When it comes to writing a blank page can be a huge stumbling block. Which is why, for this inaugural post, I’ve decided to republish something I wrote for my company blog a month or so back. Inspired by The Writer, of which I’m a huge fan, it gives a little insight into one of my key passions: grammar. And the ‘correct’ or, at least, acceptable uses of it…
- Goodbye Mr Chips (1939)
As a career marketer it falls to me to write a lot of what is put out there. And when I’m not writing I’m proofing. So words are pretty much what I do.
Already I can sense the uncomfortable shifting of people in their seats: “you started a sentence with ‘and’ – you can’t do that.” Au contraire, my friends. Forget what your teachers told you – writers have been starting sentences with ‘and’ and ‘but’ for years. Where other words fail to inject the requisite pace and energy into your writing, these two little conjunctions are sometimes the only words that will do.
“What about the rules?” I hear you cry. Just think about it: why are ‘the rules’ there? To help us make sense of things. The fact is that words and letters are but abstract concepts, the ‘understanding’ of which can only come through the application of rules. In this case, I’d suggest, ‘the rules’ are arbitrary.
Ok, so I’m a 20-something marketer only three years out of university – what do I know? Just a quick flick through the (rather eclectic mix of) titles on my desk reveals that everyone’s at it:
- John O’Farrell, An Utterly Impartial History of Britain: “But by this point Charles Stuart had lost the confidence of his men.”
- William Shakespeare, Richard II (Bishop of Carlisle): “And if you crown him, let me prophesy, the blood of English shall manure the ground, and future ages groan for this foul act.”
- Claude C. Hopkins, My Life in Advertising: “But that experience made me an automobile enthusiast.”
- Genesis 1:25 (King James Version): “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
And a brief scout of today’s papers shows that even the broadsheet journalists, those esteemed upholders of the Queen’s English, are throwing caution to the wind when it comes to conjunctions:
- David Wighton, The Times: “But it seems that Mr Daniels may have been right. Even Royal Bank of Scotland, amid the devastation caused by its acquisition of ABN Amro, said last week there were glimmers of hope.”
- Andrew Grice, The Independent: “But he conceded that it was wrong to assume that a “simplistic retrenchment of the state” would allow better alternatives to spring to life.”
- Patrick Wintour, The Guardian: “But removing vouchers, which are thought to save parents up to £2,400 a year on the cost of nurseries, nannies or childminders, would strip “effective and popular childcare support from hard-working parents”, the former ministers said.”
- Ernest Hemingway
Those cynics amongst you might suggest the growing trend towards ‘and’ and ‘but’ has its roots in word limits or just plain laziness, but might I refer those people to that shining example of literary greatness, Ernest Hemingway, whose stark, minimalist prose scored him the Pulitzer-Nobel double.
I concede that there is such a thing as overkill. When it comes to starting sentences, conjunctions are like pepper – put them in everything and people will get sick of the taste. And be careful to use only where appropriate – you wouldn’t put pepper in fondant icing, now, would you? But use them sparingly and wisely and they can inject much needed spice and conversational flow into your written word. And that’s a fact.
Read more here:
Clue: show someone you really ‘Carey’ this Christmas…
Clue: did you catch mother being overly friendly with the man in the red suit?
Clue: it’s the dead of night and all is still…
Barker's Blog 
