Never paid attention to the Grammar lessons in English class.

rosewood said:

I'm trying to write my first novel, but I have to say that my grammar sucks!?

Click to expand...

First, just write; you can revise later. Don't let grammar anxiety stop you from progressing.

Take a composition class, not a novel class, but a basic composition or expository writing class at your local community college. I'm fond of Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference as a grammar and writing handbook; it's about 45.00 new, but go to a college book store and get a used copy for ten bucks or so. Or get any number of other grammar/usage handbooks designed for undergraduate English classes; they tend to be understandable, practical, and not as boring as most.

Grammar

rosewood said:

I'm trying to write my first novel, but I have to say that my grammar sucks! (Maybe you can tell this, just from my post.) I've been using a grammar handbook to try and correct my mistakes. This helps, but can anyone suggest a website or even classes that I could take that would be more helpful?

In addition, how important is it to have all your grammar correct when you first send out your work?

Click to expand...

You post doesn't reveal any horrible lack of grammar. When you first send out your work, it's very important to have the grammar pretty well done, if not absolutely perfect. We all make mistakes, but many editors are seriously unforgiving about too many, too soon.

You don't have to perfect where grammar and punctuation are concerned, you just have to be, as UJ says, competent. You have to know and use the basics.

I was in your situation when I started writing, and I learned enough in thirty days of study to sell what I wrote. I used a seventh grade grammar book, and I still believe this is far and away the best way to learn grammar. A seventh or eigth grade grammar book, depending on what the school uses, contains all a fiction writer really needs to know, and won't overwhelm you with more advanced grammar you will rarely, if ever, use.

Combine this with Strunk & White's Rhe Elements of Style, and you have a boatload of answers.

As for websites, one of my favorites is http://cctc.commnet.edu/grammar/

I also like OWL, particularly this page: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/eslstudent.html

Here's a free link to one of my standbys....

http://www.bartleby.com/141/

Elements of Style...never open MS Word without it!

Just click on all the chapter headings to read the pages in that chapter. The whole book is here. It's become public domain.

Why does this always happen to me? I was going to make a post about grammar and here we are. :::cue Twilight Zone music:::

Anyway, I just picked up, once again, an old 9th grade grammar book I bought somewhere for about 25 cents. I'm starting at the beginning. I know grammar but I'm not sure how well I know it. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only novice writer who feels that way.

My dad was a Karate instructor and his philosophy of teaching and learning karate was to know the basics and keep learning and relearning them ad nauseam...solid foundation and all that. I also had a violin teacher who taught me the same philosophy -- "You can't play it fast if you don't know it slow." I love the kids grammar workbooks and often go into a store called Holcombs (I think) and pick up a few books every now and then. So, I study the basics quite often.

Sorry for the ramble.

http://www.holcombs.com/

KTC said:

Here's a free link to one of my standbys....

http://www.bartleby.com/141/

Elements of Style...never open MS Word without it!

Just click on all the chapter headings to read the pages in that chapter. The whole book is here. It's become public domain.

Click to expand...

No, it hasn't become public domain.

Bartleby licensed that specific edition; they've paid for it. I know it seems like a minor thing, but really, it isn't.

And, as I keep saying, while Strunk and White is very useful, it's a style guide, not a grammar text.

Here's another site, grammarmudge (The Grammar Curmudgeon):

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/Home.html

It has discussion boards where you can ask questions.

I have appalling problems with grammar and spelling, I'm always trying to improve both. I've found Strunk and White very helpful, and Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss has really improved my punctuation. A class sounds like a very good idea.

You're not alone.

I do think these things are very important in writing, and you can improve, but don't let it discourage you from working on your novel.

Medievalist said:

No, it hasn't become public domain.

Bartleby licensed that specific edition; they've paid for it. I know it seems like a minor thing, but really, it isn't.

And, as I keep saying, while Strunk and White is very useful, it's a style guide, not a grammar text.

Click to expand...

Okay...first off, I was told by a friend that it was public domain...that the copyright ran out and it was now nobody's possession. I will have to tell this friend he is wrong. I'm sure he is mistaken.

And, secondly, I know, I know...it's a style guide. But I find some helpful grammar hints within it.

Thanks for the heads up on the misinformation. I can't wait to tell Mr. Knowitall that he was wrong!

Medievalist said:

No, it hasn't become public domain.

Bartleby licensed that specific edition; they've paid for it. I know it seems like a minor thing, but really, it isn't.

And, as I keep saying, while Strunk and White is very useful, it's a style guide, not a grammar text.

Click to expand...

Well, even though it's a style guide, I also think Strunk & White is also the best grammar guide around by a wide margin. I haven't found any that match it for style, or for common, everyday grammar of the sort fiction writers need.

As for the Bartleby edition, it is and isn't in public domain. It isn't Strunk & White's Elements of Style at all, just Strunk's, and it was published in 1918, which puts it in pubic domain.

What's not in public domain is how Bartleby put it on their website. The specific layout of the book on Bartleby is copyrighted, but the book itself is in public domain. Anything written before 1927 is.

But the version on Bartleby is nearly useless. It's not only horrendously outdated, what makes Strunk & White so useful and so good, both as a style and a grammar guide, is the input from E. B. White, one of the best stylists and grammarians who ever lived.

It's Strunk & White's that's called "the writer's Bible," not the old Strunk edition.

I have the newer edition in paperback, myself. I don't use an online version. I just found it for Rose's use. Oops...didn't even notice it was not the same. Rose, go buy the paperback which includes White. It sells really cheap and it is a tool I am never without.

Your local bookstore will have workbooks designed for high school students. You might also check the test-prep workbooks for the PSAT.

Reading -- a lot -- will also help.

Medievalist said:

I'm fond of Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference as a grammar and writing handbook; it's about 45.00 new, but go to a college book store and get a used copy for ten bucks or so.

Click to expand...

If you want to work online, you can do grammar exercises on Diana Hacker's web site (www.dianahacker.com).

You probably know more about grammar than you think you do. A lot of it is intuitive.

Jackie

jackie106 said:

You probably know more about grammar than you think you do. A lot of it is intuitive.
Jackie

Click to expand...

I'd disagree with you there; I probably know a lot less than I think I do. I keep finding more things to look into. And I take my hat off and bow to anyone who thinks English is intuitive; I find it maddening and charming by turns.

Medievalist said:

And I take my hat off and bow to anyone who thinks English is intuitive; I find it maddening and charming by turns.

Click to expand...

Medievalist, I respect your ability to take apart a sentence, and label phrases and participles and predicates, oh my!

But as a writer, do I really need the ability to label the parts of a sentence I write? I read a lot, and have a "feel" for correct grammar. But apart from Strunk and White, I haven't "studied" grammar and I get confused by a lot of the technical terms. My feeling (my naive hope?) is that I can recognize a clunky sentence and fix it without knowing the technical reason that made it clunky. Is this delusional?

Jana, my thought exactly. I can't name and dissect a sentence if my life depends on it, but I sure can recognize it when a sentence seems wrong, or it can be better, etc. As a writer, I just have an instinctive ability to use the language without being able name all the parts. I know the basic grammar, but don't ask me what a participial adjective is. And I consider myself a pretty good critter or editor...

If I ever start to dissect a sentence here...if you ever see me doing so...please tell me I have no business writing! I prefer the music of words to the taking apart of sentences. YUCH!

JanaLanier said:

But as a writer, do I really need the ability to label the parts of a sentence I write? I read a lot, and have a "feel" for correct grammar. But apart from Strunk and White, I haven't "studied" grammar and I get confused by a lot of the technical terms. My feeling (my naive hope?) is that I can recognize a clunky sentence and fix it without knowing the technical reason that made it clunky. Is this delusional?

Click to expand...

No the names aren't that important; but sometimes the names make it easier to talk about stuff. I have to look up the names all the time, because grammar is really a way of describing the way the language works, and there are different "dialects," so to speak, all of which describe the same blessed thing, but using different words.

When I'm teaching, people laugh because I usually forget to use the names (other than the basic word catergories like nouns and verbs) and I talk about them like they're characters in a play or novel:

"See, then this little guy, over here, he forces the rest of the sentence to . . ."

Grammar

JanaLanier said:

Medievalist, I respect your ability to take apart a sentence, and label phrases and participles and predicates, oh my!

But as a writer, do I really need the ability to label the parts of a sentence I write? I read a lot, and have a "feel" for correct grammar. But apart from Strunk and White, I haven't "studied" grammar and I get confused by a lot of the technical terms. My feeling (my naive hope?) is that I can recognize a clunky sentence and fix it without knowing the technical reason that made it clunky. Is this delusional?

Click to expand...

One of the reasons I love Strunk & White so much is that it conmtains all the average fiction writer will ever need to know, but leaves out many of the complications that simply make grammar a pain in the rear for many new writers.

I believe anyone who reads enough will soon get a feel for what is and isn't a good sentence. The technical terms can make it easier to learn the complications of grammar, but they're in no way necessary to write great fiction. In other words, I do not believe grammar is intuitive, but I do believe writing well can be.

Having an ear for language is more important than having a technical kbnowledge of grammar. Even if you have no idea what a preposition is, odds are you know sometimes ending a sentence with one is the only wise choice, regardless of the rule. Reading quickly teaches that jumping through hoops to follow a rule is not a good idea. When challenged about ending a sentence with a preposition, Chruchill supposed said, "This is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I will not put." I can't imagine a better reply.

My own belief is that a writer who understands where to put a comma, and who knows the difference between active and passive voice, probably knows just about everything they need to know to write as well as anyone. Writers who use commas correctly seldom make serious mistakes in any area of writing.

Once these two things are learned, once you know where a comma does and doesn't go, once you can recognize active and passive voice, the rest becomes a matter of the ear. A sentence can be grammatically perfect, and still read like crap. Or bore the bejeebers out of anyone. And a sentence can break several rules, can slaughter the rules of grammar, and read beautifully.

I majored in English and in Journalism, and the first thing our journalism prof told us was to forget everything we learned in English class. He didn't mean this literally, of course, but by and large, he was absolutely correct.

I believe any writer should know the basics of grammar, primarily the use of the comma and active voice, but as our journalism prof said, "Grammar is grammar, writing is writing, and when the two conflict, writing should always win."

Reading a lot of fiction teaches most writers what is and isn't a good sentence, even if they have no clue about the rules of grammar, or the technical terms, that can be used to diagram the sentence.

Learn the bare basics, keep a thin, handy guide nearby, read as much good writing as possible, and if you have the ear a writer needs, you'll be fine.

My grammar is really terrible and as much as I might try to learn it, it never sticks.

Fortunately, my boyfriend's grammar is outstanding and he's always correcting me on things I didn't know were mistakes. So I find reference grammar books useless, I can't look something up if I don't know what it is. I don't even know it's wrong. I've never tried looking at a textbook, but I think that might be more helpful.

As for whether or not you need grammar, it depends. Someone could make a good movie without good filmmaking (For instance, Pulp Fiction messes up continuity all the time and breaks the biggest rule in filmmaking -- the 180 rule), but if you understand all the rules and tenets of filmmaking, you can bend them to your will. If you understand the 180 rule and then break it on purpose, not out of ignorance, you create a desired effect to give your film more meaning.

The same is true of writing. Grammar is something you can have in your bag of tricks, and the more stuff you have in your bag, the better you're off. The more things you can do as a writer.

So you can get by on active verbs and commas, but you're limiting yourself and what you're able to accomplish.

I think when people say grammar is 'intuitive', they mean they've picked it up from reading. I've noticed both my grammar and vocabulary improving upon reading. But a lot of mainstream books these days are published without great grammar, so you might have to read classic and well written books to be gaining the right kind of intuition.

You know, Maestrowork, I was thinking about this...

maestrowork said:

Jana, my thought exactly. I can't name and dissect a sentence if my life depends on it, but I sure can recognize it when a sentence seems wrong, or it can be better, etc. As a writer, I just have an instinctive ability to use the language without being able name all the parts. I know the basic grammar, but don't ask me what a participial adjective is. And I consider myself a pretty good critter or editor...

Click to expand...

This isn't exactly a bad thing in my opinion, either. I have a friend who used to tell me he has so much head-knowledge into cars that he could write an encyclopedia just on cars. Yet he also told me that if his life depended upon it, he could not so much as change the spark plugs in the cars he knew so much about.

On the same token, my step-dad doesn't know all the fancy terms dealing with automobiles and every little technical term in the world, but describe to him something unusual about your car, and he'll almost invariably tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

What I'm saying is that there is head-knowledge; and there is what I call heart-knowledge. Head-knowledge is knowing up in your mind how everything works, and all the technicalities, etc. But heart-knowledge is the application of what you know. A lot of people who might not have the head-knowledge so far as writing's technicalities go, can still have the heart-knowledge that allows them to tell when a sentence 'works' and when a sentence doesn't 'work.' I personally subscribe to the idea that if a writer knows inside what works, that rather supercedes what their learning or lack thereof might tell them they're capable of doing.

SeanDSchaffer said:

A lot of people who might not have the head-knowledge so far as writing's technicalities go, can still have the heart-knowledge that allows them to tell when a sentence 'works' and when a sentence doesn't 'work.' I personally subscribe to the idea that if a writer knows inside what works, that rather supercedes what their learning or lack thereof might tell them they're capable of doing.

Click to expand...

Very interesting.

D'ya think you can 'unlearn' heart-knowledge by over-analyzing your own work? I mean that in the sense that sometimes you have to trust what you write (although as a newbie, that trust might be a mask for delusion).

Jamesaritchie said:

I majored in English and in Journalism, and the first thing our journalism prof told us was to forget everything we learned in English class.

Click to expand...

Interesting but not surprising. We don't have to wonder why journalism is considered the lowest form of literature!