File this post under Rants and Ruminations. I have recently quit a group on Facebook called Grammarly. It is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek collection of complaints about people who have poor grammar, spelling, and usage skills. (Perhaps more about the skills than the people.) And it is the front door for a website, also called Grammarly, that sells a service that will analyze your writing and find all of the “mistakes” in it so you can become a better communicator.
Long-time readers of this humble blog know that I have only grudging regard for the so-called “rules” of grammar, especially in creative writing. (See my old Continuum post.) Communication comes first, and generally a person’s meaning is clear despite “incorrect” grammar, word choice, punctuation, and spelling. I believe I have the chops to make such an assertion. I have written technical manuals, feature articles, newsletters, and fiction. I have been both a book editor and a magazine editor. I have a master’s degree in professional writing, and I taught English composition at community college for several years. I know my way around a sentence. (My grammar “error” of choice is the sentence fragment, and none of the editors who have published my stories has ever complained about them. As Emma Darwin has said, grammar is a tool, not a rule.)
In most of the examples of errors they cite and then slightly ridicule, they are, to my mind, a bit mean and even condescending. (Your/you’re, its/it’s, supposably, less/fewer, and the like) The group also includes readerly or writerly quotations and occasional links to their website. It’s all benign, but it feels petty. I have occasionally left a comment on some of their posts when I find their point especially elitist or unkind. Usually I get flamed, saying I lack a sense of humor and that the point is just joking around. (Funny, isn’t that what bullies say too? And should I put a comma before “too”? Ellen?)
One of their posts cited a somewhat famous article in the Harvard Business Review by Kyle Wiens. In this article he says that he will not hire a person, regardless of qualifications, if that person exhibits poor grammar in the pre-employment test he gives all applicants. He calls himself a grammar “stickler.” That’s being generous in my view, but read and judge the article for your fine self. (There is a story, probably apochryphal, that Henry Ford would take potential employees to dinner, and if they salted their food before tasting it, they would not be hired. Imagine the talent that went on to work for his competitors based on this arbitrary standard.)
Grammar, of course, is the codification of how we communicate today. Hamlet could not have been written by our current set of rules. Nor Moby Dick. Some grammar is optional, often dependent on no more than which style book you’ve sworn allegiance to. Much usage is regional. Even spelling can be variable. (My life goal is to get “enuf” accepted as standard spelling.) So-called poor grammar is probably the most common failing of people as well as the most easily “corrected.”
Further, I’m convinced that the vast majority of employers, consumers, and other potentates wouldn’t know a good sentence from a bad one. That’s certainly been my experience in the working world.
Bottom line: I would not want to work at a place that has such an intolerant approach to such an ambiguous matter.