78 LANGUAGE AND THE INTERNET
The authors go on to describe how voice ‘captures the way people
talk’ and ‘adds attitude and authenticity’. They illustrate this by a
science-fiction example, from which we may deduce that the de-
sired style privileges the use of linguistic inventiveness, creativity,
and play, in the form of new words and odd constructions. ‘Writ-
ing with voice’, they say, ‘might mean going for the unexpected, the
rough-edged, the over-the-top’. It is reinforced by their principle
(7), ‘Be irreverent’, which translates into linguistic recommenda-
tions as follows:
Welcome inconsistency, especially in the interest of voice and
cadence. Treat the institutions and players in your world with a
dose of irreverence. Play with grammar and syntax. Appreciate
unruliness.As with principle (1), there is nothing wrong with the appeal to
a personal element in linguistic expression and the promotion of
the ludic, creative function of language. Indeed, I am on record
myself as advocating a greater attention to language play in our
appreciation of linguistic interaction.^17 And any periodical has the
right to do what it likes, by way of formulating a ludic language
policy. But as soon as this policy is extended to the Internet as a
whole, we encounter problems.
It is plainly unreal to think of restricting the Internet only to
quirky, individualist writers, or to exclude writers of a more con-
ventional or reverent leaning. The Internet is a home to all kinds
of writing, including the trade journals and the newspapers, and
these all have a right to their own style, too. Indeed, it is precisely
these styles which provide the norms of usage to which writers
of a more idiosyncratic bent can react. Norms – standard written
English norms – are critical, if personal effects are to be appreci-
ated; for if everybody breaks the rules, rule-breaking ceases to be
novel. The antagonism to standard written English (or standard
written French, or German.. .) is misplaced, therefore, for it will
(^17) Crystal (1998).