Writing can be judged in the way that it fulfills its purpose.

There are many different types of writing, which is why it is impossible to regulate “good” writing to rules of grammar, length, content, formality, diction, etc.  But within certain contexts, we begin to expect certain things from our writing, and we become frustrated if they are not there.  We can best understand a piece’s quality by understanding its purpose.  If a third grader gives us a birthday card, we shouldn’t criticize it for errors in spelling or grammar because it is not what we expect—these silly mistakes don’t take away from the card’s purpose.  As long as the kid throws down a “Happy Birthdday,” we should be satisfied.  The same goes for a text message.  If my friend decided to let me know that he had arrived at my house in Shakespearean verse, I would likely become daunted by the text’s length and stop reading before I absorb the necessary information.  A simple “Here” would suffice. 

            But as we move into more sophisticated contexts, our expectations of good writing grow.  Grammar suddenly becomes more important in an English analysis for a variety of reasons.  If we don’t see adequate grammar in an essay on a novel, how can we can we be sure our author even knows what they’re talking about? (I might have stolen that idea from Trimble, but I can’t quite remember.)  In a novel itself, our expectations change again.  In many contexts, authors decide to closely follow the rules of grammar, but we cannot say that this is entirely necessary.  It would be ridiculous to argue that Huck Finn or Ulysses were poorly written by only looking at their neglect of proper grammar.  They do, however, excellently fulfill their purpose of taking on different peoples’ personae. 

            The purpose of most writing is to engage us by triggering an emotional response.  Many types of writing attempt to do this in different ways.  If any of them are successful, it’s safe to say they author has achieved “good” writing.