Zombies are fueled by mindless hunger, and this mindlessness is part of what makes them scary.
If you have a choice between reasoning with a zombie and bashing one in the head with a shovel, the latter approach is more likely to help you avoid becoming one of the undead yourself.
Zombie rules in grammar (“rules” that have no grammatical basis but nonetheless refuse to die) are frightening because they’re driven by much the same brand of mindlessness.
You can probably reel off your favorite zombie rules the same way you’d reel off your favorite zombie flicks. “Never end a sentence with a preposition,” “Never start a sentence with a conjunction,” and “Never split infinitives” are the Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later, and Shaun of the Dead of the grammar world.
More obscure zombie rules stalk the landscape as well: the number of items between can apply to and the use of double negatives (think Dead Alive and Cemetery Man).
People faced with zombie rules generally arm themselves with reasonable arguments that often involve Latin, John Dryden, and Winston Churchill quotes (“This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put”).
But zombie rules wouldn’t be zombie rules if they were easy to kill (though people won’t stop trying, and there are seemingly billions of blog posts devoted to grammar rules that aren’t really rules).
Why do people hold on to zombie rules?
(1) They were learned as absolute truths during one’s formative years and have never been questioned. If pressed, most will cop to their certainty about a grammar “rule” as coming from an elementary school teacher or some other distant authority.
So changing one’s stance on ending a sentence with a preposition might involve a slight shifting of a long-held world view. Doing so might cause a little tremor in your foundations. But evaluating and resetting your world view is a good thing, and we should all reevaluate our beliefs on a regular basis.
(2) It’s hard to admit you were wrong. Changing your view on rules such as these can feel like you’re admitting you’ve been wrong for years, possibly decades. But this is a sting that can be lessened by the realization that most “rules” aren’t rules, and that what we’re really talking about are styles and conventions.
Audience and levels of formality and register often determine the guidelines you’ll follow. Language conventions are ever changing, and embracing this can be quite freeing (while there was no shortage of debate sparked by the major style guides’ lowercasing of internet, a good number of copyeditors undoubtedly felt a rebellious thrill when they first started taking down that I).
(3) The “rule” makes you feel superior. People love to correct other people’s grammar. Check any comments thread and you’ll quickly find someone attempting to invalidate someone else’s argument by pointing out a misstep in grammar, spelling, or punctuation.
People’s use of grammar is also tied up in their self-perception and it’s used to broadcast their level of education. It’s also used as a barricade to prevent others from accessing their realm.
But people can love grammar and not be an ass about it. Inflexibility and a rigid adherence to “rules” across all situations are probably your best ways of advertising how little you actually know about language. Let’s try not to use our knowledge to hurt or exclude others. Let’s try to be kind, share knowledge generously, and open ourselves to the idea that we have much to learn.
I suppose I could say more, but I’m off to watch Return of the Living Dead III.
ABOUT JAMES GALLAGHER
I’m a copyeditor and the owner of Castle Walls Editing. If you have a manuscript and need a copyeditor, contact me through this site or email me at James@castlewallsediting.com.