Does the author of this book insist on using "could of" "would of" "must of" as a style choice or is he a real dummy?

Does the author of this book insist on using "could of" "would of" "must of" as a style choice or is he a real dummy?

are you retarded

What, you think it's the first person narrator?

Yeah, he decided that the big dumb crazy Indian has this single hangup. All the rest of the spelling, grammar, and punctuation would be perfectly fine.

Or maybe the author is just a dummy.

Or maybe writers in this period used colloquial forms of speech in their writing for various reasons. Read Trout Fishing in America or Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

Also

> big dumb crazy Indian

so you haven't even finished reading the book yet, why don't you do that and come back.

Ah, I have to finish the book before I understand why the author doesn't know the difference between of and have.

I'm sure some dummy is writing a novel as we speak using "there" for all forms and "could of" with the excuse, "It's the style dawg, that's how us Internet generation people speak!" And I'm sure you would say, "Well, if that IS the style... Shine on!"

Jesus Christ, Boomers couldn't even counter-culture worth a damn. What was it counter to? They "risked it all" knowing that one of the most extraordinary economic Golden Ages of all time formed a safety blanket under their feet. Then they came back from vacation to open ice cream corporations and dominate Classic Rock radio stations for decades. Just shoot Bob Dylan, Easy Rider, all these Beatnik novels into the fucking sun.

There is nothing wrong with using colloquialisms in your writing if that is the style you're going for. If it bothers you that much, sorry, pal, you have autism.

This isn't a colloquialism. It's using the wrong word. It's hearing the spoken sound of "could've" and transcribing it incorrectly. Nobody thinks, "We'll be informal here. Let's use 'of' instead of the contracted form of 'have.' Let's turn this contraction into nonsense. Really sets the tone of the work."

"Woulda" and "coulda"? Hey, you found yourself some slang! Because they mean would have and could have!

I bet you get really mad when people use the word "literally" to mean "figuratively"

is this autism?

...

who knows. Kesey was probably on so much acid during the period he wrote that novel, i dont think even he could tell you

Holy shit you're a sperg.

>1. IT'S STYLE MORON!
>2. Shoot it's whatever you know.
>3. OMG WHO EVEN CARES!

very quick change in your stance bruh

were those words used outside of conversation in the story? i don't recall. if they were, then why does it matter? it makes the characters seem like real americans.

but if it isn't then yeah wtf was kesey doing? maybe pnw folks speak like that?

>This level of autism

What's more likely, OP: that Kesey didn't know the difference between "have" and "of" the entire time he wrote the novel, and that his editor also missed this throughout the entire manuscript; or that it is an intentional decision?

It's used consistently, dialogue or not. The book is written from a first person perspective but neither the author-author or the narrative-author (whoever we want to claim is making the "could of" choice) uses any other 'informal' spellings.

But my ultimate point is that "could of" is not informal language. It is nonsense. It is simply "could've" spelled incorrectly. It is using the wrong combination of letters than you meant to. Could have, could've, and coulda is a choice of formality and style.

Spelling something incorrectly would only ever be a style choice if a fictional character was writing the words you are reading. And if that were the case, you would expect the author to make all the other common mistakes of the uneducated American. Why not take liberties with spelling, capitalization, homophones, etc.? But now you're making your work read like a middle school book report. Which is fine if we are supposed to be reading the diary of a dullard. Not when the narrator can perfectly spell and 'grammaticize' all manner of language.

kek

Is this book even good

yea

i wonder what the nurse's boobs looked like

Are you fucking serious dude. I thought high schoolers were on summer break anyway...

i cant even tell if this is advanced trolling or if Veeky Forums really is this retarded

I actually stand behind you with this op and I don't think you are being an autist or sperg. Holy shit it's a grammar 101 and as english is not my native language it seems double unbelievable to me. Sort of like the you're/your mistakes. If the author uses is both in and out of conversation he makes a mistake without a reason

Jesus Christ. You should give up reading, you are stupid.

is he really (not memeing here) a misogynist? every female character in this book was shown as a completely despicable person. did he go through a bad breakup or something?

The real sad part about trolling is how much time and effort you've put into it. You should just buy your helium tank now and get out of the way of people who've got something to contribute to basic discussions.

OP has a perfectly valid point.

OP doesn't have a valid point. OP doesn't even have a point.

>Spelling something incorrectly would only ever be a style choice if a fictional character was writing the words you are reading

Why? That's an arbitrary and limiting rule, not to mention obviously wrong. Why is something a style choice if it comes from a character?

It makes no sense. OP's basically using the opposite meaning of style to describe style. A character and their voice isn't style, while an omniscient narrator using "of" definitely IS a stylistic choice.

Not to mention that the novel would have gone through the hands of editors and it's not like no one would point that shit out and correct it if it was a mistake.