Do you use grammar software? If so, why do you like that software?

[Cabbages and kings]

Do you use grammar software?  If so, why do you like that particular software?

[cecilia_writer]

I run things through the grammar checker in Word - it's quite useful for picking up grammar typos e.g  missing full stops, but not necessarily for much else.

[R. C.]

I use Grammarly and MS Word's new "Editor" review tools. Both tools find problems and suggestions and, yes, can be contrary to each other.  When there is a conflict it usually means I need to re-write the passage.

Having Grammarly integrated into to MS Word has improved my writing. BUT, it does slow me down up front.

Because of my style, which is hybrid pantser/plotter, I appreciate it when the "red flags (blue squiggly underlines)" scream: "What the heck are you trying to say?"

Cheers,
R.C.

[Eric Thomson]

My process is as follows, once my books is compiled from Scrivener into MS Word:

1. Word spellcheck for gross errors and extra spaces
2. One chapter at a time through ProWritingAid
3. Grammarly to catch the stuff PWA didn't
4. PerfectIt for consistency checks
5. Have Word read it to me

Then it goes off to my editor

[Al Stevens]

A group of writers and I had this discussion more than once in the 1980s when a CP/M command-line grammar checking program was available that worked on Wordstar files. I don't remember its name. The discussions were in person usually at the bar at a computer conference. We were authors of computer programming books. The tone often got heated. Some used the program religiously and swore by it, and others criticized it, pointing out things where it gave the wrong advice. Still others used it only to suggest where they might have gone wrong, forgiving its quirks.

I used it mainly to highlight passive voice, split infinitives, and dangling participles. It was good at that, and I credited it with improving my writing because it made me conscious of such writing idioms, and I used them less frequently as time went on.

Today, I just write and try to catch my grammatical mishaps during proof-reading.

[The Masked Scrivener]

I've been using ProWritingAid, as it had a one time cost with no subscription. Also, it works great with Scrivener.

[Maggie Ann]

I run things through the grammar checker in Word - it's quite useful for picking up grammar typos e.g  missing full stops, but not necessarily for much else.

I use it as well, but I agree, it is limited. One of my most common error is missing quotation marks either before or after. Word Editor does not pick that up.

[Wonder]

I used PWA for a few years. They're a fine service. But I found running multiple reports rather cumbersome, and it took a lot of time to look at the manuscript from several angles. Also, many of PWA's suggestions were false flags, which meant I spent a lot of time saying no-no-no, that's not an error.

PWA does work with Scrivener, but it did odd little things to my RTF files. Like, if I fixed a quotation mark in PWA, when I went back to Scrivener it would have turned that curly quote into a straight quote, and then I'd have to hunt those things down in formatting because they didn't convert quite right.

These days I use Word's editor (Surprisingly great! It's come a long way over the years.) and the "read aloud" feature, then I send the manuscript off to a proofreader to pick up the few little things I missed. I still think PWA is useful software, but my new way is faster and every week I can free up for writing is money in the bank. Human proofreaders are also better at catching things like "You changed that character's name in Chapter Five."

Wonder

[TimothyEllis]

I have the grammar checker in Word turned on.

But mostly I just laugh at what it suggests. 

[Vijaya]

I have the grammar checker in Word turned on.

But mostly I just laugh at what it suggests. 

This.

Someone here suggested having Word read-aloud and it's such good advice. After months of writing, it's so helpful to hear. So thank you.

[Gerri Attrick]

I bought ProWritingAid, but I'm still debating whether that was a good use of my money.

I hate how it marks anything about "to be" as passive voice. If a character says, "For the time being", that isn't passive - at least not to me.

I haven't used it much since I bought it, because I haven't written much, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and stick with it.

[Simon Haynes]

No, I don't use a grammar checker. Back in the early days (2001 maybe?) grammar checkers seemed to be aimed at executives writing business letters, and things like sentence fragments and writing with a little flair (also known as 'creative writing') was pounced on.

I attended numerous schools in England, Spain (in Spanish!) and Australia. If I have any grammatical quirks a piece of software isn't going to tame them.

[R. C.]

Someone here suggested having Word read-aloud and it's such good advice. After months of writing, it's so helpful to hear. So thank you.

I use the new MS Word Read Aloud as the last check before I send the manuscript to beta. Using head phones, it takes times, but the "listening process" definitely finds errors and problems with flow. It also finds incorrect words that appear correct to the automated editing tools.

It is well worth the time and trouble.

Cheers,
R.C.

[PJ Post]

I have a system using self-created checklists, Word, Grammarly and Word's read aloud before sending it to other humans for review.

[Writer]

Just Word's grammar and spellchecker and a human proofreader.

[idontknowyet]

As horrific as my grammar is, i don't actually use any of the grammar checkers. I will use word for spelling errors and read aloud. After that i turn my book over to my editor and let her have at it. I know all of the grammar checks can add errors, and i feel like some of them might change what i'm trying to say fixing things. a human for me is a better choice. my editor rocks!