but I like grammar...

I mean it, i love grammar.  Although I will admit, my love for it is only in some areas.  honestly, as much as i like grammar, i wouldn't go as far as weaver suggests: introducing participal phrases, etc.  i don't care about that NOW.  very little point in teaching it.

Again, total honesty - i'm a trained playwright, a trained poet.  i learned by being shown how the whole looks and in the case of poetry how meter works.  beyond that, boring.

and in terms of the complexity that weaver advocates for being a part of the daily lit lessons: not needed.  at all.  it's bogging things down by asking students to memorize names for what they know.  MAYBE, if they become New Critics, they can learn it.

That all being said, what i do advocate and like about grammar is not something i advocate teaching instead of lit.  i love the weaver model of it, just not that complex.  the car analogy she listed is actually quite apt: i to this day don't know, care, or understand how a car works beyond combustion.  i do know how to drive.  a student can know the basics of writing without knowing the literary version of a transmission, methinks.

Revision and drafts - i think the only thing I disagree with is the implicit statement about what these authors have used for "revision" and drafts in the past.  i've never had this problem with just looking at grammar.  i think the difference is i don't ask for revision from a draft as a whole.  i make them work in pieces and workshop them.  i don't care about spelling/grammar, and i judge content.  i feel like it's a big problem to do peer revision ALONE, and it's also an issue to work with entire drafts.  too often they don't really listen when they think of it as a big cumbersome paper, and when looking at each other's they're just going to look at the spelling/grammar unless they're asked to look at specific questions.

but that's just me.