Good Writing

I'm VERY curious as to what your prompt was. Because I just did the same thing, simply asking "do you think this is an example of good writing?" and it responded with this

Yes, this is an example of good writing—in terms of clarity, structure, insight, and style. But it’s worth breaking that claim down, because "good writing" is context-dependent.

Strengths Clarity and Flow: The essay is easy to follow, despite discussing an abstract idea (the relationship between style and substance). The structure is coherent: the author presents a claim, acknowledges its apparent implausibility, investigates it, and builds a layered argument.

Concrete Analogies: The use of vivid metaphors (e.g., shaking a bin, sanding wood, plane design) is not decorative fluff—they function as intellectual tools, helping the reader visualize abstract processes.

Insight: The core thesis—that good writing style and good thinking are not merely correlated but intertwined—is a valuable observation. It’s counterintuitive but persuasive, which makes for intellectually engaging material.

Voice: There’s a distinctive voice here—measured, reflective, mildly contrarian. That builds trust with the reader.

Rhythm and Cadence: The sentences vary in length and structure, but always seem to land where they should. The rhythm supports the ideas, which is part of the essay’s point and also its proof.

Weaknesses or Limitations Circular Reasoning Risk: The argument sometimes verges on tautological: “Writing that sounds good is likely to be right because sounding good helps make it right.” The essay attempts to address this, but doesn’t fully disentangle the cause-effect relationship. It risks being a self-fulfilling thesis.

Not Universally Applicable: The essay assumes a specific kind of writing—essayistic, idea-driven, exploratory. The claims would not hold up in all writing contexts (technical manuals, legal contracts, scientific abstracts), and the essay nods to this but doesn’t dwell on the implications.

Selective Evidence: The support is anecdotal, introspective, and analogical—not empirical. That’s fine for an essay like this, but it weakens the argument’s generalizability.

Potential Elitism: Implicit is the idea that if your writing sounds clumsy, your ideas are probably wrong or poorly developed. While often true, this can overlook valid content poorly expressed due to lack of experience, language barriers, or educational disadvantage.

Conclusion Yes, this is good writing—especially for a reflective, philosophical essay intended to explore a subtle intellectual thesis. It’s clear, memorable, and thought-provoking. But it’s good within a specific genre and purpose. The strength of its argument lies more in its coherence and persuasiveness than in empirical rigor, and that’s appropriate for its form.

...and your comment communicates a much more believable idea than the one PG is attempting to communicate, which is not quite the same: " I think writing that sounds good is more likely to be right."

Your comment also makes clear that this requires that the writer is attempting to make a true core point, rather than (for example) convince people of something it would be convenient for them to believe. If you are dealing with writers who are using their powers for ill purposes, then the skill of the prose may well be inversely correlated with their truth.

This piece is in dire need of treating persuasiveness as a concept separate from 'good' and 'right'. Persuasive writing considers its audience and identifies avenues to create a train of thought that feels natural and true to them. What PG is describing is essentially the process of writing something that you yourself find persuasive. That can be a useful technique if your audience is people like you, but it can also amplify your biases and isolate your work from other perspectives that could provide value (increase 'right'ness per PG's definition).

Writing to convince yourself can help to refine your ideas, but writing to convince your detractors can point out blind spots and encourage finding strong evidentiary support for your argument. Equating "good" with "I would find it convincing" decimates the value that PG rightly identifies in using writing to enhance your ideas rather than just convey them.

Thank you for that quote, indeed memorable.

For me the issue with PG's writing, is that it has tiny hints of Narcissism, and that, by itself, hurts his ability to convey ideas. In classic writing, and in my opinion, also in great modern writing, there is a lot of humbleness and even some self deprecation. Sometimes the more the author doubts themselves, the more convincing they are, as it shows self critique, and lack of "Dunning-Kruger effect".

p.s. I wonder how many here are not aware you are the creator of Redis. (I assume most do, but chances are many have no idea).

How do you reconcile

"pg's writing... always seemed to lack anything beyond a surface level of introspection"

with

"when it comes to his writing style and the quality of his prose, I think he's generally top notch"?

And "Given how influential his essays have been, I think he's qualified" - do you not see a problem with equating influence/popularity with quality/truth (let alone morality)?