Form...

...is content.

Anyone who reads knows this, even if they don't realize it.

I'll explain. If you are reading a work containing countless "y'all"s, spellings denoting soft "r"s, and mismatched subject/verb agreement, you may conclude that you are reading the work of an uneducated southerner (or that's exactly what the author wanted you to conclude). Such grammar and style would be horrendous in light of formal writing rules, but by noticing said grammar and style, you would be recongnizing something about the content of the piece.

Therefore, attention to grammatical detail when writing any sort of literary piece is necessary for effective communication. With that said, when critiquing a work that is not intended to sound uneducated, but quite the opposite, one intended to be scholarly, one would find the grammar, layout, style, form, word choice, transition use, etc. quite useful in determining the accuracy, logic, and content of the work.

"Why are you talking about boring grammar rules?", you may be asking if you are part of that probably 80% of the American population that considers such things pointless. I was wronged. My final critique grade in my Christology class was a "B" because my critique integrated the bearing of grammar importance with the judging of logic in the argument. In fact, grammar was listed on the "Guide" of things to note given out by our professor. Poor grammar has great bearing on the validity and earnestness of one's paper. And segues and transitions affect the flow of the paper, which is directly related to how the reader reads that author's logic.

Sigh. I hate to get so worked up. But I also hate to be two points away from an A.

So long GPA.