A Few Words about Grammar

[108 fountains]

It’s really quite disheartening to see comments like these on a literature forum:

“No I don’t need the nominative case. There are no cases in English. This is a rule based on Latin made up be prescriptive linguists. In reality, people use either “she” or “her”, including educated speakers.”

and

“I know grammatical mistakes are a big part of writing but at the moment I’m focusing on improving one aspect at a time and I decided to focus on the story line and stirring emotions in the reader.”

I generally try my best to ignore grammatical errors in the posts I find on this forum, especially when the posts are obviously from non-native English speakers or very young beginning writers. However, I have to say that nothing screams “Amateur!” louder than blatant disregard for grammar or carelessness in the basic mechanics of writing by people who should know better.

Yes, nominative, objective and possessive cases do exist in English, as do subject-verb agreement, spelling, proper capitalization, and proper use of commas (they go before the “quotation mark,” and they separate independent clauses). Yes, educated people might sometimes use slang or improper sentence structure in casual speaking or even in casual e-mails, but they do not flagrantly disregard proper grammar usage when engaged in serious writing. We all make mistakes, but a serious beginning writer would do well to focus on getting the basic mechanics correct before worrying about stirring emotions in the reader.

It’s like going to a job interview wearing a torn T-short and flip-flops. It shows that you are not serious and that you don’t care. The interviewer won’t throw you out of the room, and he might listen to what you have to say, but he won’t really hear what you have to say – all he will notice is that you are wearing a torn T-shirt and flip-flops to the interview – and you won’t get the job.

[desiresjab]

I knowed somebody would catch me.

[qimissung]

I get the second quote more than the first one. Grammar is important and we shouldn't be dismissive of it.

[The Atheist]

We all make mistakes, but a serious beginning writer would do well to focus on getting the basic mechanics correct before worrying about stirring emotions in the reader.

I couldn't agree less, sorry; the message is a lot more important than the package.

Steve Jobs turned up barefoot, long-haired and filthy to the interview. He still got the job. Talent is talent, no matter how it's dressed.

You can teach someone the mechanics and how to avoid simple mistakes, but if their writing is rubbish, all the finery of polished and politically correct grammar won't get it read.

Note that I'm not saying grammar isn't important, just that it's of less importance than you're attaching to it.

[Calidore]

Fountains:

I knowed somebody would catch me.

If he hadn't of, I would of.

I couldn't agree less, sorry; the message is a lot more important than the package.

Steve Jobs turned up barefoot, long-haired and filthy to the interview. He still got the job. Talent is talent, no matter how it's dressed.

Not sure Jobs is a great example, because he was very much an exception to the rule. 999,999 times out of a million, you would be correct in turning away someone who showed up like he did. Plus, his outside really did reflect his inside; he was a poisonous human being whose major talent was raising himself up at others' expense, but he had a charisma that convinced the many millions of people who live to worship someone who holds them in utter contempt to throw money at him.

You can teach someone the mechanics and how to avoid simple mistakes, but if their writing is rubbish, all the finery of polished and politically correct grammar won't get it read.

True enough, but the reverse is true as well; a brilliant message poorly presented will also go unread. I think of the writing itself as being like a window to the substance; you want it as clear as possible.

[Iain Sparrow]

I couldn't agree less, sorry; the message is a lot more important than the package.

Steve Jobs turned up barefoot, long-haired and filthy to the interview. He still got the job. Talent is talent, no matter how it's dressed.

You can teach someone the mechanics and how to avoid simple mistakes, but if their writing is rubbish, all the finery of polished and politically correct grammar won't get it read.

Note that I'm not saying grammar isn't important, just that it's of less importance than you're attaching to it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

And, you don't judge a book by its cover.
Paying too close attention to grammar, is I think, snobbery. I really great story can suffer some poor grammar and less than perfect execution, and be none the worse for wear.

[AuntShecky]

I agree with 108 Fountains and Calidore with one slight caveat: the convention of placing the punctuation before the closing quotation marks holds true on this side of the Atlantic, but I recently read an article (in an actual newspaper, the kind that's printed on crinkly paper) that stated that the Brits do the opposite, placing the punctuation outside the quotation marks.

Other than that, you could place me squarely in the camp of the "grammar snobs," or as the late, great David Foster Wallace put it, "snoots."

That doesn't necessarily mean that my grammar is 100% perfect. I screw up all the time. As I told you before, my subjects and verbs don't merely disagree -- they engage in all-out warfare.

[Jackson Richardson]

that stated that the Brits do the opposite, placing the punctuation outside the quotation marks..

If the entire sentence is in quotation marks, the full stop goes inside the quotation marks. If the sentence ends with a phrase in quotation marks, the full stop goes outside the quotation marks. Just logical, like putting the day before the month.

It's only a convention, but I don't want to waste time thinking what I really, really feel is appropriate. For triviality like that, I just want to follow convention. And if people writing un-edited prose don't do so, I don't mind.

If you have conventions, then it is possible to be imaginative and use alternatives, like James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon (neither of them favourite authors of mine). (Note the use of punctuation in regard to quotes.)

[AuntShecky]

If you have conventions, then it is possible to be imaginative and use alternatives, like James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon (neither of them favourite authors of mine). (Note the use of punctuation in regard to quotes.)

I believe one could. For instance, take a pre-existing prescribed form, such as a sonnet. You can still be imaginative and innovative within that form. Also, you remember the adage, "You have to know all the rules before you can break them." I'm convinced that Joyce and Pynchon could teach me a thing a three about grammar.

[Jackson Richardson]

"You have to know all the rules before you can break them." .

That puts it nicely. I'd forgotten that saying.

[The Atheist]

Not sure Jobs is a great example, because he was very much an exception to the rule. 999,999 times out of a million, you would be correct in turning away someone who showed up like he did. Plus, his outside really did reflect his inside; he was a poisonous human being whose major talent was raising himself up at others' expense, but he had a charisma that convinced the many millions of people who live to worship someone who holds them in utter contempt to throw money at him.

I guess we can take it you're not a fan.

Despite his obvious faults, his major talent was [stealing] design and he unquestionably changed the human/computer interface for the infinitely better. He didn't give a hoot about money, either and it was incidental to his career that he ended up with so much of it.

You're determined to see only the bad. I can see both sides of someone/thing, and your analysis of recruiting people on presentation is laughable.

I'm a recruiter by trade, and if I rated people on how they presented themselves to me, I'd have been out of business a long, long time ago. If you turn away 999,999 people, you'd be missing out on several thousand highly talented people who don't conform to your personal tastes. Luckily, in the real world where people get hired, your premise doesn't work at all.

I can teach people how to dress to impress; I can't give them talent.

True enough, but the reverse is true as well; a brilliant message poorly presented will also go unread. I think of the writing itself as being like a window to the substance; you want it as clear as possible.

Again, much better a small window to brilliance than a crystal clear view of utter garbage.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating throwing the grammar rules away. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

The point is, if we concentrate on enforcing grammar right from the start, you run the risk of alienating good writers who struggle with the rules. No grammar error is beyond a good editor, but remember they're editors because they can't write the books.

[DickZ]

Maybe I'm not as observant as other readers, but I can't remember any instances of brilliant writing that was riddled with mistakes in spelling and grammar. It's always a big turnoff, at least to me, and it is painful to plow through poorly-written material. Can anyone point out some specific examples of great writing that is filled with errors - errors that should be overlooked because the story's quality offsets the mistakes?

[Iain Sparrow]

Maybe I'm not as observant as other readers, but I can't remember any instances of brilliant writing that was riddled with mistakes in spelling and grammar. It's always a big turnoff, at least to me, and it is painful to plow through poorly-written material. Can anyone point out some specific examples of great writing that is filled with errors - errors that should be overlooked because the story's quality offsets the mistakes?

You should take into account one thing; most everything you read, from the back of a cereal box to novels past and present, have went through an editor or editors. What we finally read is the much tinkered with final draft, the finished piece.

A quick list of writers who were quite terrible at spelling and stumbled over elements of grammar...

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Mark Twain
William Butler Yeats
Ernest Hemingway
Agatha Christie


Tolkien and many others are great storytellers, but not particularly great writers.

[Jackson Richardson]

Are you suggesting they shouldn't have had editors? Winston Churchill was dyslexic so he dictated his writings, I believe. He wouldn't have wanted it to be otherwise.

Tolkien was no great shacks as a stylist, sure. But he's not ungrammatical.

[Iain Sparrow]

Are you suggesting they shouldn't have had editors?

Just the opposite.
The unsung heroes of the literary world are editors, and their editorship is more than just policing spelling and grammar. They help forge great literature.