When It’s Okay to Break the Grammar Rules
- Christina Crosland
- 3 days ago
- 10 min read
Some people might gasp at this, but it’s okay to break the rules every once in a while.
The Short Story
Grammar and punctuation rules exist for a reason: to help readers understand what they are reading, know what to expect from the author, and become immersed in the narrative.
However, there are some instances when an author might choose to break certain rules:
When adding emphasis or variety
When portraying a character’s voice
When keeping the tone informal
When following their personal style
The Novel
Before I get into breaking the rules of grammar, I have to make a plug for following the rules. I am an editor, after all.
Believe it or not, a rulebook for the English language did not exist for an entire millennium. Old English first started all the way back in the 5th century (400s AD), but it wasn’t until the 1500s that William Bullokar published the first grammar book. Even then, English grammar and the alphabet still had a long journey ahead, and it was another couple centuries before the “father of English grammar,” Lindley Murray, published his best-selling book English Grammar that established the rules we still echo today.
But did English really need rules? Let’s take an example from Mandeville's Travels, written in Middle English, the form of English before Modern English and before Murray wrote his impactful guidebook. Take a read, keeping in mind that þ was the letter for th.
In þat lond ben trees þat beren wolle, as þogh it were of scheep; whereof men maken clothes, and all þing þat may ben made of wolle. In þat contree ben many ipotaynes, þat dwellen som tyme in the water, and somtyme on the lond: and þei ben half man and half hors, as I haue seyd before; and þei eten men, whan þei may take hem. And þere ben ryueres and watres þat ben fulle byttere, þree sithes more þan is the water of the see. In þat contré ben many griffounes, more plentee þan in ony other contree. Sum men seyn þat þei han the body vpward as an egle, and benethe as a lyoun: and treuly þei seyn soth þat þei ben of þat schapp. But o griffoun hath the body more gret, and is more strong, þanne eight lyouns, of suche lyouns as ben o this half; and more gret and strongere þan an hundred egles, suche as we han amonges vs.
It takes quite a bit of effort for the modern reader to understand this passage, and it may have been difficult for readers of Middle English too. In this one paragraph, there are inconsistencies in spelling, such as contré and contree, som tyme and somtyme, þanne and þan, and scheep and schapp. Differences like that can be confusing and ultimately reduce meaning and connection. With the help of Merriam-Webster, here’s what this passage might look like with Modern English spelling, mistakes not corrected:
In that land be trees that bear wool, as though it were of sheep; whereof men make clothes, and all thing that may be made of wool. In that countree be many hippopotamuses, that dwell some time in the water, and sometime on the land: and they be half man and half horse, as I have said before; and they eat men, when they may take them. And there be rivers and watres that be full salty, three times more than is the water of the sea. In that country be many great horses, more plenty than in ony other countree. Some men say that they have the body upward as an eagle, and beneath as a lion: and truly they say of truth that they be of that shapp. But a great horse hath the body more great, and is more strong, thanne eight lions, of such lions as be o this half of the world; and more great and stronger than an hundred eagles, such as we have amongst us.
Looking at this further, we can see that the purpose behind each punctuation mark is unclear. The spelling errors feel jarring. Readers are likely to pause and analyze what’s happening, and that’s not something any good author wants their readers to do. When the standards of good grammar are met, readers should be able to glide through the words on a page without even thinking about them.
And that’s why rules exist: for the readers. There are three important reasons why grammar rules help readers.
Rules promote understanding and avoid confusion.
Rules give readers a sense of security and familiarity.
Rules allow full immersion in the narrative.
Thanks to Murray and his grammarian successors, we now have a robust system of English grammar that has many hard-set rules designed to meet all three of these goals. Of course, that’s not what this article is really about. Here, we must admit that sometimes, even the hard-set rules can be set aside. But there are only a few particular reasons to do so, and all of those reasons have the reader in mind.
Here are the few instances when you as the author may choose to break a rule or two:
When adding emphasis or variety
When portraying a character’s voice
When keeping the tone informal
When following your personal style
NOTE: In order to know when it’s appropriate to break the rules, you first have to know what the rules are. You can find all sorts of Grammar and Punctuation Tips on our website to help you learn the art of the English language.
1. When Adding Emphasis or Variety
There are ironclad punctuation and spelling rules that have been broken by the best writers. For example, one of the first grammar rules that children learn in elementary school is to always write complete sentences. Fragments are a no-no all through the school years. But when it comes to creative writing, fragments play a huge part in the tone, pacing, and emphasis of certain scenes. Think about how this spooky scene is accentuated by the incomplete sentences:
He lurched around the corner, his heart racing. The scraping behind him came closer. Scrrrrnk. Scrrrrnk. Afraid to look but unable to hold back, he peeked around the crumbling brick. All it took was one look, and he knew he was gone. Everything faded in fear.
He screamed. Choked.
And then silence.
Reading this passage, you’ll notice that the last few sentences become shorter, ending with two fragments. This reflects what’s happening to the character: Fear causes a primal scream, which is cut short just as the sentences (and paragraphs) are. The final two incomplete sentences hint at a sudden, terrible fate.
Instances like this are riddled throughout modern literature. Sentence fragments add emphasis to the parts of the story that are meant to be most impactful and can add a punch to writing. But, of course, the only way this type of rule-breaking will work is if the other sentences are punctuated correctly. If you overuse sentence fragments, their impact just won’t hit the same way.
2. When Portraying a Character’s Voice
Because spoken English is so different from prescriptive, written grammar, it may sometimes actually be inappropriate to use perfectly curated sentences. This applies when writing dialogue or certain narratives in a distinct voice.
If you are writing narration in your character’s voice, you need to write how they would. And when writing dialogue, you should show how the character would really speak. Remember that most people do not talk in complete sentences or avoid dangling modifiers, and they may use words that are not in the dictionary. More often than not, it’s okay to keep those “mistakes” in your manuscript. They add character and believability.
“Oh. My. Heck,” Kathryn said flippantly, twisting my hair into a half updo. “Why not just, I dunno, not date him?”
I can’t believe she would even suggest that. She knows I’ve been trying to date George for years. “Oh, pleeease. He’s just confident in his own shoes. Maybe I need to get the other boys jealous, then he’ll come around.”
She pulls my chin toward the mirror. “With hair like that, he’d be dumb not to fight for you.”
This convo has incomplete sentences, a dangling modifier, and a couple misspellings. But these rule breakers work because they show how the characters actually talk.
However, it’s not always necessary to have so many deviations from the rules. This is when breaking rules actually gets tricky. It’s quite difficult to know just what rules to break in order to accurately portray a character’s speech, dialect, or accent without being stereotypical or offensive. Thoughtful depictions of various voices can serve the story and make characters come to life. At the same time, going too far with stylized dialogue can be distracting and even confusing.
Any accent or other deviation from written rules should be done with purpose and consideration, so that if someone were to call you out for it, you could defend your decision. Sometimes it’s better to just describe someone’s accent through narration rather than through the actual dialogue. If you are unsure whether or not you hit the mark, consider hiring a sensitivity reader to screen for unintentionally harmful stereotypes.
3. When Keeping the Tone Informal
Sometimes, informal is better. No one wants to come off as stuffy. And following all the rules can be too formal for a particular audience. Obviously, when writing a scholarly article, all the rules should be followed to a T. But when writing an informal self-help article, it may be appropriate to add some style. Take this chef’s tone, for example:
I’ve had so many people ask me, “Can I get the recipe?”
Umm . . . Are you kidding me?? No, definitely not. A chef never gives away their secret. No matter what.
Note that umm is written with two m’s even though Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary only spells it with one. This is an instance when a spelling rule may actually be considered incorrect in an informal context. Regardless of whether M-W acknowledges the longer spelling, there is a difference between um and umm. Um is more often read as a quick hesitation, while umm is a longer pause.
Similarly, the formal style of punctuation uses only one punctuation mark at the end of a sentence, but there can be a difference in meaning when using two. For example, two question marks show incredulity or disbelief while one question mark merely asks a question. These slight differences in meaning are good reasons to forgo the general “rules” for a more communicative and informal writing style.
Going back to the chef example, the second paragraph uses singular their because it’s talking about any chef, no matter the gender. This used to be incorrect usage, but it is now considered appropriate in the Chicago Manual of Style. The allowance of singular they didn’t take hold for years in the grammarian world. But so many writers adopted singular they in place of “his or her” that Chicago finally did too.
Style manuals like Chicago do update to follow current overall practice, but because of how quickly language is changing in this electronic age, it’s very likely that the latest style guide edition will soon (if not already) have rules that no longer serve the overall audience. For that reason, it’s often up to the author’s discretion to determine when certain rules may be too formal or too outdated for their particular piece of literature.
4. When Following Personal Style
This brings us to our last reason that authors may choose to not follow a certain rule. That is, it’s just the author’s style. But that doesn’t mean the author does whatever they want. No, an author who has a personal style follows that style strictly. Whatever rules they’ve broken in regards to their industry’s style guide are consistently broken in the same way every time.
For example, take the Oxford comma. This is a still-debated rule of punctuation, and while most US style guides say to use the Oxford comma, there are many authors that prefer not to. And that’s a choice they are able to make, so long as it’s done consistently. But if an author switches back and forth, that only confuses the reader and should be corrected. As editors, consistency is our top priority.
A great example of a well-known author esteemed for breaking the rules was Dr. Seuss. His poems were so consistently bizarre that he became famous for it, making up words, using fragments, changing up sentence structure, all for a good rhyme. And it worked. But if he had come out with a book that broke all of his broken rules by following the rules—well, that wouldn’t be Dr. Seuss.
If you have a particular way you like to spell things, or a rule you know you don’t want to follow, you can (and should) tell your editor. We will work with you to develop clarity for readers and consistency in style while still keeping your unique author voice.
Maybe the next time you read your favorite author, you’ll notice when they follow the rules and when they consistently break them. Remember, a good author can’t just do whatever they want. They must adhere to the general conventions of their genre and then establish a consistent, personal style. Only then can authors help readers avoid confusion, become familiar with their writing, and get caught up in the story. The grammar and punctuation rules of the English language are what allow readers to revel in the reading experience. Learn the rules first, and then know when to break them.
The Published Examples
Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try! If you try, you can think up a guff going by. And you don’t have to stop. You can think about schlopp. Schlopp. Schlopp. Beautiful schlopp.
(Dr. Seuss. Oh, the Thinks You Can Think. Random House, Inc., 1975.)
While English uses thoughts to describe one’s thinking, Dr. Seuss, as per his beloved style, chose to make his own word: thinks! This word does, after all, make more sense, especially for children still learning singular and plural forms. (Why is it thoughts, anyway?)
“Holly . . .“ My voice catches in my throat. “Shh.“ She places a finger gently to my lips, her eyes a brilliant green, like gemstones.
(Jefferies, Jess. Thirteen-Year Crush. Just Add Ink Publishing, 2023.)
The Chicago Manual of Style says to defer to the spelling listed in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, which is to spell the shushing sound with one h. However, this is an instance in which adding an additional h more accurately represents the sound being made. If this scene spelled it as sh, it might sound quick and even aggressive, while shh is known to be longer and, in this case, more endearing.
Senhor José is worried and anxious about something else now, he wants his boss to leave, to go before the doctor goes, he trembles to imagine himself alone with him, at the mercy of fatal questions, What’s the meaning of that damp stain, What were those record cards on your bedside table, Where did you get them, Where did you hide them, Whose photo was on them.
(Saramago, José. All the Names. Trans. by Margaret Jull Costa, Harcourt, Inc., 1999.)
In this passage, we see a long, run-on sentence full of comma splices. And
this book is littered with them. In fact, run-on sentences are the entire style of the book, largely contributing to the reader’s immersion into Senhor José's stream of consciousness. The story follows a man who is trapped in a self-inflicted stress-mare by his thoughts, and readers get pulled in with him, unable to stop the spiraling thoughts because of the author’s sparse use of full stops.
Comments