"Good grammar doesn't indicate a good writer, but bad grammar does indicate a bad one"
that is not true at all - not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).
Grammar is just a technicality to be overcome. Creative writing (as opposed to technical writing), is something that is not measured by the knowledge of the language, but by the knowledge of humanity, science, culture and anything that intersects in between. An eye for details also helps. But not grammar.
>that is not true at all - not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).
Having something to say and saying it effectively are not synonymous. There are many people with worthy ideas who fail to express themselves competently.
I have yet to encounter a good writer who has poor grammar. Good writers care about grammar, for the same reason good programmers care about style: it's a mark of careful and deliberate artifice.
A good programmer doesn't simply want their programs to compile and run without error; they want it to be readable, maintainable, and elegant. They want the quality of their code to speak for itself. Similarly, a good writer seeks not only to clearly express their ideas, but to do so in a way that evokes thought and emotion on the part of the reader. To do so it is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve technical mastery of the language in which you write.
Good carpenters don't make sloppy cuts, good chefs don't burn the rice, and good painters don't make stray strokes. These are the easy things to get right: the bare essentials for being competent at your task. A person cooking a meal for their family may use too much salt, a person playing guitar around a campfire may play the wrong chord, and someone responding to a comment on the Internet may talk lik dis,, or use unnessary punctuaton!
The difference between the craftsman and the lay person is that the craftsman takes as writ the technical mastery of their skills, and focuses on composition. The lay person is concerned only with the gist.
Having something good, creative or worthwhile to say and saying it well are two different things. I understand the phrse "good writer" to mean the latter.
Too often have I come across excellent insights buried like diamonds in a dungheap in ugly, tortuous prose. This runs the great risk of these insights being lost or misinterpreted.
The converse is possible too, of course; utter nonsense put beautifully.
To support that, ghostwriters and copywriters are two examples of writers that take the gist of another person's thoughts and express them well in writing. They are creative writers, but they don't necessarily have to have anything to say to do their job.
not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).
In those cases the person in question (and his potential readers) would be much better served if he worked with a skilled ghost writer or co-author, rather than trying to write something on his own. Much in the way a scientist or mathematician, who only knows a little programming, is often better served working together with a skilled programmer rather trying translate their domain knowledge to code on their own.
Comments
"Good grammar doesn't indicate a good writer, but bad grammar does indicate a bad one"
that is not true at all - not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).
Grammar is just a technicality to be overcome. Creative writing (as opposed to technical writing), is something that is not measured by the knowledge of the language, but by the knowledge of humanity, science, culture and anything that intersects in between. An eye for details also helps. But not grammar.
>that is not true at all - not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).
Having something to say and saying it effectively are not synonymous. There are many people with worthy ideas who fail to express themselves competently.
I have yet to encounter a good writer who has poor grammar. Good writers care about grammar, for the same reason good programmers care about style: it's a mark of careful and deliberate artifice.
A good programmer doesn't simply want their programs to compile and run without error; they want it to be readable, maintainable, and elegant. They want the quality of their code to speak for itself. Similarly, a good writer seeks not only to clearly express their ideas, but to do so in a way that evokes thought and emotion on the part of the reader. To do so it is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve technical mastery of the language in which you write.
Good carpenters don't make sloppy cuts, good chefs don't burn the rice, and good painters don't make stray strokes. These are the easy things to get right: the bare essentials for being competent at your task. A person cooking a meal for their family may use too much salt, a person playing guitar around a campfire may play the wrong chord, and someone responding to a comment on the Internet may talk lik dis,, or use unnessary punctuaton!
The difference between the craftsman and the lay person is that the craftsman takes as writ the technical mastery of their skills, and focuses on composition. The lay person is concerned only with the gist.
Having something good, creative or worthwhile to say and saying it well are two different things. I understand the phrse "good writer" to mean the latter. Too often have I come across excellent insights buried like diamonds in a dungheap in ugly, tortuous prose. This runs the great risk of these insights being lost or misinterpreted. The converse is possible too, of course; utter nonsense put beautifully.
To support that, ghostwriters and copywriters are two examples of writers that take the gist of another person's thoughts and express them well in writing. They are creative writers, but they don't necessarily have to have anything to say to do their job.
not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).
In those cases the person in question (and his potential readers) would be much better served if he worked with a skilled ghost writer or co-author, rather than trying to write something on his own. Much in the way a scientist or mathematician, who only knows a little programming, is often better served working together with a skilled programmer rather trying translate their domain knowledge to code on their own.
i see that as the way of the future. Aka, collaboration. Subjects these days are way to difficult to really master anyhting multi-disiplinary.