So people can't be good at grammar and writing at the same time? Wow.
Not what I meant. My bad for not clarifying. Was kind of just going along with the flow of the conversation.
I can't write poetry for anything (and my editing for poetry is pretty low on the scale--passable for a student-run magazine).
I'm adequate on rhet/comp. work.
Nonfiction is somewhere between poetry and fiction. I'm still learning.
I understand the structure of all of the above. Have taught them in class. Have graded papers. Have corrected grammar. (Even if I don't use perfect grammar on an internet message board.)
All of the above? I could nail an editing pass for academia, for students wanting help with grammar. But, in a 150k word novel? No. I could not. Furthermore, because I know grammar, because I know creative writing methods, theories and craft mechanics does not make me a good writer. Not in any way, shape or form.
What makes me a good writer is an understanding of the above, hard work and something intuitive that I scrape away after a hard session with my muse. No amount of grammar will make what I write magically publishable. I someone wants to argue that, I guess they'll find a great job writing textbooks? Even so, the best textbooks have voice, style and accessibility. Grammar can't account for that either.
I'm not picking on you. I'm saying, "hey, if you can write like a madman/madwoman AND self-edit to super publishable success without an agent, without an editor, great! But, I consider those people to be in the minority."
If you're in the minority, then all the power to you. I'm not that lucky. A lot of people aren't that lucky. It's like lightning striking twice imho and for those who truly have that gift, I expect them to be NYT top-selling authors making pretty big bucks. I certainly would strive for that myself if I had the goods.