As attorneys, as judges, as people, we are forever in pursuit of the right words. Many a CLE has been devoted to a question-and-answer session with judges focused on what they look for in a motion or brief. What techniques do the judges find persuasive? How can counsel keep a high-volume judicial reader engaged? What degree of ire will the use of footnotes provoke? Judges' answers inevitably reflect differences of opinion: One judge reads a reply brief first on the belief that it will reflect the most distilled version of the issues to be determined and another finds that a reply brief rarely adds new value. Many judges find a narrative structure helps with factual digestion, others warn against sacrificing clarity for the sake of story. Despite the differences in opinion, or perhaps because of them, this discourse helps promote more thoughtful and purposeful writing from advocates, which benefits both the bench and the bar.