I hate to do this, since grellas is a very active and valuable member of this community and clearly cares about his wordsmithing, and as a writer myself I bleed personally and profusely at any direct criticism (I heal up, too, but that doesn't mean it didn't hurt).
However, I must say it: I don't think this is good writing.
Writing is like design. It can only be meaningfully called "good" when it achieves a purpose. What is the purpose of this article? It seems to be "to help people (lawyers in particular) to write better".
Does it do that? Well, it's got some tips about writing better, but they are generally hidden underneath the beautiful sentences. Let's take, as an example, one of the clearer paragraphs:
In advocacy, good writing will reflect muscularity, pulling a reader from first to last by force of logical inevitability. This style requires a firm grasp of subject. It requires solid, understated control so as to convey a feel of assured confidence. And it avoids key flaws: it does not strain, or vaunt, or table-pound, or attack the person. It is professional. It has class. It works like a powerful engine under the hood: it does not show itself, but anyone who hears that quiet hum will immediately sense its power. Done right, it projects quintessential vigor: it races along and even leaps off the page on the strength of its own power alone.
That's all very true, but I'm not entirely sure it will help someone who doesn't already understand this point. It is not actionable advice for people who don't already know how to do it.
This article would serve its purpose better if it not only described what good writing is, but also how to achieve it, and if it did so in a way that makes it easier for the reader to extract the information out of it (at the moment, the only way to get the information out of this article is to read through every single sentence, and evaluate each of them to see if it actually brings some new insight).
That said, the prose is beautiful. But this article is like a beautiful design that looks brilliant but isn't functional (either that, or I haven't figured out the purpose of this article).
Ouch . . . but thanks, I always welcome sound criticism and I don't think I disagree with your points. The piece probably is more directed to what might be called "principles of good lawyering as they incidentally touch on writing." There is a short section in which I do touch directly on writing principles (recounting "good writing rules" and then bringing up my pet peeve about how they are not to be applied mechanically) but that is the only direct discussion of that topic. Concerning lawyering principles, I don't think there is anything I would edit or change and so maybe it is an issue of a poor title for the piece (and a theme that needs to be recast a bit).
Thanks again for the honest criticism. That is one of the great benefits of putting one's work out there. It definitely helps you sharpen and refine it as it is appraised by smart people.
If the article's purpose was to teach you how to be a better writer, then I agree. It lacked clear instruction. However, I felt the article was really about why it's important to want to write well, especially if you're a lawyer. This is the affect it had on me. Great article.
I had intended to applaud the author and assert that this was one of the few examples of essays on good writing that I've recently read that is also itself an example of good writing. So your critical comment comes as a surprise and a challenge, especially since I think you are right in a crucial respect: it would take a bit of work to isolate and evaluate specific actionable tips on writing well from the essay. But I read the essay in the first place as an exhortation to others to aspire to write well, to recognize the importance of writing well, to appreciate and confront the difficulty of it, and, indeed, to provide an example of it. In these respects, I think the essay has succeeded admirably, and in these respects, too, it is doing something that most essays on writing, including the ones that would well satisfy the criterion that you invoke, fall short.
I think one of the important, if implicit, ideas of the essay is that it's not possible to learn to write very well without being able to fix in your own mind an ideal representation of what good writing is against which to measure your own real efforts. Reading and recognizing the right examples can go a long way towards reaching that goal, and while the essay emphasizes the hard work of writing over the work of attentive reading, it nonetheless is the kind of essay that contributes, by virtue of its logical development and style, to my idea of what good writing is.
I think I understand your point, but I think you're being a bit harsh.
At the most basic level, good writing does involve ensuring that the reader can comprehend the ideas that are being introduced. However, in my opinion, it also involves knowing something about the intended audience's ability to comprehend the subject being discussed. If someone's studying law, I'd assume that they'd have no difficulty understanding the quoted paragraph. I'd certainly hope that someone studying law wouldn't need to be spoon-fed ;)
"Writing is like design"
Writing is also an art-form. 'Quality' is difficult to define - so sometimes, a full tool-kit of literary devices might need to be used to illustrate a point. Sometimes the reader will be required to infer meaning.
This section of text uses metaphor, it provides itself as an example of the didactic rhythm that the author's discussing, and it does all of this without being patronising or condescending.
However, I must say it: I don't think this is good writing.
Writing is like design. It can only be meaningfully called "good" when it achieves a purpose. What is the purpose of this article? It seems to be "to help people (lawyers in particular) to write better".
Does it do that? Well, it's got some tips about writing better, but they are generally hidden underneath the beautiful sentences. Let's take, as an example, one of the clearer paragraphs:
In advocacy, good writing will reflect muscularity, pulling a reader from first to last by force of logical inevitability. This style requires a firm grasp of subject. It requires solid, understated control so as to convey a feel of assured confidence. And it avoids key flaws: it does not strain, or vaunt, or table-pound, or attack the person. It is professional. It has class. It works like a powerful engine under the hood: it does not show itself, but anyone who hears that quiet hum will immediately sense its power. Done right, it projects quintessential vigor: it races along and even leaps off the page on the strength of its own power alone.
That's all very true, but I'm not entirely sure it will help someone who doesn't already understand this point. It is not actionable advice for people who don't already know how to do it.
This article would serve its purpose better if it not only described what good writing is, but also how to achieve it, and if it did so in a way that makes it easier for the reader to extract the information out of it (at the moment, the only way to get the information out of this article is to read through every single sentence, and evaluate each of them to see if it actually brings some new insight).
That said, the prose is beautiful. But this article is like a beautiful design that looks brilliant but isn't functional (either that, or I haven't figured out the purpose of this article).