The members of the U.S. Supreme Court have to read a lot and that's prompted some strong opinions on their part about what constitutes good writing.
In 2006 and 2007 legal writing expert Bryan Garner interviewed nine of the judges and put them online. Now he's also made available full transcripts in the Scribe's Journal of Legal Writing.
I have to admit when I first spotted this document I was a bit skeptical that I'd enjoy reading it, but I was wrong.
Of course they are talking about factual writing but a lot of what they say applies to fiction as well. For instance,the danger of submitting writing before it's really ready:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts said, "...There are some [briefs] where the first thing you can tell in many of them is that the lawyer really hasn’t spent a lot of time on it, to be honest with you. You can tell that if they’d gone through a couple more drafts, it would be more effective. It would read better. And for whatever reason, they haven’t devoted that energy to it."
On the importance of editing, Justice Anthony Scalia said, "When I edit drafts of my law clerks, most of my work consists not of additions, but of deletions. And when I re-edit my own work, which I do — I go over and over again — I’m usually cutting out words that on reflection seem to me unnecessary...I must go through it at least five times."
On how factual writing can have a dramatic structure, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy pointed out, "The Declaration of Independence you can read cover to cover, and it was de- signed to be read to the troops. Washington wanted it — ordered it — read to the troops in order to get them mad. He wanted them to be mad at George III. It was like an indictment of George III. And it has a dramatic progression to it. The more you read it, the madder you get at George III."
If you have time, check out the full transcripts, they're surprisingly entertaining and informative.
