"Look before you open a door," you tell the person standing over you.
"But I meant to do that," they say. "I've been wanting to meet you for quite some time."
You notice that they are a very attractive member of the opposite sex and that in another situation you might have asked for their number, but somehow the fact that they meant to do that doesn't make it right.
*******
The same thing is true in fiction.
The difference between "real life" and written correspondence is that you can't accomplish much by pissing people off in writing. They stop reading your text and...that's that. You lose all power. In real life, most people can't effectively make you disappear simply by ignoring you.
So the analogy isn't perfect. Knocking someone over as a way of grabbing attention works just fine in real life, doesn't work at all in writing.
If the perp is good looking does it mean it is a lesser crime? Or that it is more forgivable, such as when a favorite author disappoints?
Interesting, although I have to say, a story that falters by a good author is still a faulty story.
"That was really uncalled-for, you know," you tell him as you scramble to pick them up.
"But I meant to do it," he says. "I've been saving that up for weeks!"
Somehow, that doesn't make it all better.
*******
The same thing is true in forum posts.
Now please excuse me while I make a run for the door.
If it never occurs to you to ask whether the author meant to do something, then can't they get away with it? I think the problem arises if you notice that something is off, point it out, and get the response "I meant to do that."
(Note: This is not meant to be an argument that *I* can get away with this. When I knock people down, they tend to notice that I meant to do it )
Using incorrect grammar but saying you meant to do it still doesn't make it right. It may be a style, but you can really only get away with that kind of thing in dialogue, and only sometimes then. And just because [i]you[/] understand the style doesn't mean your reader will. You could confuse them to no end, and never fix it.
Reading it in the literal way now:
If that happened, I'd personally be curious about this person that knocked me over and claimed to know me. Wouldn't the reader be too? As a reader, I'd want to know who this person is. The reader may not think what has happened is right, but if you work it right their curiosity will overcome that sense of unjustice.
...and sometimes it's over something legitimate (although usually I think it's inexperience). For example, "Eleanor Rigby." It's good music, and disturbingly good writing. But it introduces me to despair over loneliness, which is not something I needed introducing to. So it may be good . . . but not for me.
"Readers are the audience, not the victims."
The trick? Well, I watched it from the POV of a friend of the students making the film. Let me make this clear, I'm not the friend. Rather, the episode of the show was from the POV of a character who is, in the show, the friend of the characters making the film. I'm watching the film, but listening to his internal commentary on it. His narration made it clear that he was well aware of the film's defects.
Oh, and the students making the film were characters in an anime. That's right, the film; with all these obvious artifacts of bad acting, clumsy cinematography, incoherent writing and scripting, low budget visual effects, and ad libbing, was itself hand drawn one frame at a time (Okay, I know they don't do it by hand anymore, so spare me).
It was brilliant. When the episode ended, I was actually disappointed to find out that they weren't going to do one of these crappy movies in the next episode. Particularly given how my mind was blown by one of the mistakes near the end of the film. It was...amazing. I was amazed.
I suppose that the lesson here is that you shouldn't have to say "I meant to do that". Either it should be obvious that you're doing it on purpose, or it should be invisible.