I suppose to some people, good writing is like art: you may not know much about it, but you know what you like. If youíre like one of my clients who actively tries to write better each time he writes, it helps to know what to look for if you want to emulate it. Read through a piece with pleasure, and youíll probably find a consistent voice, a clearly targeted audience, complete and focused topic coverage, and clarity of language.
One thing that invites readers to read through to the end is a comfortable and appropriate voice. This means that the text doesnít waffle from saying ďI did thisĒ to ďyou do thatĒ to ďdevelopers can doĒ and back again. The author decides who to address and how, and sticks to it.
A unified voice means that if the coverage is direct and didactic, it doesnít get all warm and gooey in places, and vice versa. Write as yourself, not some wishful interpretation of yourself. If your personal style is cheerful and friendly and you love your topic, write like thatódonít try to be snooty. If you tend to speak in metaphors, use polysyllabic words more than not, and your pronouncements often send your listeners to the dictionary, go ahead and write like that. As you become a better writer, you also gain facility controlling your voice, and can decide whether to be snooty or hip before you write, using the intended audience as a guide.
The language in a unified-voice piece is consistent. You donít say PPP in one place, Plotters in others, and Purple People Plotters in yet others. If it is to be a hip, stylized marketing piece, jargon use is consistent and can be understood from context. If it is not a hip, hyper-personal marketing piece, there is no jargon, terms are spelled out before they are abbreviated, and sentences are likely to be short or medium in lengthójust as youíd speak about the same subject.
Itís easy to tell when an author hasnít defined the audience: the paper tells too much and takes forever getting to the point of the piece.
If you find yourself telling the history of something, the whole piece should be about the history. Otherwise, you donít need it. If you find yourself telling the reader how to turn on the computer or navigate to the main title bar to save their work, the piece had better be for abject beginners. If you find yourself going down tangents, you probably havenít narrowed your topic or your audience sufficiently.
Iíve written a whole blog on identifying audiences, so I wonít go on about it here. But you can look for the audience in the work you read by trying to guess who it is in the first paragraph or two. Then check in at the end and see if you still choose the same readership. A good piece matches readership from the beginning to the end.
Itís easy to tell if the coverage is appropriate tooódid the piece end up where it promised in the title with little wandering and a clear sense of finality at the end? Do the subheadings or chapter titles seem to lead down an obvious path? Is the level of coverage suitable to the audience youíve identified?
The crafty folks who contract content are pretty good about estimating how much can be covered in a single article or chapter. If the piece seems too long or too short, thatís a clue that the level of coverage is off.
If youíre reading something that you already know a lot about, you wonít have much trouble determining whether the coverage is appropriate to the audience or if itís sufficiently comprehensive. But if you donít know the subject, you may have to follow along closely to recognize whether promises where kept. If you find yourself rereading sections often, or you donít feel a sense of having learned something at the end, the coverage was probably insufficient or indirect.