This may have been asked before, but should reviews focus more on the piece on its artistic merits, or upon its technicalities. I prefer to review artistically, but I just wondered what the norm was around here.
I'd say focus on technicalities if the writer hasn't mastered those yet, and then move on to artistic pointers. Of course, you should also try to mix positive and negative feedback in a review, so if someone's grammar is poor but their story is very good artistically, you should mention that in your critique.
I agree. One thing I often see is a story with more than a few SPAG flaws, but the story itself is sound, but could be stronger. In that case, I might mention the SPAG issues, but focus on strengthening the structure. There's not much point in fiddling with the spelling and punctuation if most of the story is about to be re-architected anyway. The exception would be something like a pervasive SPAG issue like dialogue punctuation. That may be wort mentioning up front so it can be addressed in the revisiion rather than requiring major surgery later. On other occasions, I might feel the story itself has little promise, but the writer might benefit from tightening up the nuts and bolts, for the sake of future work.
I always focus on the artistic mertis but thn again I lack some people's grammar skills (Hint: Sage).
