I think it does annoy me to suffer those distractions and, frankly, as I see it, a good writer doesn't risk the slightest mistake of grammar. A good writer understands that even questionable grammar can destroy the reader's mood. It destroys "suspended disbelief," shocks the reader out of the trance from what is otherwise a good, imaginative story and leads him to the dull realization that one is spending time on a book laden with grammatical distractions.
Perhaps I should just get with the times and accept these grammatical compromises that are now made routinely by many writers. But there are so many impeccable writers who don't buy into those compromises, so why should I?
Personally, I feel that people writing books for publication in the English language ought to agree that when one writes, "None of us deserve to live another moment, especially you, Wayland," it ought to be corrected in the proofing to read, "None of us deserves to live another moment, especially you, Wayland." as it is a typical third party singular present tense.
Would anyone complain about "none of us deserves to live another moment, especially you, Wayland?" I doubt it. Why? Because the form, "none of us deserves to live another moment, not even you, Wayland," is proper.
Yes, I know. People now "accept" the form, "none DESERVE . . . " even though it violates a fundamental rule of grammar that if the subject is singular the verb should be in agreement.
It's funny to me that arguments such as the one cited above often do not even bother to mention that the word "none" is a contraction of "not one." Is that a myth? Would we ever write, "Not one of us DESERVE . . . ?" No. The word "deserve" will be instantly underlined in green by our word processor, prompting us to correct it in every such instance, by adding an "s" to make it agree with the singular subject. "None of us deserve," however, sneaks by the computerized grammar tools to end up in the final draft submitted to the printer, but does that make it right?
The common parlance argument is found on the web in other places, too. For instance, in a "Grammar Workshop," blog, Jennie Ruby writes, "The people who write grammar books finally decided to go with the flow and change the rule to match the way actual writers and speakers of English use the word." Excuse me, Jennie: All of them or just those who didn't learn to write and speak proper grammar? Am I not an actual writer and speaker of the English language? "The big change occurred," Jennie continues, "as best I can remember, around 1983. New grammar books published about that time started listing "none" as a word that can be plural or singular . . . depending on the word it refers to. The way to correctly use "none" (notice the split infinitive our compromising grammarian uses) "in a sentence today is to determine what word it is referring to, determine whether that word is plural or singular, and then make the verb plural or singular to match."
None of Ruby's arguments (that is to say, not one of them) makes any sense to me. Should we change the rules of grammar to conform to common speech, just because common speakers are too lazy use correct English? Why not make novels equivalent to fast food? That way we can disrupt the harmony of our head brains with hastily delivered novels the way we disrupt our stomachs with burgers from McDonalds.
Why don't we also allow, "Has your father SHOWED any further signs of regaining consciousness?" That also is a sentence taken verbatim from the book under review here. Just because a number of people in a certain geographical locale of the United States have developed a dialect amongst themselves over the last half century, (you know who you are) commonly making use of the improper "has showed," as in "he has showed a lot of frustration lately," rather than the correct form, "has shown," (a form with which one might wish to be familiar if one happens to be sitting for the SAT) should we now rewrite the rules of grammar to permit and even encourage novelists to write "has showed?" Is "has showed" any worse than "none are?"
Reading The Insiders you will be jarred awake by repeated split infinitives - forms that are also a subject of grammatical dispute. Why would a writer want to use a form so frequently that is disfavored by many of us? Is it not better to go with a form that doesn't offend? It isn't that hard to avoid split infinitives. Shakespeare used only one split infinitive his entire career and it was an instance of poetic license - a line in a sonnet, "Thy pity may deserve to pitied be." I like that line but I don't like, "Wilson turned around to squarely face the detective." Why not write, instead, "Wilson turned around to face the detective squarely?" Why not write, "Wilson turned and squarely faced the detective?" Give me a rest.
I also don't like, "You'll have the opportunity to personally turn him over . . . " Why not write, instead, "you'll have the opportunity to turn him over personally . . . " or if you feel that leaves some confusion, why not write, simply, (notice I didn't write, "why not simply write") "You will have the opportunity to turn him over?" the word "personally" is sort of redundant anyway, isn't it?
Yes, I confess. I'm pretty fussy when it comes to matters such as these. But I hasten to add that hundreds of excellent writers have fully satisfied me without causing any grammatical issues to arise in my hyper-critical brain. I've read through to the end of a great many books written by many great writers and rarely does a great writer evoke in me the degree of consternation that I felt reading through the first 5 percent of The Insiders. The bottom line is ,to simply be a good writer, none satisfy if he or she has not showed the proper respect for grammar. You will also find in the pages of The Insiders repeated instances of non-capitalized proper nouns.
I regret having to be so harsh in my criticism of such trivial matters, but I feel justified because I paid good money and you see? I haven't even commented on the plot or the characters, because I was totally being distracted by grammatical usage to the extent that I completely lost track of the story line and gave it up, moving on to a new book.
Here I rest my case. Yeah right.
