To spell or not to spell, that is the question.

Most of you who read this blog on a regular basis know that if it wasn't for spell check my posts would read like some ancient Egyptian language. And even with it, I sometimes manage to misspell a word or two. I must confess that I am one of those people who thinks that spelling is way overrated. (I think those little crumb snatchers who enter that national spelling bee every year are aliens. Caoutchouc: c-a-o-u-t-c-h-o-u-c-. Sheesh! ) Who cares if a word is missing a letter or two? If the reader understands what the writer is saying it's all good in my book. And if the writer wants to introduce his or her own words into the conversation, that's fine too.

Anywhooo, I was over at the excellent web site called Crooks & Liars, and one commenter, Floyd George, left the following:

"I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulacity uesdnatnrd what I was rdgniegThe phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,it deosn't mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are,the olny iprmoatnt tihng is that the first and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. Therset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. this is bcuseae the huamm mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe Amzanig huh?And you awlyas tohguth sipeling was ipmorantt. "

Now I thought that was amazing, not only because I understood every word of that paragraph, but because it proves my point about the inconsequentialness [is that a word?] of lining up our letters in just the right order. Hell, it looks to me like if we get the first and the last letter in the word we are good to go.

So all of you lazy dyslectic writers like moi can take heart, we are going to take back this writing thing in our own inappreciable and understated way. A misspelled wrd here a misspelled wrd thre, and bfre you know it, the spell police will all be out of work.

I can't wait.