What counts as "good writing?"

I was re-reading your responses to Raymond Williams's "Culture is Ordinary" and came across several statements you all made about what you did not like about the essay (some of you liked it, I know). But I thought your statements might be useful for us to considerover the course of the semester. From your posts I compiled the following list of what you consider "bad writing":

• writing that is "very vague"
• points made in essay are "redundant"
• you "learned nothing new"
• "stating the obvious"
• being "long-winded"
• "contrast of writing styles"
• "constipated and boring narratives"
• "writing style???" (do we need to develop a definiton of "good" style?)
• "confusing" (how do we figure out what causes confusion?)
• "culturally naive" and "unsophisticated"
• "pretentious"
• "overuse of imagery"
• confused by "format" (prefer five paragraph essay)
• if your reader has to "go back and re-read" your essay
• if your reader has to "work to hard to grasp" what is being said
• "repetitive"
  
• "narrow-minded"
• "distract[ing] readers from the message"

Perhaps one of the things we can do is use this list as a way of discussing writing practices and what we consider "good writing." Given this list, I am curious about what would be considered "good writing?" And, for that matter, what about those of you who liked Williams's text? What did you "like" about his writing? Just some ideas to consider...Great postings so far everyone.