Some people recoil in shock at the appearance of bad grammar. Don't worry, I don't take it personally. I have credentials to prove I know what I'm doing, i.e. English Theory, English Lit, and Japanese History degrees. I've been writing technical English essays for quite some time. I learned all the formal technicalities of "good" written English . Breaking the rules is half the fun though!
In an Open Culture article, discussing the use of run-on sentences and the linking of abstract phrases in famous works of literature by the likes of Samuel Beckett, Virginia Woolf, F. Scott Fitzgerald and more, I like how the reviewer puts it when he says:
"Sentences like these, writes Barnes & Noble blogger Hanna McGrath, 'demand something from the reader: patience.' That may be so, but they reward that patience with delight for those who love language too rich for the pinched limitations of workaday grammar and syntax."
It's true, long literary sentences aren't for everybody. Most people find the above works challenging to read and would rather consume the easy to read, white bread, of mundane literature. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Many great writers stick to the beaten path of what works. Many entertaining stories have been told within the rigid confines of a regiment grammar and ordinary syntax. But anyone who has read my work knows that's not me. I write with flourish. My syntax is robust. My writing edges on being perhaps more purple than it needs to be. And my style is to use long, winding, linked phrases.
And as long as I'm in such good company as the above literary giants who dared to break the rules and who paved the way for writers like me, I won't take it all that personally if somebody doesn't like my work because of a few run-on sentences, because, as we all know, there's nothing wrong with writing long sentences--not one little bit--and if you think there is, well, what can I say, it's just not true; long sentences are wonderful and if you can't see that, then, I'm sorry--but I can't help you.