Academic writing can often become obtuse, since they're immersed in jargon for so long they forget that's not how people speak. Out of context it's especially bad -- I'm guessing as part of an historical case she's making, those terms would be more clearly defined in advance of that sentence.

First and foremost, I think good writing is clarity. The trouble with Thesaurus-thumpers who want to impress you with their erudition is that they are more concerned with using impressive words than with using the correct word to express their meaning. I can't stand these writers because they're frauds -- they're NOT erudite, they're using a Thesaurus to supply themselves with words they've possibly never heard of before, which is why the words are often incorrect or have unintended connotations, and confuse rather than enhance the point they're attempting to make. I'm much more impressed by writers who convey complex thoughts with simple words than the ones who cloak simple thoughts in complex words. The ones, in other words, who aren't trying to impress above all else.

Many would-be writers stumble at the point of just trying to be clear without being obnoxious. If you can do that, in my book you're already a good writer. If you can be clear and do it with style, that's when something becomes really well-written.

Can you be clear in your meaning and funny? Can you be clear with your meaning and write with a pleasing rhythm to your prose, by the words you choose and how you arrange them? Can you be clear with your meaning and convey additional subtextual meaning simultaneously? Can you be clear and evocative, or emotional, or highly technical?

Better yet: can you be clearer because you are doing these things?

Good writing doesn't inherently mean long sentences or short ones, big words or small ones, simple grammar or complex. It can mean any or all of these things. A good writer is the one who has a sizeable toolkit of skills and knows enough about them to use the proper tools for a given job (i.e. each idea she's trying to convey).

EDIT: This is of course in regards to a work that's actually intended to be read as the final product -- a book, article, etc. -- and the experience of the written word. We also refer to movies as being well-/poorly-written, but we're talking about something different in that case.

Last edited by Dorkman (2012-11-28 17:13:47)

Clarity
Specificity
Brevity

I remember seeing a longer version of that.

1. Avoid alliteration. Always.

2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.

3. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)

4. Employ the vernacular.

5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

6. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.

7. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

8. Contractions aren't necessary.

9. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.

10. One should never generalize.

11. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

12. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

13. Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

14. Profanity sucks.

15. Be more or less specific.

16. Understatement is always best.

17. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.

19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

20. The passive voice is to be avoided.

21. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

22. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

23. Who needs rhetorical questions?

I dunno, the word "clear" was in there a lot.

/is kidding, people

As someone who has been immersed in academia for the past few years, I can agree with this wholeheartedly.  I don't know how many articles I have had to read for a class that take twice as long as they should because I've had to decipher writing filled with big words and seemingly never-ending sentences.  I think this is partially a learned writing style, partially wanting to fit in with what is perceived as the norm for academic writing, and partially to make the author sound smarter.  However, I don't think it is a good idea to go too far in the opposite direction either so as to write as if the audience is unintelligent.  I guess I would say then that something that is well-written strikes a balance between simplicity and complexity.

What's worse? Obscurantist academic writing, or fingernails on a chalkboard, or a dentist's drill, or this...?

Anakin: "You... are so... beautiful."
Padme: "It's only because I'm so in love."
Anakin: "No, it's because I'm so in love with you."
Padme: "So love has blinded you?"
Anakin: "Well that's not exactly what I meant."
Padme: "It's probably true."

Jesus, this reads like a Whose Line Is It Anyway parody of a soap opera.

To me, good writing (outside narrative writing), means clear structure and straightforward sentences. Have a point; state it simply; support it with a few clear sentences; and move on to the next point.

A good opening should have a somewhat narrative feel, perhaps with a personal connection (explaining why you are addressing this topic now). A good conclusion should reiterate your point and summarize your case, and it should produce a slightly unexpected twist.

And it isn't Shakespeare you should emulate. It's Lincoln, Churchill, and FDR.

And Hitler, of course. Say what you will about him, the man really had a way with words.

In terms of narrative writing, I'd say that something well written is a piece of text that a) you can read without stumbling, b) prompts your imagination to clearly picture the scene, and c) provokes an emotional response to what's happening. You can be as verbose as you want, but ultimately these are the 3 aims. Obviously there's little sense in using clever-sounding words most of the time, as few will actually know what they mean. However, sometimes the use of an old uncommon word can be just what the text needs and can have drama, e.g., Isildur's bane.

But to go back to (a) above, if you can't actually read it then it's poorly written - regardless of which [Insert Prize] author you're reading.

That's genius! Recast Colin and Ryan as Padme and Anakin and suddenly everything is brilliant

3 points to the Zarban for the double-reverse Godwin.
437 milllion points to split between Lamer and the Doc, per whatever arrangement they can work out.