[mysterymath]

This is a bit tough I'm afraid; while I'm very appreciative of the effort, I don't actually like the parts of the series that I've read very much.

The overall complaint is one of structure; prose flows from one point to another without my being able to build a model of where the argument is going, where it came from, what's an essential detail, what's an interesting aside, etc.

It's a common fault in technical writing, maybe the most common in my experience. IMO, well-organized writing is a "parasocial" endeavor: there's a bit of mind-reading involved. One needs to get inside the head of their audience and try to predict their mental states. Why did they click on this? What questions do they have? What preconceptions would cause them to immediately close out? How can you answer those concerns as quickly as possible, and lead gradually into a more nuanced discussion (if they so desire). If they're not likely to desire it, can you convince them to?

The answers to these kinds of questions about a brand new reader should suggest a thesis. Similar reasoning about a reader who has read the thesis should suggest the content of an abstract. And so forth, for an introduction, a guide to contents, etc. After that, presuming some skimming helps too.

[lisper]

Thanks. Do you have an example of something that you would consider good writing in this genre that I can use as a model?