Is Grammar Really That Important Any More?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by gmw

Things seem to be getting a little out of hand here in places. The topic was about grammar. Editors are not (just) about grammar. Grammar is not (just) about commas in the right places. The right grammar can aid a writer to achieve much of what people have been talking about here as if it were somehow separate - character development and pacing. Pacing relies quite heavily on grammar to make the story flow appropriately at different stages. The subtle use of grammar can help to make certain aspects of character appear in the text without having to spell them out.

This is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post. But that sort of subtlety is only possible if the writer actually knows the rules of grammar well enough to be able to bend them when needed.

Different styles of writing (more or less casual, stilted versus flowing) can be used for that as well, but I'm not sure if grammar and/or style are one and the same. I'm fairly certain they influence each other though.

Originally Posted by gmw

Grammar really is important. It's an integral part of what a writer produces, it's part of the story and cannot be separated from it, the same sequence of words with different grammar can tell a different story - or were you too busy eating Grandpa to really understand the point of that example? It was never about the comma, it was about how the reader understood what was written. If you get the grammar wrong but your message is still clear, then sure, the grammar mistakes are not important. But, if you get the grammar wrong and your story goes astray, then these are technical errors for which you only have yourself to blame.

And this would be my point. If the grammar mistakes make a sentence mean something other than what the writer wants it to mean, then that writer should perhaps not be a writer... or should at least have that editor of theirs question and ask about what exactly they meant.

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Even people who know nothing about repairing cars know that brakes get adjusted as well as repaired and replaced.

We do?

Right. Of course I do. Now.

But the example of breaks and brakes is a good one. It proves that the rules of spelling and grammar matter, because though the two words sound the same, the spelling tells us which of the two you're talking about. Context implies, and the spelling confirms it. As with its and it's, they're and their (and there), you can figure out which one the writer means by looking at how they use it. But as why make it harder than it has to be for the reader to discern the meaning of a sentence?

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by teh603

And sometimes coffee is just coffee, and cake just cake. Whether you join the clauses or not is more a question of how choppy you want your writing to be. This isn't Dune and we aren't speaking Imperial Galach. There's no reason to try to read for that level of nuance in someone's writing.

If a writer wishes to use short, choppy sentences to capture a particular tone or to express a particular emotion, who am I to judge? None of the sentences made by my fictional writer were grammatical incorrect in-and-of themselves; they were grammatically incorrect because they did not contain the underlying grammatical structure needed to express what she wished to express. Because my make believe writer was able to call upon her knowledge of grammar, she was able to express her thoughts more effectively to her audience.

As for your closing statement: I couldn't disagree more. If a book, essay, or poem is worth my attention, it will not only have nuances but will demand that I take time to explore those nuances. If there is nothing beneath the surface, if the story is just a story, then I just can't work up the excitement to continue reading.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

If a book, essay, or poem is worth my attention, it will not only have nuances but will demand that I take time to explore those nuances. If there is nothing beneath the surface, if the story is just a story, then I just can't work up the excitement to continue reading.

Karma for this.

With the qualifier that sometimes when a story is just a story, that's just what I want and need.

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Unfortunately, the owner of the shop was one of the people who get caught up in the form and not in the content. He lost out on getting a model employee who could do the needed work simply because he paid more attention to spelling and grammar rather than content.

This case is precisely why composition instructors have a moral duty to help their students become better writers not only in content but also in execution.

The world can be a prejudicial place, and I would do my students no favors by allowing them to continue believing that no one will judge them as slow, stupid, or incompetent upon seeing that they cannot even take the time to proofread.

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Karma for this.

With the qualifier that sometimes when a story is just a story, that's just what I want and need.

In the original draft of my post, I had started this long-winded metaphor about how writing is like food: while they can be enjoyable as an occasional treat, one cannot live off a diet of just Chicken Nugget novels. I went on for quite some time with various food metaphors until I realized that I was actually just hungry and should go eat breakfast.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by gmw

Grammar really is important. It's an integral part of what a writer produces, it's part of the story and cannot be separated from it, the same sequence of words with different grammar can tell a different story - or were you too busy eating Grandpa to really understand the point of that example? It was never about the comma, it was about how the reader understood what was written. If you get the grammar wrong but your message is still clear, then sure, the grammar mistakes are not important. But, if you get the grammar wrong and your story goes astray, then these are technical errors for which you only have yourself to blame.

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

And this would be my point. If the grammar mistakes make a sentence mean something other than what the writer wants it to mean, then that writer should perhaps not be a writer... or should at least have that editor of theirs question and ask about what exactly they meant.the writer means by looking at how they use it. But as why make it harder than it has to be for the reader to discern the meaning of a sentence?

Exactly.
As someone (and you know this by reading my forum posts, which contrary to common belief I proof read many times over before posting) who struggles with rules of grammar and spelling, I can get a grammatically correct page out of MS Word by using all the automated tools, Google searches, and reference books... BUT none of that would save grandpa! That is why I have always used editors of some level (friends, family, grad students, etc), and recently moved up to a professional editor.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

one cannot live off a diet of just Chicken Nugget

Wow, she's kinda hot.
I hope she discovers some vegetables to avoid the whole "it's killing her" part, but, heck if she looks like that, it seems it beats killing yourself with nicotine and cocaine like some women her age do....OK, back to grammar.

[montalex]

Small, but important, differences between:
I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse
and
I helped my uncle jack-off a horse

[DaringNovelist]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I'll overlook some poor grammar if the story is good. But it has to be a really good story, because there are other good stories out there with good grammar. Bad grammar is like potholes on the road, it makes the experience less smooth. Of course grammarians are always wrong - eventually.

Actually, great stories are rare, with or without good grammar. Good grammar on the other hand is not so unusual.

That's one of the things I noticed in judging contests: the most polished stories were mediocre. The very few which were wonderful (while they were not illiterate) were always second tier in grammar, punctuation and formatting.

The thing about bad grammar, spelling, typos and other silly mistakes, is that when the story fails, these are the easy things to notice and point out. And it's easy to claim that they are the cause of the problem, when they might be more a result of the problem.

For instance: A writer with cloudy, inexact ideas will naturally use passive voice. She uses it not because it's a bad habit or an error, but because it is the very best way to express her foggy thinking.

Now, sometimes forcing a writer to adhere to rules sharpens up their skills otherwise. For instance, training a writer to notice when she uses passive voice (and maybe forbidding her from using it) will force her to think deeper about her ideas. But it's just a bandaid really. If someone really is a foggy, lazy thinker, she will simply rearrange sentences in ways that conform to the rule, but don't deepen the idea in any way at all.

Camille

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Justin Nemo

OK stitch, just give us the address of your garage and be done with it.

Would that I could. Unfortunately, his business was lost to another RV shop down the road that offered better repair service. 'My' garage only works on motorcycles.

Originally Posted by ApK

And speaking of pots calling kettles black, what are you doing bring up this mechanic, who you seem to be arguing has no need for grammar skills, in "The Writer's Corner?"

To illustrate the fact that not all written communication requires good grammar, as the OP asked in the title question. I would have thought that was obvious.


Stitchawl

[RolandD]

This is on topic and amusing.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-common...rent-mistakes/

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

To illustrate the fact that not all written communication requires good grammar, as the OP asked in the title question. I would have thought that was obvious.


Stitchawl

Umm...you illustrated that bad grammar cost him a job.

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by DaringNovelist

For instance: A writer with cloudy, inexact ideas will naturally use passive voice. She uses it not because it's a bad habit or an error, but because it is the very best way to express her foggy thinking.

Actually, it is a common misperception that there is something inherently wrong with using the passive voice. Depending on the modality of writing, the passive voice can be more correct than the active voice. For instance, in a scientific journal article, the writer's goal is to emphasize the research itself rather than the researcher. The writer must use the passive voice to accomplish this task: "The specimen was placed in a ceramic beaker containing 30 ml of tap water. The temperature of the water was slowly raised until it reached a boiling point." No one really cares that it was Underpaid Lab Assistant Joe Blow who actually did the placing and temperature upping; his participation in the experiment is superfluous information so using the active voice would result in an inaccurate overemphasis of his importance.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by ApK

Umm...you illustrated that bad grammar cost him a job.

Whooooooosh!!! (I wouldn't have thought this was so complicated.)

That fellow got a job, just in another shop. A skilled mechanic will always get a good job at high pay. (Wouldn't it be great if the same were true for skilled writers?)

My friend, the one who paid more attention to grammar than content was the real loser. By correcting the mechanic's CV instead of hiring him for his skills, he lost his company. The mechanic he eventually hired inspired no confidence in his customer base, therefore no word-of-mouth endorsements, which as most will agree, are the best advertising to be had, especially in a small city. 'For want of a nail...'


Stitchawl

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

Actually, it is a common misperception that there is something inherently wrong with using the passive voice. Depending on the modality of writing, the passive voice can be more correct than the active voice. For instance, in a scientific journal article, the writer's goal is to emphasize the research itself rather than the researcher. The writer must use the passive voice to accomplish this task: "The specimen was placed in a ceramic beaker containing 30 ml of tap water. The temperature of the water was slowly raised until it reached a boiling point." No one really cares that it was Underpaid Lab Assistant Joe Blow who actually did the placing and temperature upping; his participation in the experiment is superfluous information so using the active voice would result in an inaccurate overemphasis of his importance.

Fully agree with you. This dislike of the passive voice is a very recent phenomenon, and IMO, reflects the general dumbing-down of education. Passive voice is not a reflection of 'foggy thinking' - on the contrary, correct use of the passive voice requires a high degree of language proficiency. Learning a language begins with the active voice - this is why children frequently make inanimate objects 'come alive' so they can 'speak' - and use of the passive voice requires a high level of skill, which for children learning English, rarely occurs before the age of 5 years, and usually takes until the age of about 8–9 years to be mastered.

As Stickybuns said, passive voice can sometimes be far more appropriate, even in fiction - it can be a very effective way of taking the narrator out of the story and allowing the reader to put themselves in that position.