When one sits down to create a literary masterpiece, there are rules one must follow. Rules of sentence syntax, spelling, and etiquette all govern the structure and style of the piece being created. Set literary structure must exist, for without it, on what grounds would an English teacher or editor have for judging a works merit? Surely we could not base our opinion of any given piece of writing solely on its interest, its effectiveness, or its originality. English is an institution of great age and wisdom. We have formed laws of literature and society certainly could not function without them.

What is the most fundamental skill taught to children at school? The English language of course, in all it�s intricacies, idiosyncrasies, and blasphemies, is the basis for all other concepts learned and used by a person in our society. Without a standardized means of communication, we would be lost in towering babble. Without a standardized form of notating our spoken thoughts, we would be lost. Of course the written word needs order and structure, therefore we continue to add rules and regulations. We do not stop at spelling and grammar, but continuing on to Fascist suppression of thought, and eventually, literary structure.

Here, in Canada and in our big brother down south, the United States, it is our constant goal to make things bigger and better and stronger and faster. There is nothing wrong with this competitive drive, it has after all brought us bicycles that cost more than cars. We must therefore apply this to our language. It is antiquated, out of date, and all though we are constantly adding new words and rules, it is inefficient. In this age of computers, the "Information Highway", and Bob Dole, we still use ancient linguistic and literary structures. What is wrong with America, is that we have failed to make our language as bigger, as better, as stronger, and as faster as the rest of society.

First of all, society must update the spelling of the English language. It is absolutely ridiculous. I am surprised that nobody else seems to have thought of this drastic a change, but it seems to make sense to me. Eliminate all double letters, all silent vowels, and people will still recognize the words. Why is it that "o" often makes the same sound as long "u" as in do? Simplify spelling in order to facilitate efficiency in literature and in the business world, plus making English a much simpler language to learn.

Second, why do we try to constantly specify sentence structure? All the redundancy, it�s amazing that we have not spent our entire lives writing written responses that are nine tenths a copy of the question anyway. Why can we not just answer the question? Is it not perfectly reasonable to say "cookie me!"? This implies exactly what you want without wasting precious seconds that one could spend watching Seinfeld or some other brain-building pastime. It�s obvious that much of what needs to be done is simply shortening sentences and verbal exchanges. Like the amazing advent computer, we will suddenly find ourselves with more hours in a day to fill with important tasks such as conquering space and drinking beer.

Third, what is the point of all this structure? What purposes serve thesis, conclusion, and footnotes? Is comprehensibility of written expression really that important in today�s fast-paced world? Advertisements never seem to violate any of Orwell�s rules of clarity to confuse their customer. We should do away with structure and formalized proof, as we watch marketing executives rejoice.

All of these concepts, put together, will make for a bigger, better, stronger, and faster English language. A new era of efficiency and understanding will revolutionize our world. Our wonderful, sensible language will become more and more used throughout the world effectively, unifying this world. We welcome the Fourth Wave.

Let�s hope Orwell stays in the ground where he belongs.