“Grammar is a piano I play by ear. All I know about grammar is its power.”

           If you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m a quotes person. I guess I’ve decided when I can’t find just the right words to say something, someone else has likely succeeded. The observation, above, is from one of my favorite writers, Joan Didion. (I know it has absolutely nothing to do with this week’s topic, but I just want to pause here and give a plug for an amazing memoir she wrote a few years ago called “The Year of Magical Thinking.” Read it. Savor it. Her writing has a way of staying with you.)

            What I appreciate about this quote is it beautifully describes the topic Hartwell labored over, and literally sucked the life out of this week: more often than not we follow the appropriate rules of grammar unconsciously, without even knowing we’re following them, and if pressed, we can’t even state the rule we’re following! Grammar is a piano we play by ear, because in so many cases we learn to play it through exposure, habit, and that mysterious instinct that “something just doesn’t sound right,” which then causes us to self-correct. So this then begs the eternal question many of this week’s writers labored over, why is it that we seem to mess things up even more for the struggling English student when we attempt to “teach” grammar?  If Hartwell answered this, it was lost on me amid the confusing array of diagrams.

            Connor’s historical perspective was a bit more interesting; I was surprised how early formal grammar instruction came under attack. Yet, much like with Hartwell, even though a researcher would find fault with such instruction, the overall result is a reluctance to ever abandon such instruction. There’s clearly a fear factor going on here – if you have a gut reaction that something is not working, it’s still difficult to let it go if you have no idea what to replace it with.

            Finishing up the Miller collection with Lunsford & Ede’s self-analysis was somewhat puzzling. I didn’t quite see the connection with the other papers. However, their point that writers “are capable of creating internalized audiences that can lead not only to successful communication but also to disabling silences or to attempts at manipulative control,” was a fascinating point. I had always viewed the ability to write for a particular audience as a plus, not a negative – but I see their point.

            Lynn’s piece provided a well-rounded overview, however, the conversation on style, unfortunately, was very similar to others I’ve read, not truly offering a new perspective. But Lynn shouldn’t be criticized too harshly - defining “style” is a bit like defining beauty, or love, or happiness...finding a universally accepted definition for such a concept is about as likely as finding the ideal way to teach grammar.