Breaking the Rules: Liberating Writers Through Innovative Grammar Instruction

A thorough look at the history of modern academic English, how it was enshrined in grammar texts, and why so much of how English is taught in schools actually harms literacy and grammar study. A must read for any English teacher wondering why his/her students "don't know grammar." But they do! A refreshing perspective complete with exercises to try with students.

Excellent, this item is exactly what I expected.

Have you ever broken a rule? Is grammar too traditional? Do you think there are too many rules in grammar? In Schuster's book he says, "Errors count, but not as much as most English teachers think." Do you believe that phrase? If you answered "yes" to the previous questions, Breaking the Rules is a grammar resource you will find interesting and informative. The book makes the reader realize alternative ways to the approach of teaching of grammar. The first two chapters: "Definitions That Do Not Define" and Rules That Do Not Rule" brought back memories of past grammar instruction. I recall a paper I wrote, which I considered creative and personal coming back with red marks and comments on verb usage, comma placement, first-person pronouns, and on and on. What about what I had to say? Not hardly a word or comment. What effect do you think that had on my writing progress? I will let you answer that question. In discussing "Definitions That Do Not define" and "Rules That Do Not Rule" Schuster moves away from the traditional teaching of grammar in schools to a view that students already possess instinctive grammar rules and that language itself is instinctive. He states his opinion on page 3 with the comment: "We acquire our native language without being taught, we don't need teachers or books or any kind of scholastic drill." This book definitely makes the reader think of past experiences and how frustrating they were. As a student, I often wondered why I had to know these definitions and rulesto become a better writer. Schuster's idea of the "myth rules" (or a set of grammar rules which he believes are not relevant anymore) made me think of papers returned to me marked in red. For example, how does using "less" and "fewer" correctly make me a better writer? Does starting a sentence with "and" or "fewer" make my writing confusing? I never asked these questions of the teacher, but I probably should have. Schuster goes on to say if we forbid students to use passives and make them use topicsentences, then we limit them. One of the last things a teacher would want to do is hinder or limit his/her student's writing progress, and as Schuster states, "Writing is a skill thatimproves with glacial slowness." To students who have had difficulty with the rule and definitions of grammar, this book would certainly show them there is hope for their writing. While teachers limit the student with "rules and "definitions" Schuster states on page 149: "Learning to write is learning to use all one's mind in the making." By leaving some leeway in the application of grammar (rules and definitions) teachers create more positive writers. Schuster, however, is not without fault. His arguments against rules and definitions are refreshing, but his solutions are sometimes disappointing. They are complicated, such ashis definitions of prescriptive rules (rules that tell us what we should do) and descriptive rules (what native speakers of a language customarily do). If Schuster doesn't believe inthe rules, why would he make the definitions of "rules" more complicated? In another part of the text Schuster describes passive writing. This part of the book covers 11 pages.I had to read parts of this over a few times, and I still don't think I understand it. In yet another part of Breaking the Rules Schuster says that paragraphs and punctuation don't matter. This may be true, but using them correctly certainly makes for easier reading. In this book Schuster conveys two points: One, that he is a very intelligent man and two, that he gets the reader (teacher) to think about grammar and how it is taught. How would he be able to dispute the rules of grammar if he didn't? This book, combined with a more traditional book on grammar, such as Grammar For Language Arts Teachers by Calderonello, Martin & Blair, would give the student and reader a wide perspective onthe subject. As mentioned before, his goal is to make the reader more aware and open-minded about grammar, and he has definitely accomplished that.

Grammar: A subject near and dear to every old and wicked witch's heart. Simply put grammar is that subject old mean ladies preach and that you and your "cool" friends slept through. But that's just how its perceived. Breaking the Rules by Edgar Schuster clears up this clouded image of grammar. It shows that although grammar is--9 times out of 10--dry, boring, and tedious, it doesn't always have to be, and for that, kudos to Mr. Schuster. He takes it to another level, contradicting the "proper grammar" etiquette. As a matter of fact most of his book is in breach of said proper etiquette and its, dare I say, refreshing. He offers a relaxed, and lively tone throughout his book, he doesn't get into a never-ending list of grammatical rules, and he breaks his topic down in a way that makes the book easy to understand, even for me. Before I go through three parts of the book that struck me as new and revolutionary, I would like to make some things clear; I'm no evil genius who loves grammar and will capture and torture any who disagrees with me; albeit some times I like to plot other people's demises. Along with not being completely evil, I'm also respectful enough that I wont give out chapter names or page numbers but instead I'll deal with the concepts he presents. I do that to protect the book from being ruined by my pointless babbling. With that said, onward: Rules are meant to be broken, in some cases. In his book Schuster goes through and list quite a few grammatical rules. I know I said he wouldn't and didn't, but he would and did, and it worked to great effect. He pointed out rules that we can and maybe even should break, in certain cases that is. Some of the rules are: double negatives, redundant plurality (using two plurals describing the same thing in a row), and of course the use of "nonstandard English" (informal English or slang) in writing. He also addressed something I found very nifty. No, not comma splices, although he did address those too. He addressed commonly confused words. This was done in a comprehensive list of groups of words that we often confuse. He included affect/effect, to/too/two, and compliment/complement among others. Yeah, you're thinking: that's fine and dandy and all, but so what? We all know the words we get confused and that never helped us before; why would it now? Did I forget to mention he explained a way to stop the madness? You'll have to read his book to find out. Oh, and in the midst of this section he talked about technical jargon, like so many others do, but I slept through that part. I never said all "new" and "revolutionary" things were good, did I? Of course not as that would put a damper on my surprise ending. Wait, I never said anything about that either, oops. With that said, we move to the bad, new, and revolutionary gobbledygook. Mr. Schuster doesn't always get his point across, he's confusing, he isn't always clear in what the rule is and often seems to rattle on for pages about rules you rarely encounter and don't ever use yourself. These detract from what is an interesting book on a not-so-interesting topic. Ding-dong the witch is dead. Which witch? The wicked witch. Okay, maybe she's not dead but the subject she preached perfection in has some new light shined on it. Maybe it's not all technical jargon some wicked old lady is spewing at you while you catch 50-winks but some of it can be presented in an interesting way.

What I loved about this book was the treatment of traditional grammar instruction and the 'rules' that are routinely espoused by many (not all) English teachers. In short, Schuster makes it clear that most of the so-called rules are really more stylistic choices than anything. In particular, I enjoyed his discussion of the paragraph as an arbitrary unit that can be subjectively divided based on person and era. It made me--also and English teacher--want to go even further with a deconstruction mindset in terms of teaching writing.I did, however, find the exercises--the bulk of the book--to be mostly unnecessary. Yes, they support the points he makes, but they seem to go to extreme lengths to demonstrate the point. Maybe this would be more appropriate for older students, although my experience is that I wouldn't have to provide all this to show them that a 'rule' can and maybe should be broken.A worthwhile read.