Reviewing with River

As others have said, I agree with the advice to review as a reader. In my own reviews, I always start with my first impression of the piece, focusing on the things I liked. This is easy to do because I like reading and learning from the styles of others. There is always something nice to say about another's writing, so that is what I want to present first in my review.

Then, still in the perspective of a reader, I ask questions about the piece and show the reader where I needed more clarification or where I was confused while reading. This may also include places that simply "tripped me up" (especially in poetry) when I read the piece to myself. I point out places where the word choice felt clunky or the repetition was odd. For me, this is the most valuable part of a review I receive of my own work. How does the piece read? How does it look on the page? How does the formatting and structure enhance the emotion of the piece? Is there anything that distracts from the words I have written? I believe this still falls under the category of reviewing as a reader because it has to do with how the reader interacts with the piece.

Only after I get through the above two items do I even mention things like spelling, punctuation, grammar, blah blah blah. There are line editors out there, but I'm not one. If there is an error that interrupts my comprehension or enjoyment of the piece, I will mention it. But if I don't notice it, I will not scour the piece mining all of the errors. I used to do this because I thought my review would be the only one the writer ever received and I wanted to ensure I gave them all the advice they needed to make the piece "perfect" by my standards. I no longer do this because it takes an incredible amount of time and effort, and the most important part anyway is how the piece makes me feel. I did write about this change here as well: "On Reviewing" 

Anyway, I think that's enough for now Thanks for the provocative Q!

-Emily