[This article was originally published Tuesday May 10, 2005.]

Dave was back in Lancaster over the weekend and in keeping with our time-honored traditions, we got together and complained about the world. The subject of Dave’s gripe in particular was that far too many people think they’re writers when in reality they barely know a dead peach from a dangling participle. Trying to come up with a solution for this problem, our drinks ran out.

As I was popping open another generic-brand Cola (not ™ed), Dave muttered “they should issue a license to write.” Of course! By issuing a writing license, we could severely cut back on grammar abuse in this country. It would also eliminate many of the poor manuscripts posted on the web and even the ones that are—horror upon horrors—published. Studies have shown that by requiring the denizens of our country to earn a writing license, we could improve the quality of written material produced each year by a minimum of 72 percent.

Before I continue, allow me to address the issue of the right to free speech. Read the first amendment, the civil liberties wackos will cry. It guarantees free speech. By requiring a license, you are taking away this right. This is obviously false. First of all it ignores the fact that people have many ways of expressing themselves besides writing. Nobody is restricting their right to speak, for example. There is also another point one must consider which is: if they cannot pass a simple writing exam in order to earn their writing license, they are probably not adept at expressing themselves through writing to begin with. We are doing them a favor by requiring the license because it prevents them from inadvertently degrading their reputation by attempting to use a medium with which they are unfamiliar. Finally, rights require responsibilities. Everyone has a right to carry firearms, but not everyone can do so. Most of the US requires a license to handle a gun, regardless of what the constitution says. We are not denying anyone the right to free speech; we are simply requiring a modicum of responsibility before handing over the reigns of the pen.

With that in mind, the writing test would not have to be anything difficult, but it would be thorough. There would be different sections. One would be multiple choice, with questions similar to this example:

What is a gerund?
A. Shorthand for Gerald Jr.
B. A small furry creature indigenous to the Appalachian Mountains.
C. A verb used as a noun, usually ending in -ing.
D. An obscure great aunt who only appears at stiff family reunions.

Not difficult, but hard enough to weed out the worst offenders. There would also be an essay writing portion where one would have to write, say, five hundred actual words. Any instance of txt msg shorthand or 1337 5p3/\K would be immediate grounds for failure. Mixing up your and you’re; its and it’s; or their, there, and they’re is sufficient to ban you from ever taking the test again. Multiple exclamation points: fail. All caps typing: fail. A misplaced semicolon you could slip by with a slap on the wrist, but don’t let it happen again.

After passing this exam, you would be permitted to write in public venues, such as web pages or poetry slams. However, in order to continue your fine tradition of writing, you would need to earn the next level of writing licenses. Perhaps this one would allow you to write copy for advertisements, or publish letters to the editor. There would be multiple tiers of writing ability culminating in the ability to publish a novel, scientific paper, or play.

Not only would this provide a higher quality of writing, but it would also be beneficial to the government. If they charged a pittance for each license—say $20—than they could easily make millions of dollars a year. This could, in turn, be used to fund such projects as libraries and art museums, as well as Writers Anonymous meetings for those who cannot stop writing despite their decided lack of skill. There would also be an expiration date on each license, requiring one to retest every decade or so. In this way, we can end the tyranny of old English teachers and their outmoded ways of writing, such as forcing the Oxford comma on people.

Clearly this is a beneficial system and much better than the current one we have where anyone with a keyboard can call themselves a writer. It eliminates funding problems for public services like libraries and it improves the quality of work in those same libraries by an immeasurable amount. It prevents outdated English from muddying up the system and allows the language to be flexible as it is wont to do. Finally it promises that people who obtain the writing license will be more responsible with it (since it can be revoked, naturally) than those who have done nothing to earn their freedom of speech and abuse it regularly.

The time has clearly arrived for some serious writing reform in this country, and I, for one, will not rest until every last failure of punctuation and spelling has been eliminated.

-Ted