There's no easy way of saying this, so I'll come straight out with it. I note, with some disappointment, that many of the contributions to the discussion topics often contain misspellings and are often ungrammatical.
I am not talking here of the deliberate use of colloquialisms or the use of a particular idiom, but silly errors that, with a moments inspection, could easily be corrected.
Why does this matter? Well, I was about to recommend this website to a non-poet friend to see how interesting the poet-profiles are, but I have now had second thoughts. What must he think of some of the poets’ write-ups in the discussion section when so much is marred by poor and sloppy writing? This website is surely supposed to celebrate poetry and creative writing in its widest sense.
I hope this strikes a chord with fellow members; it is not intended as a grumpy old man's moan, although it may sound like it.
With good wishes to all members,

Alex

Ah, yes, I note that there was a non-deliberate error on my part; I wrote 'with a moments inspection' which, should, of course, have had an apostrophe in 'moment's', denoting the possessive case.
My apologies, and I guess I had that coming.
But PLEASE don't let that distract you from considering seriously the merits of correct spelling and grammar when using this website.

Hello, Alex, I understand, and respect, your concerns about grammar and punctuation. However, Write Out Loud is a paradox. It promotes and supports poetry as an oral tradition. The website offers performance poets an opportunity to display written versions of their work. It may be that those poets who veer towards the ungrammatical, and whose spelling is awry, are dyslexic or have problems with literacy. Not everyone is best served by the educational system, despite the best efforts of genuinely dedicated teachers. Then again, some people operate outside the dictionary for the sheer exhileration of being an Alphabet Anarchist.

Historically, literature has always supported many wild variations of spelling, grammar and punctuation. From medieval poetry to the Metaphysical poets (and some of the Romantics such as William Blake, whose idosyncracies may be seen as enhancing his work), blessed the core of a word with his or her own variant spelling. The Americans succesfully fought against the English grammarians who had attempted to regulate spelling and opted for simplicty. Our current idea of what is correct is merely a result of an attempt at creating a concensus. It could be argued that variation in spelling and grammar and punctuation will always be with us since attempts to create a correct version of something that is in a permenant state of flux is doomed to failure. And, if I've made any 'mistakes' in this reply, may I state that it is a stamp of my individuality! Long live the Individual Word Hoard!
P.S. There are many different forms of the surbame 'Smith.' Which is the correct one?
Best Wishes, Moxy

Hello, again, Alex. Respect due.. I hope you enjoy my perspective, too! I wasn't the slightest bit distracted by any 'errorrs' in your comment. I was more interested in the content.
Best Wishes, Moxy

Dear Moxy,
I take your point, which is really about historical development and relativism (e.g., William Blake). I have absolutely no objection to poets 'doing their own thing', whether deliberately or through the idiosyncrasy of individual style. But the matter cannot end there. English, since the time of Blake, who you quote so judiciously, has been standardised, whether we like it or not. Some of the entries encountered here have clearly been written with Standard English in mind, but nevertheless have contained crass errors (for example, I have seen 'by' when it should have been 'buy'). This is just plain wrong.
Secondly, variance from standard English is acceptable when the writer demonstrates how the particular variant is being applied, i.e., they clearly know what they are doing, as in e.e. cummings. What is not acceptable, in my view, is gross errors being palmed off as a poetic variant. That is being merely disingenuous; dishonest, in a word.
This is not an argument for standardisation of English in poetry (perish the thought), but simply that writers using this website be more careful about the way they use language. What they write should be what they intend, error free. Ain't that the point, Gov?

Hello Alex! Yes, I accept all your points but still think that those poets who seem slipshod and slapdash may be battling dyslexia and an education system that didn't quite serve them well. I would hate to deny these poets the opportunity to offer printed samples of their work.
English is awash with new influences on a daily basis, and who knows if what now seems to be poor spelling actually becomes the new standard -- for example, texting is having a dynamic effect on language use, grammar, punctuation and spelling.
Again, we are looking at spoken word poems. It could be said that they are corrupted by the medium of spelling!
Emily Dickenson and John Clare are also fine examples of poets whose grammer, punctuation and spelling could be said to have been defective by the standard of their own times. How sad if this had prevented their publication! Best Wishes, Moxy

Dear Moxy,
Good of you to get back so promptly.
While one can appreciate that those who suffer from dyslexia or educational deprivation in some way or another have great difficulties to surmount, the fact that we recognise their problems implies the presence of standards to be attained. If that were not true, then there would be no problem. The question of standards will not go away, and whether we like it or not, standardised English (allowing for differences across the Atlantic divide) is here to stay. Of course language develops rapidly and these developments often arise from technical or street-wise sources: witness 'blog'. But such developments do not invalidate the existence of standard English. Fresh developments that arise blend into the fabric of the existing language usage. I agree, it is these developments that help to keep language fresh.
Secondly, I would say that if anyone feels that they have been deprived in the course of their education, then they can 'get out there and do something about it'. It is easier nowdays to obtain suitable qualifications than it has ever been; there are so many grants available today. In addition, people who suffer from dyslexia or a similar disability can now receive free training and help - at least in my area, which is in and around Cambridge.
What I was saying originally is that poets who write on this website should be more careful about the way they write; that this website should be a showcase for good, reasoned English, correctly spelt and in a sound grammatical form. The actual poems are the business of the poets and I would not presume to criticise their work.
By the way - without intending to be pedantic - it is Emily Dickinson, not Dickenson. Sorry, but there we are, that is how she spelt her name. I agree - a marvellous poet.

With all good wishes,

Alex

Hello Alex, I'm afraid my sympathies remain with people who struggle with the English language. Illiteracy still carries a real social stygma -- hence the often repeated 'Get Rid of your Gremlins' public service commercial. As for spelling a poet's name incorrectly -- I see it didn't stop you knowing who I meant! Well, I have a type of dyslexia that means I struggle with nouns, proper names being something I find problematic despite being educated to MA (Distinction) level and being set on a PhD course. I am also a professional writer, having written plays for the BBC for 20 years. Having help does not always alleviate the problem, it simply gives the 'sufferer' greater hope that he or she will be able to share their thoughts in writing without too much condemnation and some humility on the part of those who have never found expressing themselves in writing a struggle. God Bless the WOL site for their support of all levels of literacy! Best Wishes, Lavinia

My 'real' name is 'Lavinia' but I often have problems spelling it, putting the correct letters in the right order. I was unable to get it right at all until I was fifteen, despite constant pressure to do so. My friends nicknamed me 'Moxy' as it's a name I can spell correctly more times than not! Best Wishes, Moxy! P.S. Even Chomsky's theories of deep grammar have come under fire.

To be honest, as long as I know what the author of the poem is trying to say then I don't bother about the spellings too much.

Me, too, Cayn! Best Wishes, Moxy

Hello Alex! Apologies, first, for 'stygma'' -- I couldn't resist a spot of devilment! All I can say is that I remain proud to be part of WOL and I celebrate the glorious imagination of every poet on the site. Best Wishes, Moxy

Dear Moxy (Lavinia) and Cayn,
I appreciate what you are both saying, but the discussion seems to have gone off track somewhat. My original point is that entries on this website should, wherever possible, comply with standard English, unless a deviant form is being used deliberately. In other words, I see no reason for sloppy, unchecked entries written in poor English. I am NOT commenting on poems, because that is an entirely, although legitimate, subect.
Second, I did not begin this discussion in order to trawl through the personal details of fellow poets, although if people wish to bring them into the discussion, that is up to them. We have all had, I am sure, difficulties to surmount, and in this light, I can appreciate that one can, and should, be justly proud of one's academic and literary achievements.
What I do hold to is the question of standards. In our present era, when we are surrounded by language that is grossly corrupted, particularly in the news media, I think that precision in the use of language can only benefit meaning and the common ground of understanding. By the way, Chomsky's theory of deep grammatical structures has long been discredited although his theory of TSG still has contributive value.
As Wittgenstein said, 'The limits of my language mean the limits of my world'.
With all good wishes,

Alex

Dear Moxy (Lavinia) and Cayn,
APOLOGIES - THIS IS A REVISED RESPONSE (the original one suffered from thick finger syndrome).
I appreciate what you are both saying, but the discussion seems to have gone off track somewhat. My original point is that entries on this website should, wherever possible, comply with standard English, unless a deviant form is being used deliberately. In other words, I see no reason for sloppy, unchecked entries written in poor English being posted. I am NOT commenting on poems, because that is an entirely, although legitimate, subect.
Second, I did not begin this discussion in order to trawl through the personal details of fellow poets, although if people wish to bring them into the discussion, that is up to them. We have all had, I am sure, difficulties to surmount, and in this light, I can appreciate that one can, and should, be justly proud of one's academic and literary achievements.
What I do hold to is the question of standards. In our present era, when we are surrounded by language that is grossly corrupted, particularly in the news media, I think that precision in the use of language can only benefit meaning and our common ground of understanding. By the way, Chomsky's theory of deep grammatical structures has long been discredited although his theory of TSG still has contributive value.
As Wittgenstein said, 'The limits of my language mean the limits of my world'.
With all good wishes,

Alex
Alex Smith - Tue 30th Jan 07

Good Morning, Alex! Sorry, I'm unclear as to why you think ungrammatical matters and spelling mistakes should be unacceptable in the poet's autobiographical details but acceptable in their poetry. I thought you were arguing for the overall standardisation of English.
As for N. Chomsky -- some linguists still give deep grammar a little bit of credence - every theory throws up matter that eventually leads to its deletion. Best Wishes, Moxy

Alex

I agree. I am an offender.
If I feel very enthusiastic about a piece Im writing I rush it and make mistakes, however if I spend too much time on the grammar, Iose the flow.

I will work on improving this.

I agree though, especially If you are talking of reccomending the web pages to others.

Oddly I agree with both sides in this discussion.

It gets right up my fundament when people make stupid spelling/grammatical errors in their profiles and their poetry. This, I growl, is your window on the world, your chance to show other poets what you can do to shine like a diamond amidst the glitterati of the poets on Write Out Loud - yet you can't even be bothered to spell check your CV or poems you use "i" and "I" and don't even notice - you morons I opine. Think about what you are doing - DO Yourself justice!

But then I pause, wait a minute - you're a middle aged, middle class tosser who was once working class and rejected all this crap! What the fuck does it matter that a person is so carried away with the muse and the flow that they use both the "i" and the "I" and spell things wrongly when we UNDERSTAND what they are saying. What does it matter what the pedant in us thinks about where the inverted comma falls - I think I missed that lesson at school and have a vague idea. But whether you write "Poets' Showcase" or "Poet's Showcase" anyone who reads English knows what you mean. So why get upset about it? In 20 years txt langge may rule to the horror and consternation of me and you but that may be the new norm - That has always been the way with English, a bastardised language not afraid to co-opt from other languages, mutate and thrive - innit?
But then again the puritan in me..........
yours, in despair and celebration of this modernism
Mr Schizophrenia

For me it's the communication of ideas that matters. I cannot be ashamed of a site where ideas and original perceptions proliferate. Then again people often either see the overall picture, or they analyse components without an overview. Maybe I'm just a bigger picture person. Anyway, I never presume that misspellings or grammatical mistakes are signs of laziness -- what right do I have to think that?

The purpose of language is to communicate and if you have succeeded in doing that, you are using the language effectively. With a living language, nothing can be absolutely established as being correct or incorrect although straying too far from common usage risks reducing the effectiveness of your communication so it is good practice to take care over possible accidental errors and considering punctuation to see whether you can aid understanding by its judicious use.

Part of my enjoyment of language involves intentional mis-spelling of words, various sorts of pun and using words in the 'wrong' context in order to cause the reader to wonder what I am getting at, or possibly to read the piece again to identify other examples of eccentric grammar or word use. In doing things like this I do not necessarily distinguish between things which are presented as poetry or as biography or apparently straight prose. I do not see the need to distinguish between art and 'real life' with very strict boundaries.

Unconventional spelling or usage may be the consequence of laziness or excessive haste, but it could also come from the nature of ones brain function (e.g. dyslexia) or English not being ones first language or other reasons. Rather than making general criticism, it seems to me to be more positive to ask an author what their meaning is whenever it is unclear.

Having tried to argue against it, I have now demonstrated myself to be a po faced old fart like every other pedant.

Unconventional spelling will always be problamatic to many, Dictionary Thesaurus Spell Checkers are accessible tools for the writer. But it does interfere with the flow of ideas and inspiration.. When I have time I will agonise over the essay,poem or letter. But I feel when amongst friends who do not judge me by my mistakes, I can relax and maybe take risks and just go with the flow. With an important corrrespondence I am sure many will take the time to insure that grammar and spelling are corrected as I do. Life is not a test, its for experiencing lots of vital and fulfilling pastimes. Do not judge me because I am not an intellectual, I have other talents. Life is far to short to get uptight about incidental malaprops.

This communication through language thing... yeeeees, hmn.
Page poets are deadly for this. If something doesn't cover their tick-box of poetry then you get replies like 'sorry, I can't/don't understand this.', or 'sorry this is not for us', I have even had, 'this is not poetry'.
And that is when using ordinary language, allowing it to form itself itself into syntactical patterns with a wide allowance for sound patterns.... What am I saying? Practitioners of language seem to have so many personal, sunjective parameters and agendas that if you win through with them it seems mostly a matter of pure luck.
Language for communication, yes my all means, but this crowd aim some rarefied, nailed-down, narrowly defined writing that if I am honest (happens on occaision) I must admit a lot of the page poets leave me cold.

Never used to be like that: read anyone pre-20C, something there for everyone.

oops! coupla mistakes in the rant: aim FOR, and what's the other now? A spelling error.
sorry 'bout that!

I reckon that what Malcom wrote (in July, I know!) about written English makes more sense than most of what I have read on the subject, particularly the idea that it is all about communicating meaning.

The difficulty, though, comes when writers' lack of knowledge of written English makes them unaware of the ambiguities caused by, for example, missing or misplaced commas.

It is not a question of getting it 'right' so much as acting as your own proof reader and being aware of how others might struggle to understand what you have written. It's about taking responsibility for the messages you send, but not about trying to conform to some elusive notion of "correctness".

The software for this website was written by someone who struggles with notions of "correct" spelling. He is dyslexic, but brilliant at writing code, which must be "correct" if it is to work - that is, to do the intended task. In fact his day job has him checking the code of other software engineers. He tests the security of bank internet systems and advises them how to correct the security problems. In order to do that he has to arrive at a "correctness" that ensures that the intention of the programmer is communicated, rather than confoming to some external notion of correctness. If there were standard code there would be no progress in programming. Standard English is as elusive as truth or beauty.

GBS famously said something like: The reasonable man adjusts himself to suit the world. the unreasonable man expects the world to adjust to suit him. Without the unreasonable man there is no progress.

Thanks for your comments Julian.

I am reasonably successful at conveying meaning when I perform or write and I also have a go from time to time at writing code in various 'languages' for the computer. I am pretty poor at computer programming irrespective of whether it is using a low level or higher level language.

The fact is that living languages are a medium for art as well as communication. As such they can be bent and stretched to a considerable extent without completely losing their function. Any liberties taken with computer code will result in failure.

Interestingly, different programmers have identifiable styles despite their strict adherence to the requirements of thier syntax. As computers become more sophisticated they can be expected to be able to handle more and more complex and variable input.

What am I getting at?

Well. Some humans enjoy writing and performing as well as hearing and reading things which challenge or amuse them because of their form as well as their content. Often these forms fail to comply with standard use of language. Others insist that syntactical and other 'rules' must be strictly obeyed before they can handle the content.

It is a matter of evolution to a level at which art may be appreciated on many levels. The computer is not at that stage yet and nor is every human being.

Good programmers though are wonderfully skilled people. I wish I could do it.

I am a poet who is dyslexic and although my spelling and grammer is not at it's best, it doesn't put me off writing. I feel I can still write a good poem without great lictarcy skills. It's not about spelling mistakes it about what you've written, if you get my meaning and although it's a struggle especailly when writing stories I still enjoy to write and my mum whom I must commend is a great proof reader and refector for my work.