It’s easy to tell Jon James Miller is writing for an audience looking to write in a creative field. His article is littered with creative metaphors and imagery and sparks the imagination of the reader, rather than just explain to the reader.
One such example is the image of an eager to-be writer hounding an agent into the bathroom, rambling about the next “great American novel”. The reader feels like they are with the agent and can imagine the author with an eager grin, hear their incoherent rambles, and feel pity for the agent who’s probably trying to be both polite and think of an excuse to get far, far away from the pest of a writer.
Rather than ramble on and on about a concept, a picture is painted for the audience, making good use of “show, don’t tell”. Not only does it allow for the viewer to understand the point in a more engaging manner, but it also saves time for the author. After all: “a picture is worth 1000 words” and that’s just what the article achieves, proving a valid point and giving aspiring writers plenty of tips in its brevity.
However, in this same article, urging the reader to use their imagination to understand the point is also a flaw. This is seen in the rhetorical questions that litter the article. Not that asking questions in an academic piece is a bad thing. The practice can lead to the readers thinking more critically on the topic, but if the question is too vague or the answer too unclear, it can easily come across as filler for the article. This is especially evident when there is no difference in quality if these rhetorical questions are taken out.
Still, that is more of a nitpick than a criticism. Colorful word choice, strong imagery, and an easy to follow narrative, more than makes up for the little flaws and the article can serve as an example of how to write towards a more creatively inclined audience.