The story vs. the writing

[Elwyn]

I’ve come to the conclusion that some folk would be satisfied reading a boring book whose author is a word master extraordinaire. I’m talking about the purists who are English majors and look for perfection in sentence structure, etc.

On the other hand, there may be those who overlook someone taking liberties with grammatical purity and actually have a good story to tell. And, before anyone jumps in yelling that a good book should have both, with that I agree. But, I think there could be some compromises.

So what do the successful authors strive for – telling a great story or writing to satisfy the grammar police? Can one get the point across better by defying some of the hard and fast grammar rules? I would certainly think so.

[Bufty]

Elwyn, I'd rather read a good story badly written, than a bad story well written but I would prefer to read a good story written in such a manner that I could follow what was being said without scratching my head, which generally means one written using generally accepted grammar and construction of sentences.

[azbikergirl]

I agree with Bufty. That's not to say, however, that the occasional ungrammatical sentence doesn't have its place. In dialog. :)

[Bufty]

I should add, Elwyn, that I'm not sure how you reach your conclusion when by your own admittance you don't read.

[scarletpeaches]

I hate anything badly written. It makes me throw the book across the room in disgust, wondering how someone who can't spell or use correct grammar even got published in the first place. I can't enjoy a badly written book, even if there's allegedly a good story in there. However, as azbikergirl said, these rules may be broken in dialogue - if this is how your characters really speak.

[aadams73]

I'm a greedy reader. I want both a good story and decent writing.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

i'm fine with poor grammar. if i'm writing a first person piece, i will utilise it often to protray the character's education in general and their emotions in the specific scene.

[Perks]

It's not about the grammar so much, for me, but the word choice. I'm a sucker for a good story, but I can swoon over crackling combinations of words.

[maestrowork]

If it's a good story with great characters, I don't mind if the writing is less than stellar. Many "popular" authors are not the best writers, IMHO, but I enjoy their books. On the other hand, I have a hard time reading purely literary fiction. I'm not a Eng Lit. major; I don't have to subject myself to that. Obviously, if it's a great story, with great characters, and well-written, all the better.

[mkcbunny]

There's a difference between sloppy writing and rule-breaking. It's one thing not to know the rules and present the poor reader with a cluttered vision of an otherwise fascinating tale. It's another thing to know what the rules of punctuation and grammar are and then break them on purpose, for a good reason.

Sloppy writing makes me insane, but intentional rule-breaking is a-OK with me if the author is good at it.

[Saanen]

Actually, English majors (and other folks who study literature on a collegiate level) enjoy a good read just like everyone else. And a surprising amount of literature studied by English majors breaks some of the grammatical rules of English--not because the author didn't know any better, but (and this is the important thing) because the author was so confident of his command of the English language that he knew how to bend the rules to make the prose more powerful.

The problem is, many people who make the argument that they're bending (or breaking) the rules to make their prose more powerful actually don't know the rules in the first place. Therein lies the difference between the amateur and the master.

[carley]

I hate anything badly written. It makes me throw the book across the room in disgust, wondering how someone who can't spell or use correct grammar even got published in the first place. I can't enjoy a badly written book, even if there's allegedly a good story in there. However, as azbikergirl said, these rules may be broken in dialogue - if this is how your characters really speak.

I agree 100%. :)

[katiemac]

Great writing can mask a poor story for only so long -- usually when the reader takes a break and says, "What the hell just happened?"

Poor writing can kill a great story before it even gets off the ground if the reader can't figure out what's happening.

That being said, forgivable grammatical errors here and there won't make an agent or publisher stop reading.

You can learn to fix poor writing. You can't fix a poor story.

[fallenangelwriter]

first of all, good writing and good grammar are not the same.


"know the rules before you break them" is the advice i would give. In my latest WIP, i take a numbe rof grammatical liberties and coin a number of words- but it's first person narration, the protagonist has a propensity to fiddle with word sna dlanguage, and it's only enough to add color or add punch to important points, not throughout the book.

EDIT: for an example of poor grammar and great writing, try Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

[MarkPettus]

I'm in a quandary. I am a huge Robert Jordan fan, and in between books (he's prolific as hell, but his books are huge), I started looking for another writer in the same genre to feed my addiction.

I discovered a guy whose first book was 800 pages long, and has several books in the series already published. The writing was abysmal, but the story was intriguing, and I saw him getting better as he progressed through his first book, so I stuck with him.

I'm on book three (it and book two are both over 800 pages). The writing did improve, but it's still clunky as all hell, and this guy can take ten pages to tell you his nose itches... but the story is still intriguing. I'm still sticking with him, but while I can read one of Jordan's 800 pagers in a couple of days, this guys books take several months.

My quandary? In his jacket photo, this guy looks pretty young. If he keeps writing in this series, I'll be dead long before I finish reading.

[zarch]

I'm one of those literature major folks, and I had to stop reading a book a few weeks ago because the prose was long-winded, wordy, flowery...in short, it was just too literary. I enjoy the Bronte gals, Huxley, Dickens, Twain, Morrison, and other great literary minds...but...I have to feel like the story is gaining positive ground. The writers I just mentioned use wonderful language, but their stories tend not to falter. Fancy language for the sake of fancy language doesn't impress me.

I'm a fan of the sentence fragment, if used sparingly and appropriately. And THAT, my friends, would be considered a grammatical no-no under normal circumstances.

[AdamH]

So what do the successful authors strive for – telling a great story or writing to satisfy the grammar police? Can one get the point across better by defying some of the hard and fast grammar rules? I would certainly think so.

It's the same difference between a really good steak versus a juicy thick hamburger (or for you vegetarians out there, a really good carrot versus tofu :) ). It's a matter of preference and whatever goes down easier. I prefer a great story any day to perfect grammar. "The Colour Purple" is a great example of excellent writing but terrible grammar. It was to serve the character. I don't think the story would've been as good if it was flawless.

[Peggy]

The whole point of having a standard way of constructing sentences is to aid reading comprehension. If I have to work to understand what a sentence means, I "come out of" the story, and I tend to lose interest in the story line. I might finish the book, but I wouldn't buy book #2.

However, I think if every sentence in a novel was grammatically perfect, the writing would seem stilted, particularly the dialog. That's the difference between a technical book and fiction; there's no excuse for poor grammar in technical writing, but "bad" grammar and unusual word choice can be used to great effect in fiction. The art is knowing when to break the rules so that story flows naturally.

I agree with fallenangelwriter that "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is an example of good writing with "poor grammar". The story is told in the first person, by a protagonist who thinks and speaks in a kind of English dialect. It's just different enough from "standard" English to show that the people living on the moon have a distinct culture (it's not a slog like "A Clockwork Orange"). Of course there is also an entertaining story line.

[pepperlandgirl]

If I read the first page and mentally re-write more than say, 10% of the sentences (for whatever reason. To make it flow better, strong word-choice, passive voice, adverb-overkill) then I won't know how good the story is because I won't bother with the second page.

[Tish Davidson]

Language should never get in the way of the story, but if you find yourself mentally re-writing or noticing the language and style that is not a good sign. You can stretch grammar so long as it does not become annoying, especially in dialogue, but if you annoy the reader with stylistic quirks, too much odd dialect, too many sentences that contain gramatical mistakes, you lose the reader. There are too many well-written books that tell good stories to make it worth plowing through the poorly written ones. Plus, as writers, I would think that we would want to read good writing to make outs better.

[Fishmonkey]

It seems to me that there's some confusion between 'good writing' vs 'perfect grammar' vs 'flowery prose'. Neither grammar nor elaborate prose constitute good writing. IMO, a basic understanding of grammar is a requirement for anyone who graduated high school; it shouldn't even enter the discussion. As many people said, grammar rules can be and are broken every day for great effect, but they are broken by people who know what they are doing, not because they couldn't figure out a way of slapping two words together.

Elaborate prose can be used to great effect by good writers; many other good writers opt for simple, clean prose. Either works, if -- again -- the writer knows what s/he's doing.

Good writing however is something separate -- it's not just perfect grammar; otherwise we would consider scientific articles well-written. Good writing demonstartes a certain feel for the language, its cadence etc. Good writing does not hurt. Good writing is not achieved by reading a book on writing, but by many years of indiscriminate reading, and acquiring an instinct for when sentences sound right. They can be wordy or spare, grammatically correct or not, but any prolific reader recognizes good writing -- it resonates. A good writer makes a stylistic choice, not lets the words sort of tumble out.

And it is necessary for the story. If the writing is too painful to read, the story does not matter. Stories ARE made of language, no matter how much scorn you heap on the literary academic eggheads. By the same token, if the book is not interesting, it is not well-written. A well-considered language is the necessity, IMO; this is the whole point of reading.

And before anyone asks, no, I'm not an English major. I'm a reader annoyed by ill-conceived prose and misbegotten novels that are justified by 'great story'. How you tell it makes a difference.

[reph]

Good writing however is . . . not just perfect grammar; otherwise we would consider scientific articles well-written.
Don't we? I've copy-edited plenty of scientific articles. My job included making them better written than before they hit my desk; some needed lots of help, others didn't. A scientist needn't have a tin ear for language.

[Jamesaritchie]

I’ve come to the conclusion that some folk would be satisfied reading a boring book whose author is a word master extraordinaire. I’m talking about the purists who are English majors and look for perfection in sentence structure, etc.

On the other hand, there may be those who overlook someone taking liberties with grammatical purity and actually have a good story to tell. And, before anyone jumps in yelling that a good book should have both, with that I agree. But, I think there could be some compromises.

So what do the successful authors strive for – telling a great story or writing to satisfy the grammar police? Can one get the point across better by defying some of the hard and fast grammar rules? I would certainly think so.

I am an English major, but I think you're confucing proper grammar with good writing. Grammar should be correct where grammar should be correct, and incorrect where it should be incorrect.

The problem comes with writers who can't construct a proper sentence, who don't know the difference between good and bad grammar.

Unintentional bad grammar means bad writing, and bad writing means the greatest story in the world is going to be hidden beneath the bad writing. Writing doesn't have to be great, it merely has to be competent. But it can't be actively bad, or no one, English major, grammar police, or garage mechanic, will want to read the story.

Good story, wonderful characters, and great dialogue are always the most important parts of fiction, but none of these can be created with writing that is at least competent.

When grammar should be poor, good writers make it poor. "Huckleberry Finn" is often called the greatest American novel of all time, but when Huckleberry is speaking or narrating, there isn't a single gramattically correct sentence to be found.

But where good grammar is required, good writers strive to make it perfect.

In other words, defying hard and fast grammar rules is a good thing, IF it's done intentionally, and IF it's done for a good reason. Greart writers do this all the time. They always have.

But breaking hard and fast grammar rules without a good reason, or simply breaking them through ignorance, just means bad writing, bad characters, bad story, and bad dialogue.

In dialogue, and in first person narration, which really is dialogue, grammar should reflect character. Dialogue and narration should use the same grammar that particular character would use. But even here, it needs to come out right, it needs to be intentionally wrong, or it won't sound like the character, it will sound like the writer.

In thrid person narrative, there's darned near never a time when incorrect grammar and punctuation is called for, and darned near never a time when any excuse for getting it wrong is justified.

But there's a lot more to good writing than grammar. A sentence can have perfect grammar and perfect punctuation, and still stink on ice. Proper grammar and punctuation are just the foundation. Good writing comes from word choice, from flow, from rhythm, and from cadence.

Good doalogue comes from writing sentences that are ones the character spekaing would actually use, written in the way that character would actually use then.

But unless the foundation is solid, everything else will come tumbling down.

Good story, good character, and good dialogue are always more important than great writing, but bad writing is another story. Bad writing hides story, characters, and dialogue.

You can't break the rules successfully unless you first know the rules. Rules need to be broken for a reason, and "I don't know them" isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

It makes no more sense to think a writer can perform his craft without a working knowledge of grammar and punctuation than it does to think a carpenter can perform his craft without knowing how to use a hammer or a saw.

Successful writer don't have to satisfy the grammar police. Successful writers ARE the grammar police.

[AncientEagle]

Over the years, at one time or another, I have been looked down upon for being a white male, a redneck, a Southerner, a professional soldier, and a few other things. Now, at long last, I am verbally abused for being an English major. I feel so ashamed. If only I had spent that difficult four years, hard years working my way through college, learning something more real and down-to-earth, like writing incorrect sentences for fun and profit.

It's pretty easy to spot a writer who doesn't know his mother tongue, as compared to one who knows it and bends it deliberately and to good effect and not just because he or she can't be bothered to learn the rules. English is an incredibly rich and useful language, and I can't imagine anyone setting out to use it professionally who would choose to limit himself or herself by using it carelessly.

But then I may be wrong. After all, I'm an English major.

[JERETHAL]

SCREW GOOD GRAMMER AND ALL THAT TRASH. I DON'T EVEN NEED A GOOD STORY. JUST MAKE ME KEEP TURNING PAGES-AFTER YOUR PACKAGE MADE ME COUGH UP HARD EARNED CASH TO BUY YOUR TRASH. ENTERTAIN MY BRAIN; THATS ALL I ASK. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH?

[aruna]

It seems to me that there's some confusion between 'good writing' vs 'perfect grammar' vs 'flowery prose'. Neither grammar nor elaborate prose constitute good writing. IMO, a basic understanding of grammar is a requirement for anyone who graduated high school; it shouldn't even enter the discussion. As many people said, grammar rules can be and are broken every day for great effect, but they are broken by people who know what they are doing, not because they couldn't figure out a way of slapping two words together.

.

I'm with fishmonkey. For me, the story is more important than the writing; yet if a great story is clothed in bad writing, I can't read it. However, a good story may be clothed in adequate writing; perhaps it's the author's first book, or perhaps s/he didn't revise enough, polish enough, Who knows. I'll read such a book and forgive the author, but sigh for the lost opportunity to write a truly great book.

The thing is, writing style CAN be improved. Good, eloquent witing makes a good story even better. It gets at the essence of the story, drives it home to the reader; isn't that what we all want?

I too am bored stuff by literary novels that have no story; those "brilliant" literary novelists whose readers have to suppress the yawns usually have little hope of ever turning out books that truly delight and inspre and keep the pages turning. I don't believe that such books deserve the accolades thrown at them.

But someone who's a good storyteller owes it to him/herself to raise thier writing style to match their storytelling skills - because good writing CAN be learned.

Good storytelling DEMANDS good writing; while I'll forgive a good storyteller for merely adequate writing, I think such authors are their own worst enemy.
And it's not just grammar.
Think of a great story as a beautiful woman; such writers dress their "woman" in rags instead of silk. Therein lies the difference.

[aruna]

Here's an article about the newly announce Booker Prize Winner, which makes me believe that this kind of "brilliantly written", but ultimately bland book, is running into problems. OK, OK, i have to admit I haven't read it, but from the desctriptions I've read, I have to admit I have not the least inclination to do so.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16891847%255E16947,00.html

[Peggy]

Over the years, at one time or another, I have been looked down upon for being a white male, a redneck, a Southerner, a professional soldier, and a few other things. Now, at long last, I am verbally abused for being an English major. I feel so ashamed. If only I had spent that difficult four years, hard years working my way through college, learning something more real and down-to-earth, like writing incorrect sentences for fun and profit.In college I was jealous of English majors. Reading great novels for credit sounded like it must be some sort of scam. Then I learned how many papers English majors had to write, and became content with reading just for my own pleasure. I somehow missed learning how to write incorrect sentences for fun and profit, though (at least not for profit). images/icons/icon7.gif

[Elwyn]

From Bufty:
“I should add, Elwyn, that I'm not sure how you reach your conclusion when by your own admittance you don't read.”

Bufty – I read a LOT. I just don’t read the type of books that I want to write. And, I’m not sure there’s many books on the market that fit my genre; science fantasy - real science (no silly magic) in a semi-fantasy setting. But, with interesting characters and a story line that is very plausible and would hold the reader’s attention.

I would ask all of you to (when you have time) read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. The guy is supposed to be a prolific writer – so some say. But, I will have to say that was one of the most difficult books I’ve ever read. It wasn’t the subject matter (I’m an amateur theologian), but the writing style. I had to re-read about every sentence to try and figure out what point he was trying make. If this is good writing, I’m in a heap of trouble.

From many of you:
“You’re confusing good writing with perfect grammar.” Hurray! A light just came on! I HAVE been doing just that. I would write a sentence that made sense, then stare at it trying to figure out if I’ve dangled a participle, split an infinitive or committed some other high treason of grammar. Note that I do have a copy of Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style.

I had this idea that agents looked at the grammar, rather than the story line and actual writing. (Now, that’s not to say one can submit a query letter and synopsis full of blatant grammatical errors.)

IMHO, this forum is probably better than any writing class. I’m learning a LOT!
:thankyou:

[pconsidine]

SCREW GOOD GRAMMER AND ALL THAT TRASH. I DON'T EVEN NEED A GOOD STORY. JUST MAKE ME KEEP TURNING PAGES-AFTER YOUR PACKAGE MADE ME COUGH UP HARD EARNED CASH TO BUY YOUR TRASH. ENTERTAIN MY BRAIN; THATS ALL I ASK. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH?
But wouldn't a story that did that by definition be a good one? Or do people generally become that smitten by crap? But back to the matter at hand -

To expand on a previous point - I usually refer to Picasso's painting when this subject comes up. The reason that Picasso gets the respect he does is because he had a proven record of more traditional painting before he went into Cubism. In that context, it was an intentional effort to change the way people perceive the 2-D surface of a painting.

If a writer is going to make an effort to change the way people perceive the written word, she will find it far more effective if she has a similar proven record of more traditional writing.

[Jamesaritchie]

In college I was jealous of English majors. Reading great novels for credit sounded like it must be some sort of scam. Then I learned how many papers English majors had to write, and became content with reading just for my own pleasure. I somehow missed learning how to write incorrect sentences for fun and profit, though (at least not for profit). images/icons/icon7.gif

I don't suppose any two English programs are exactly alike, but I had one class where we had to write a paper each morning for an entire semester. We'd sit down, the prof would give us the subject, and we had half an hour to write the paper.

That was the toughest class I ever took. The prof would give the paper an overall grade, and then drop it one grade level for each grammar or punctuation error.

But I was an English Lit major, which, at my college, was not the same thing as an English major. We had one year of pretty intensive English, and three years where the intensive work was spent studying literature, and the writers who wrote it. There were also writing classes

I was also a journalism major, and the two courses were very different. The first thing our journalism 101 prof told us to do was to forget everything we learned in English class except for the grammar. Our English lit profs, of course, were always telling up that journalism majors couldn't write at all.

The truth was somewhere between the two views. English Lit taught me what to write and why to write, and what good writing really is. Journalism taught me how to write fast and tight. Journalism taught me how to write human interest, essays, and columns, and that goes a long way in writing fiction. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of our best writers came through journalism.

I'm always tempted to go back to college and start all over again.

[Zolah]

I agree with Bufty. That's not to say, however, that the occasional ungrammatical sentence doesn't have its place. In dialog. :)

As James Joyce, one of the most celebrated literary writers who ever lived, would surely have agreed...

[Jamesaritchie]

From Bufty:
“I should add, Elwyn, that I'm not sure how you reach your conclusion when by your own admittance you don't read.”

Bufty – I read a LOT. I just don’t read the type of books that I want to write. And, I’m not sure there’s many books on the market that fit my genre; science fantasy - real science (no silly magic) in a semi-fantasy setting. But, with interesting characters and a story line that is very plausible and would hold the reader’s attention.

I would ask all of you to (when you have time) read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. The guy is supposed to be a prolific writer – so some say. But, I will have to say that was one of the most difficult books I’ve ever read. It wasn’t the subject matter (I’m an amateur theologian), but the writing style. I had to re-read about every sentence to try and figure out what point he was trying make. If this is good writing, I’m in a heap of trouble.

From many of you:
“You’re confusing good writing with perfect grammar.” Hurray! A light just came on! I HAVE been doing just that. I would write a sentence that made sense, then stare at it trying to figure out if I’ve dangled a participle, split an infinitive or committed some other high treason of grammar. Note that I do have a copy of Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style.

I had this idea that agents looked at the grammar, rather than the story line and actual writing. (Now, that’s not to say one can submit a query letter and synopsis full of blatant grammatical errors.)

IMHO, this forum is probably better than any writing class. I’m learning a LOT!
:thankyou:

Well, C. S. Lewis was a prolific writer. Prolific doesn't mean good, it only means plentiful. If you write a lot, you're prolific, even if you're a terrible writer. But I love Lewis' style, and you'll notice the style he uses in Mere Christianity is not the same style he uses in his fiction. There's a good reaosn for this. Mere Christianity isn't a writing style at all, it's an informal speaking style, and came first as a series of radio broadcasts. These broadcasts were then collected, pretty much verbatim, to make the book.

So what you're getting in Mere Christianity is Lewis speaking informally, with no chance to edit or rewrite what he has to say.

On a personal level, I thought Mere Christianity was very well done, and I had no trouble understanding it. There's a reason why it's one of Lewis' more popular books. I believe it fully deserves its status as a masterpiece, and I think it reads wonderfully. When I read it, I can hear Lewis speaking every word.

But style is a funny thing. No two writers have exactly the same style, but regardless of the differences in style, all good writer build their particular style on a foundation of good grammar.

In truth, agents and editors look at both the grammar and the writing. As an agent or as an editor, experience soon teaches you that writers who get the grammar wrong also get the story wrong. Having a good story means nothing unless you can also tell the story well.

You can't separate good story from the tools it takes to tell that story well, and you can't separate good writing from good grammar, even though the two are not the same thing.

Good grammar isn't the same thing as good writing, but it takes good grammar to produce good writing. Likewise, good writing is not the same thing as good story, but the better the writing, the better the story will come across to the readers.

It isn't a matter of having a query or synopsis full of blatant errors. Grammar errors jump out at any agent or editor, as they should. This doesn't mean a mistake here or there is going to get you rejected, but it does mean you should try as hard as possible to submit a query or a synopsis that's error free.

When an agent sees grammar errors in something as short as a query letter or a synopsis, it makes them wonder how many will be in a full manuscript.

Just because good grammar and good writing are two different things in no way means a writer can get away with unintentional grammar errors. If you want to produce good writing, you first need good grammar. As the song says, "you can't have one without the other."

[Zolah]

Actually, English majors (and other folks who study literature on a collegiate level) enjoy a good read just like everyone else. And a surprising amount of literature studied by English majors breaks some of the grammatical rules of English--not because the author didn't know any better, but (and this is the important thing) because the author was so confident of his command of the English language that he knew how to bend the rules to make the prose more powerful.

The problem is, many people who make the argument that they're bending (or breaking) the rules to make their prose more powerful actually don't know the rules in the first place. Therein lies the difference between the amateur and the master.

Amen! Once upon a time I was talking to a mathematician, and mentioned to him that writing was fun once you'd learned the rules well enough to be able to break them. He was so shocked I almost thought he'd faint! Obviously this did not accord with his worldview, but sometimes when you're writing 2+2 (an ungrammatical passage) really CAN = 5 (a fantastic effect)...

[victoriastrauss]

If a writer is going to make an effort to change the way people perceive the written word, she will find it far more effective if she has a similar proven record of more traditional writing.Similarly, if you're going to break the rules, you first have to know them. There's a huge difference between an accomplished writer deliberately working outside of established conventions of grammar and usage, and an inexperienced writer who doesn't know how to write grammatically.

I can't read badly written books. It takes me right out of the fictional frame. I also don't buy the "if it's a good story, the writing doesn't matter" thing. It's got to be a total package. Sure, some exciting writers aren't master stylists--but they at least are able to write plain prose, and just as important, they know what they're doing with structure, character, pacing, and other important ingredients of a good read. If someone has a poor prose style, it's likely they haven't mastered other important elements of the craft either.

- Victoria

[goatpiper]

Michael Chabon is a writer who employs impeccable word choice to tell his engaging stories. I was blown away with 'Kavalier and Clay' - it's such a page turner, but the language and style are definitely very artful. I actually asked him about this very subject of 'writing vs. story' at a talk I saw him give. I remember him saying something about the story dictating what language it needs to be told - if things are going well, the writing itself will shine.
He also said that it takes him forever to come up with a good opening sentence for a novel. It's one of the last things he does when he's working on a novel.

[scarletpeaches]

SCREW GOOD GRAMMER AND ALL THAT TRASH.

Quite.

[maestrowork]

Michael Chabon... said that it takes him forever to come up with a good opening sentence for a novel. It's one of the last things he does when he's working on a novel.

Interesting. The opening sentence for my novel was one of the last things I wrote for it, too...

[Elwyn]

Good grammar, yes I would agree. Perfect grammar to a purist - now that's (I would think) carrying things a bit too far.

I would bet that you could hand any novel to a grammatical purist and they could find LOTS of things wrong with it.

BTW - In the middle of writing my first book, I stopped to take an online course from KSU; Grammar Refresher. The instructor and I sent many messages back and forth about some of the rules and how they're applied. She did end up telling me that I should have no trouble with grammar in my writing - but I must say that I'm still a bit leery.

[Jamesaritchie]

Good grammar, yes I would agree. Perfect grammar to a purist - now that's (I would think) carrying things a bit too far.

I would bet that you could hand any novel to a grammatical purist and they could find LOTS of things wrong with it.

BTW - In the middle of writing my first book, I stopped to take an online course from KSU; Grammar Refresher. The instructor and I sent many messages back and forth about some of the rules and how they're applied. She did end up telling me that I should have no trouble with grammar in my writing - but I must say that I'm still a bit leery.

Yes, hand any novel to a grammatical purist and he would find LOTS of things wrong with it. But how many of the "wrong" things would be there by acciodent, and how many by intent? Grammar errors are not necessarily wrong, but unintentional grammar errors, and grammar errors that hurt, rather than help the meaning, are wrong.

We all make mistakes, and a novel has room for a few. A query letter, however, is a different kettle of swimy things.

And all grammar errors are not equal. End a sentence with a preposition and not many will make a fuss. But use a double negative in a query letter, and that's it.

Perfection is not required, but it should be the goal, especially in something as short as a query letter or a brief synopsis, even though few of us will ever attain it.

Agents and editors do take the fact that none of us are perfect into account, and a mistake here and there isn't reason enough to reject anything. No editor or agent has ever said, "This is a great story, good writing, and people will love it, but I'm going to reject it because there's a grammar error on page thirty-five."