Looking for a job? How about one where you set your own hours, you don't have a boss, you have nothing to do but write at your own pace, you end up receiving fat royalty checks, and you don't have to know anything at all about the topic that you write about? The job is to write non-fiction (textbooks and handbooks), only it's OK if you don't have a clue about the subject matter.
One word about your new career (and it's not "Plastics"): grammar! The field where nobody much cares about anything that's been discovered since the 18th century, and you don't even need to get the 18th-century stuff right!
I'll give you some examples over the next few days or weeks — it depends how much time I get (unfortunately I have a real job where I have to attend meetings, teach things that are true, respond to questions, write sensible exam questions, and so on). Here's just one example for today.
The Collins Good Writing Guide (HarperCollins, 2003; anonymous according to the title page but copyrighted by the estate of Graham King; ISBN-13 978-0-00-720868-5, ISBN-10 0-00-720868-5) is a successor to an earlier book by Graham King called The Times Writer's Guide (2001). On page 52 it points out that this sentence is an error:
Ask Tony and I for any further information you need.
It follows this up by telling you why the sentence is not acceptable:
To correct this you need to recognise that Ask is the subject and the phrase Tony and I is the direct object, because Tony and I are receiving the action as the result of the verb ask.
That's right: the verb ask is claimed to be the subject of this imperative clause. Graham King simply didn't have any idea what "subject of a clause" means! Yet he wrote a best-selling book, republished after his death in 1999! You could do likewise (not dying, I mean publishing a best-seller).
The remark above isn't a typo or anything. Graham King really was clueless about the notion of a grammatical subject, and so are the editors at HarperCollins. On page 20 of the book, King defines SUBJECT as "what it is" and defines PREDICATE as "what we're saying about it", and his first illustrative example is this:
SUBJECT PREDICATE My word!
That's right; he thinks that when you say My word! (as perhaps you do, if you are over about 70 and somewhat conservative of disposition), the thing you are talking about is my, and the thing you're saying about it is word. And he thinks that means that the genitive pronoun my in this expression (which has the form of a noun phrase) is the subject. This man simply had no idea what he was doing.
Just an embarrassing but isolated slip by an editor, you are thinking? No, he really didn't get the concept. Lower down on the same page he claims that lots of English sentences have the predicate before the subject. And his first example is this one:
PREDICATE SUBJECT It gradually became apparent that it was the odour of death
That's quite a predicate, isn't it? (Putting the alleged subject and predicate back in the normal order yields *The odour of death it gradually became apparent that it was. Doesn't sound so good, does it?) In the sentence as given, of course, the odour of death is a complement to the copular verb be (preterite form was); it is not the subject.
I am not making this stuff up. I am copying it out of a reference book by the highly respectable HarperCollins firm.
Well, when I say respectable, I mean they are respectable in all sorts of subjects; but not in English grammar, obviously, because that's the subject where nobody needs to know anything to be an expert and respectability isn't defined.
When you set yourself up as a grammar expert it's better than being an expert on plastics. To be an expert on plastics you actually have to know something about plastics. With grammar the analogous thing doesn't hold. Nobody asks, nobody checks, nobody knows enough to get suspicious. You are free as a bird to publish any garbage you might want to type out.
Your only problem, at least with people who have Internet access, will be Language Log, which does have a history of fingering this sort of thing and holding it up to ridicule. Deal with that one awkward stumbling block — the giant Language Log corporation and its tens of thousands of readers — and you could have a career ahead of you in writing grammatical poppycock for the masses. You could get on the grammar gravy train. Best of luck.