I suck at grammar, Is anyone using Grammarly pro?

Personal opinion: No. I had it for a while but ended up chucking it because I overrode it more often than not when writing fiction. I think it would be a waste of time for dialogue, in particular. As I said, my opinion and all that jazz.

I have it for free through school.

I love it. Don't get me wrong:as Ari said above, I find myself overriding it a lot. But, once you get comfortable with ignoring it and not trying to chase a perfect score (I kind of hate the score feature) it is invaluable for spotting errors you missed.

Also, its a great tool to learn about grammar. Each error has extensive text on why its a possible error. For example, if I put a sentence like this in there: A shot rang out and Molly screamed. It would probably suggest putting a comma in (A shot rang out, and Molly screamed), but tell you that its not a hard and fast rule when the second part of the compound sentence is short. Its going to show you the technical right way to do things, so that when you bend or break the rules you understand what you're doing.

I can't speak to Grammarly Pro, but I tend to turn off any grammar checking as the software tends to try to make me change things that are better left the way I wrote them. From what I've seen, these things probably work a lot better for people writing business communications than those writing fiction. The word 'Pro' may be an indication that this one does a better job, but I'm not convinced.

On the other hand, if you're utterly rubbish at grammar, a grammar checker *might* help you to get better. I'm thinking of you seeing what the checker tells you and then taking time to learn why it's saying that (and then taking more time to learn why it might be wrong). This, of course, is far from a quick fix. Sorry.

FWIW, grammar instruction seems to be out of fashion again, at least where I teach. A couple of years ago, we had a new English teacher who had the kids diagramming sentences, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside since she moved on. (Disclaimer: I only know what goes on in the English department by hearing what the kids are complaining about most stridently,so it's vaguely possible, though unlikely, that a lot more grammar is being taught than I know about.) My own daughter, at the time a Lit major at uni, came to me to find out what the different parts of speech were.

tharris said:

I have it for free through school.

I love it. Don't get me wrong:as Ari said above, I find myself overriding it a lot. But, once you get comfortable with ignoring it and not trying to chase a perfect score (I kind of hate the score feature) it is invaluable for spotting errors you missed.

Also, its a great tool to learn about grammar. Each error has extensive text on why its a possible error. For example, if I put a sentence like this in there: A shot rang out and Molly screamed. It would probably suggest putting a comma in (A shot rang out, and Molly screamed), but tell you that its not a hard and fast rule when the second part of the compound sentence is short. Its going to show you the technical right way to do things, so that when you bend or break the rules you understand what you're doing.

Click to expand...

Just for fun, here is my above post as run through Grammarly. I wrote the above quickly and without re-reading it (notice how much I mess up its vs it's). Here it is after Grammarly:

-----

I have it for free through school.

I love it. Don't get me wrong: as Ari said above, I find myself overriding it a lot. But, once you get comfortable with ignoring it and not trying to chase a perfect score (I kind of hate the score feature), it is invaluable for spotting errors you missed.

Also, it's a great tool to learn about grammar. Each error has extensive text on why it's a possible error. For example, if I put a sentence like this in there: A shot rang out and Molly screamed. It would probably suggest putting a comma in (A shot rang out, and Molly screamed), but tell you that it's not a hard and fast rule when the second part of the compound sentence is short. It's going to show you the technically correct way to do things so that when you bend or break the rules, you understand what you're doing.

----

I ignored three things: it told me that "extensive text" was an odd word combination (its right that it sounds clunky, but I left it). It caught the first "shot rang out..." sentence just like I thought it would. It warned me that I was repetitive with the word "scream" (that was intentional). Otherwise it fixed a lot of commas and it's vs its. It also (correctly) noticed that "technical right way to do things" was weird. I didn't like its suggested fix, so I found my own.

Grammar checkers and grammar/style guides, every one I've ever seen, are intended for formal academic writing, not for fiction narrative. The best free on-line site is, IMO, Purdue OWL. It's very worthwhile to have that one bookmarked.

And it's a bad idea to turn off the grammar checker in your word-processing program, because it often catches spelling/typo mistakes that aren't caught by the spell checker.

But if you are going to be a good writer, you just plain need to understand grammar. It ain't cosmological quantum physics.

caw

No. I find myself overriding it a lot more than it helps me catch actual problems. For academic stuff, as mentioned above, it's great. And I'll use it after I'm done writing to make sure that entire paragraph isn't a single sentence. But for fiction writing, it just doesn't help me.

I only use the likes of Office 365's grammar checker at the very end, after the script's been through several rounds of edits with my editor. That's only to catch minor, minor issues like extra spaces finding their way in during my edits etc.

Knowledge is a good thing, but the mind does like to play tricks on you, and it doesn't matter how good you are, you won't catch everything, so the checker's always a good last resort.

To be honest, there's nothing about your posts here that suggests you have widespread issues. Might be best to give a few examples and we can work through them? You probably only have one or two errors that you keep repeating.

(I have an irrational dislike of Grammarly based on their fecking annoying adverts every time I watch something on Youtube... no, I don't "neeeeed" this product you smug gits.)

I feel worse at it than I actually am (although that sentence may indicate otherwise). I am reading Ursala K. Leguin's, Steering the Craft, and she is adamant that a thorough understanding of grammar is essential for a serious writer. Words are our tools and it's like using a screwdriver where a hammer is required if you are not in command of it.
With that in mind, I grind out rehashing (or resurrecting) my grammar ed with these websites:
http://www.chompchomp.com/menu.htm
https://www.englishgrammar101.com/
http://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/

Also, a painful truth I am having a hard time digesting, mostly for financial reasons, is that if you want to be a professional, you really need to invest in an editor. I keep reading from more and more credible sources that they make all the difference when we submit.

Good luck.
Michael

I'm an editor -waves- and I second the person who said that there doesn't appear to be anything drastically wrong with your grammar in the short post you made here. If you do work with an editor in future, tell them you are looking to improve your grammar and ask them to include a few notes to help. Chances are, they can highlight your grammatical (or should I say ungrammatical) tics so you can avoid them in your next piece.

It's also worth remembering that a lot of so-called 'grammar rules' aren't actually rules at all. One thing I was surprised by when doing my training was actually how non-prescriptive copy-editing can be. There are many, many questions that don't have a right or wrong answer. Of course, sometimes there is something that's just straight-up wrong ... but it's rarer than you might think.

It makes a difference, too, whether you're writing fiction or non-fiction and in a formal or informal style. If you're writing a non-fiction academic work then you need to be a stickler for correct grammar. If you're writing a novel, that's not necessarily the case depending on the type of book it is. There might be some parts that are almost poetry! A good editor should be sensitive to that and retain your 'voice' and those of your characters.

If there are certain rules that you break repeatedly, I'm sure your editor can flag them up for you. I just edited the fourth book for someone and she is always looking to improve and very receptive to suggestions. For example, she had a way of punctuating which made dialogue tags out of things that can't really be dialogue tags ('she smiled', 'he preened', etc.) - very easy to fix, to mention and for her to avoid in future. Yes, it might be technically wrong, but it in no way made her writing bad. It just needed some small alterations.

donnsmith said:

FWIW, grammar instruction seems to be out of fashion again, at least where I teach. A couple of years ago, we had a new English teacher who had the kids diagramming sentences, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside since she moved on. (Disclaimer: I only know what goes on in the English department by hearing what the kids are complaining about most stridently,so it's vaguely possible, though unlikely, that a lot more grammar is being taught than I know about.) My own daughter, at the time a Lit major at uni, came to me to find out what the different parts of speech were.

Click to expand...

In the UK teaching of grammar's not just the fashion, it's a massive thing promoted by the government, and kids in primary school (age 5-11) get hammered with it. (The rationale being they need to know it before they start secondary school at age 11/12.) My 8 yr old comes back from school saying things like "mum, do you know what a fronted adverbial is?" then telling me the answer when I don't know. My mum (who went to school in the 50s which is an era where grammar teaching was big) was there for the fronted adverbial conversation and after my daughter explained it said "oh, I thought it might be a kind of monkey."

Another time my older daughter, then in year 6 (last year of primary school) was playing an game of make-believe and came out with "I'm a happy little subordinate clause". Additionally, the school ran drop in sessions for parents to come and look at what kids have to learn in English, i.e. parents can learn the grammar that their kids are learning so we have an inkling of a clue when it comes to helping kids with their English homework. I sure as anything wouldn't know what a subordinating conjunction is if it weren't for my kids.

In light of that, if anyone wants a book to learn British English grammar where it's explained in a straightforward way along with efforts to make it fun and not deathly boring, any year 6 SPAG (spelling punctuation and grammar) SATS revision guide - I particularly recommend the one by CGP - is the only grammar book you'll ever need.

I am 99% certain that no-one, save language specialists, needs to know that crap.

onesecondglance said:

I am 99% certain that no-one, save language specialists, needs to know that crap.

Click to expand...

Which crap in particular? Good grammar; decent prose; entertaining narrative; or just English in general?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant - thanks Sarah. Fronted adverbials, subordinating conjunctions, etc.

Grammar is a toolset to understand how a language fits together. So I would say that a much more practical primer in grammar is reading - as widely and as much as possible.

onesecondglance said:

Yes, that's exactly what I meant - thanks Sarah. Fronted adverbials, subordinating conjunctions, etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I learned this stuff for school so I could regurgitate it on tests, and promptly forgot it. I can tell you if something's grammatically correct or not (usually ), but I can't tell you why.

onesecondglance said:

Grammar is a toolset to understand how a language fits together. So I would say that a much more practical primer in grammar is reading - as widely and as much as possible.

Click to expand...

This. Although I can imagine there are some people who internalize structure better if they understand the rules. Also, English is kind of nuts, so learning the rules and exceptions can be fun.

mzanemcclellan said:

Also, a painful truth I am having a hard time digesting, mostly for financial reasons, is that if you want to be a professional, you really need to invest in an editor. I keep reading from more and more credible sources that they make all the difference when we submit.l

Click to expand...

That's not true. Unless you have a specific extra need for editorial assistance (not a native speaker, dyslexic, etc.) that's not good advice for people planning on trade publishing.

You may in fact be causing extra work for your publisher by using an external editor. Your publisher will have a house style sheet and preferred style. Your hired editor won't know those preferences.

onesecondglance said:

I am 99% certain that no-one, save language specialists, needs to know that crap.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yeah. The names for various syntax patterns and parts of speech aren't crucial, and they change (there are religious denominations in terms of labeling parts of speech).

But you do need to have an understanding of how punctuation marks work, and knowing what things are called will make that a little easier.

Get a good basic grammar guide, like one of those written for freshman comp classes. Use reputable online sources.

But keep in mind that writing fiction isn't the same as non-fiction; it's particularly not the same as writing academic papers.

People make "grammar errors" all the time in spoken English (and lots of them aren't actually errors; they're differences in style and usage).

I'd suggest reading a lot (read widely too; all kinds of things) and listen to how people actually talk.

onesecondglance said:

Grammar is a toolset to understand how a language fits together. So I would say that a much more practical primer in grammar is reading - as widely and as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Here, here. Could not agreed more.

onesecondglance said:

Yes, that's exactly what I meant - thanks Sarah. Fronted adverbials, subordinating conjunctions, etc.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that the former could be quite prevalent in poetry, and the later is just a name for something that we all use, but don't necessarily know the name of.

Do you have dyslexia, OP?

I don't mean that as a rude question, but the reason I ask is my partner is dyslexic, and his grammar is stuck how it is. The only solution we have is that I go over everythign he writes (emails and stuff, he doesn't write fiction).

What I mean is, it's not a matter of practice for my partner. Just a part of how his brain works. He will always spell our/are wrong and can't refrain from using run on sentences.

I use both grammarly and prowritingaid. I like the ease of use of grammarly but I find I have to ignore half of their suggestions, which can be time consuming, 30 mins to review a 6000 word chapter.

Pro writing on the other hand is not easy to use but is near instant.

I would ignore grammar in dialogue to help make it authentic.

One last point as why grammarly doesn't offer a free trial of their paid version..

My editor, who is also a dear friend, has a health issue and can't work on my novel. She was set to receive my manuscript in early December, so I'm scrambling to find a replacement. In the interim, I decided to download the free version of Grammarly for Word and see what it picked up.

No tool is perfect, but Grammarly does do a better job than the checks done within Word. It caught a couple instances of were when I should have written we're, and other things like that. The tool is a bit clumsy when it comes to updating the check when I reword a sentence - I have to close the file, reopen it, then run the checks again - but that isn't a big deal.

Generally speaking, I recommend the free version, because it filters out some of the most egregious errors and will let you give a cleaner copy of your work to an editor.