Good Writing: Not for the Writer to Decide

Good writing is predominantly focused on the reader. It must assume the absolute worst case scenario: that the reader hates you and will not understood any of your points unless they're blindingly clear. In this sense, good writing happens when writers mentally place themselves on the opposite side of the reader-writer relationship--they toss a part of their egos out the door. To sway a predisposed reader, writers must establish a tone/voice that fits their probable audience; they must know readers better than readers know readers. To make points clear, writers must work meticulously to ensure that every one of their sentences has continuity.

Meticulously is the key word here.

We can't all be Milton and rattle off our thoughts slam-poetry style, instantly creating a masterpiece.

The majority of good writing follows a meticulous process of drafting and editing. Every word has a purpose and good writers will make sure that none of the other 1-10 possible options for every word would be favorable alternatives. Essentially, good writing is aware of each word's connotation and how it may sway a reader or invoke particular emotions. It is proofread so many times that author's get sick of seeing their own work. Additionally, good writers also over-research their topics. They never have a problem of mustering enough evidence. Rather, they have issues narrowing down which evidence is the most convincing.

But the intricacies of these word choices only have meaning so long as the reader has not lost attention. Sounds easy? It's not. To engage readers, each sentence must be a unique surprise to them, something that becomes challenging once 10 sentences become 10,000. In this sense, writers must out-predict their readers expectations. Yet on the more physical side, good writing simply has to have nice formatting and flow. Same-length paragraphs? Boring. Static punctuation? Stale. Constant sentence structure? Snoozefest. Good writers vary their sentence structure, paragraph structure, and use of punctuation. For example, after a few long compound-complex sentences, writers will often throw in a short sentence that now has more impact and allows readers to "catch their breath." Likewise, as readers approach a monster paragraph, they will likely be intimidated; writers must intersperse "rest stops" that allow readers to simplify the density of the text and prepare for the next few sentences to come.

These aspects of good writing are mostly prerequisites. Writers distinguish themselves through the beauty of the medium--no two styles are identical. In this light, good writers write to their strengths and work to improve their weaknesses. Essentially, writers often achieve magic within their own comfort zones. The witty writer is witty. The sardonic writer is sardonic. But this is exactly why examining weakness is equally important. A discerning reader will never look past a writer's weaknesses no matter how well the writer covers or hides them. As a result, the only option is for writers to fix their weaknesses or at least make sure they are not a weak link--they must expand their comfort zones. Achieving this goal requires the ability to take in criticism from others and criticize one's own work equally. With this ability, writers will improve from draft to draft and from work to work.

But returning to my title, good writing is ultimately relative. In 1st grade, good writing was dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. Later, it was establishing an argument that y'know...actually made sense. In those times, those traits were all that my audience was looking for. 

(They didn't care if my sentence ended with a preposition)