I will say that if there's too much of it in a sample of writing, I gert very suspicious of said writer, unless there's a voice coming through at me. If the voice is there, I'll fix grammar or their breakfast.

You're right about this -- although in my experience, reading ms. after ms. from the slush pile, most writers with really strong voices don't mangle the language *too* often or too egregiously. (Or they do it on purpose, which is a whole different thing.)

And my grammar isn't perfect by a long shot, nor my punctuation. Even when copyediting, I check my sources to be sure about some things. But the author in particular I was thinking about with the past/present thing? Didn't have a particularly strong voice *or* story, and clearly just wandered in and out of tenses without realizing there was a difference. In the same sentence, sometimes! Drove me batshit.

Deb, FWIW, I'm talking about issues like multiple run-on sentences per page, or people who have no grasp on basic rules of punctuation.

I'm more tolerant of it than I used to be, because I've come to realize in working with critique partners that not everyone just picks it up naturally from reading. I just happen to have an ear for it myself, but lack of such an ear is no more a failing than not being able to easily match a pitch in singing. Or, to name something I'm bad at, than being unable to watch a dance step and replicate it without detailed, patient instruction.

But I still feel like if you're going to enter contests or submit to editors and agents, you ought to have enough respect for the craft to polish your work first, and part of that is getting the little details right.

Many would-be writers don't have the self-awareness to realize that their craft needs work.

I'll fix grammar or their breakfast

Dibs on breakfast.

Her main bitch was that the Chaucerian-era language used in Famous Flower should have been actual Middle English. How does one explain to someone that arse-sticked that forcing the reader to set the book aside in mid-read to hunt up a Middle-Modern dictionary qualifies as a boat anchor and a story killer?

It's for that same reason that Stephen J. Hawkings only put something like four mathematical equations in "A Brief History of Time." Only what he felt was absolutely necessary to illustrate relativity.* It was a popular science book and a well-known fact that the more equations you put in a book of that sort, the fewer people would read it.

*relatitivy is not the same as relativity.

I am *so* Tense Switching Woman. And Fragment Girl. That is why I'm whinging about the edits, because I can't trust that my story is awesome enough that I don't have to pick through it because even knowing that, I can't stop. Dude.(Also, I like to type that. and "You know?" and "Whatever.") So Deb cut them with her editing machete and now I have to keep going, like, if I want anybody to see this that isn't me, you know?

Many would-be writers don't have the self-awareness to realize that their craft needs work.

That's probably true, and in all honesty, I had my share of obliviousness when I first started doing this seriously. But I guess it surprises me more WRT major grammar and craft issues, because don't they notice what they're writing doesn't sound like the things they're reading?

I know, I know, the answer is "probably not," any more than people who can't match a pitch or clap on the backbeat hear the difference.

I am *so* Tense Switching Woman. And Fragment Girl.

And I'm an Adverb Abuser who likes to see just how long I can make a sentence without veering into run-on territory. But we know that. And we edit. That makes all the difference.

Oh, and now that I'm reading the judging discussion in more detail, it looks like the list is about evenly divided between my fellow grammar pedants and those who think it's of minor importance. So I feel better now. No matter how carefully we try to adhere to the judging standards, we all bring our biases to the table, and I happen to be a grammar and history geek. Others might focus more on pacing or use of sensory details in writing. And while I know firsthand how maddening it is to get conflicting feedback from judges, having a variety of different readers offering perspectives based on their own strengths and interests is good for the entrants in the long run.

Drove me batshit.

I'd be reaching for a gun, personally. And I'm with you; most writers with voice either have some grasp of the fundamentals or are so damned good, they can be taught and take advice, criticism, input, whathaveyou.

But, I think it's possible to kill the flow of a good story by being too rigid, and insisting on perfection. If the life you're trying to portray isn't perfect or rigid, why have the characters speak as if that was the rule, not the exception?

Dumb continuing make me want to smash things.