The author sets up a dichotomy between living an interesting life and learning rules of grammar. But writing well is deeper than either. If you don't practice a

The author sets up a dichotomy between living an interesting life and learning rules of grammar. But writing well is deeper than either. If you don't practice and learn from the masters, then even your most fascinating stories will turn to mush. "Take any good piece of writing, something that matters to you. Why is it good? Because of what it says. Because what [sic] the writer manages to communicate to you, their reader. It’s because of what’s within it, not how they wrote it." Obviously not true! Even our patron saint Paul is praised for his style as much as his insight. His clarity is a product of taste, training, and vigorous editing. And, I'm confident, of a strong wish to write good prose. There's something to Ryan's point, but he doesn't express it very well. The article could be much better. Just one example: the first paragraph namedrops Schopenhauer, but the article doesn't make use of the philosopher's thought. Instead, he's only brought in as a sideshow to support the author's point. Does he respect Schopenhauer's philosophy? If so, why not engage with it? If not, why cite him as authoritative? Sloppy!