and therefore everything I want to read has to be stress free.

[stlukesguild]

The question I am asking is what do you want to get out fo your reading?

While sometimes I may make the decisions to seek out a certain type of writing... to look for something "lighter" and optimistic after having read something heavy and/or bleak, I do not generally go to literature... or art in general with some preconceived notion as to what I wish to get out of it.

Do you want to feel good about a piece of literature or do you want to feel depressed and shocked?

I don't "want" either. Some great works of literature are joyful and life-affirming and others are shocking... unnerving... disturbing. Life itself is not one-sided. I would not expect any less of art.

I simply cannot understand why I would want to read disturbing things.

One major purpose of art is to engage in a dialog with life. Life is not always a bed of roses.

I personally do not understand how these offensive/disturbing/uncomfortable things do contribute tomy well being when I am quietly relaxing whilst reading.

I personally do not think of the "Arts" as belonging in the "Leisure and Entertainment" section of the newspapers. Art means something more to me. Certainly art can be entertaining, and if I am to find any value in it, I must take some degree of pleasure in it, but some find pleasure in the difficult and the challenging (just as some enjoy the New York Times crossword puzzle), and pleasure can be found in the ugly... the disturbing... the unsettling... the horrible transformed through art.

I consider reading as a hobbie and therefore everything I want to read has to be stress free.

I have little time for hobbies. The arts are a passion for me.

[kensington]

The question I am asking is what do you want to get out fo your reading?

While sometimes I may make the decisions to seek out a certain type of writing... to look for something "lighter" and optimistic after having read something heavy and/or bleak, I do not generally go to literature... or art in general with some preconceived notion as to what I wish to get out of it.

Do you want to feel good about a piece of literature or do you want to feel depressed and shocked?

I don't "want" either. Some great works of literature are joyful and life-affirming and others are shocking... unnerving... disturbing. Life itself is not one-sided. I would not expect any less of art.

I simply cannot understand why I would want to read disturbing things.

One major purpose of art is to engage in a dialog with life. Life is not always a bed of roses.

I personally do not understand how these offensive/disturbing/uncomfortable things do contribute tomy well being when I am quietly relaxing whilst reading.

I personally do not think of the "Arts" as belonging in the "Leisure and Entertainment" section of the newspapers. Art means something more to me. Certainly art can be entertaining, and if I am to find any value in it, I must take some degree of pleasure in it, but some find pleasure in the difficult and the challenging (just as some enjoy the New York Times crossword puzzle), and pleasure can be found in the ugly... the disturbing... the unsettling... the horrible transformed through art.

I consider reading as a hobbie and therefore everything I want to read has to be stress free.

I have little time for hobbies. The arts are a passion for me.


I understand better now about visual arts. I've always wanted paintings to be only beautiful, and I suppose in a shallow way. I hadn't compared it to literature before.

In literature I know that I love stories such as Tess of the D'Urbervilles, which is disturbing, and unsettling and horrible, and transformed through words. So I see that the ugly visual art is the same concept. I can relate to stories like Tess because life isn't a bed of roses. And with literature, I don't want a "happy ever after" Hollywood spin - I want to see the various facets of real life - so with visual arts, it's the same concept.