If great writing = concise and to the point, then GWBush's speeches are masterful. Short, to the point, nothing not on the teleprompter. Whereas Huckleberry Clinton wandered all over the map with his speeches. And his speeches were better. So brevity's not the be-all and end-all of verbiage. Hundred Years of Solitude vs A Farewell to Arms. Thomas Wolfe vs haiku. Which is 'better'?

Wouldn't good writing be the ability to get your point across? And if your point is mundane, no amount of artsy language will make it less mundane. But if your point is great and urgent, it would tear through the barrier of words, no matter what crappy shape the words were in. Just like in cinema, you have style vs substance. Sometimes through skill or happy accident a nice balance of the two is reached, and maybe that is a 'great' piece of work.