Writing FOR understanding
Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 05:00AM
The most popular explanation is that opaque prose is a deliberate choice. Bureaucrats insist on gibberish to cover their anatomy. Plaid-clad tech writers get their revenge on the jocks who kicked sand in their faces and the girls who turned them down for dates. Pseudo-intellectuals spout obscure verbiage to hide the fact that they have nothing to say, hoping to bamboozle their audiences with highfalutin gobbledygook.
But the bamboozlement theory makes it too easy to demonize other people while letting ourselves off the hook. In explaining any human shortcoming, the first tool I reach for is Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The kind of stupidity I have in mind has nothing to do with ignorance or low IQ; in fact, it's often the brightest and best informed who suffer the most from it. Steven Pinker, The Source of Bad Writing, Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2014
I read Pinker's essay with great interest. He explains "The Curse of Knowledge":
The curse of knowledge is the single best explanation of why good people write bad prose. It simply doesn't occur to the writer that her readers don't know what she knows—that they haven't mastered the argot of her guild, can't divine the missing steps that seem too obvious to mention, have no way to visualize a scene that to her is as clear as day. And so the writer doesn't bother to explain the jargon, or spell out the logic, or supply the necessary detail.
Much of the professional writing I do is explanatory, not visionary, in nature. I try to translate tech terms and systems into prose that administrators, librarians, and teachers can understand - in the hope they will find it important and useful. My Head for the Edge columns in Library Media Connection and Power Up! columns in ASCD's Educational Leadership require this ability to explain technology in relevant and understandable ways to people for whom technology is not their first love - or their hundredth.
My practice, I hope, is the opposite of Pinker's (and Calvin's) explanation of bad writing practices.
I've found that my own mediocre intelligence aids me in this effort. If I can find the analogies, the simple words, the vivid examples that help me understand a complex topic, I can then use the same to help others who have the intellect but perhaps not the patience to understand it. (I've investigated this before: Shallow wit vs deep intellect.)
Too many technical people suffer from an alpha wolf syndrome: I am the baddest animal in the pack if I know more technical terms than anyone else. If I discover the latest app or educational theory. If I can embarrass someone else by discovering a gap in his/her knowledge. I somehow think this tendency goes beyond Pinker's guess that it revenge on jocks by nerds. But it does smell a bit like a power trip.
For me, perhaps, the best path to clear writing is to reflect on the reason one does it in the first place. Is it an ego boost? Is it stun the world? Is it to gain fame and fortune? Is it to show just how much I know (and you don't)?
Or is it explore one's field, to help others, and perhaps improve the world in some small way? And to have a little fun in the process.
Reader Comments (2)
Hi, Doug! I love your blog! Exploring one's field, helping others, improving the world in small ways, and having fun while doing it is what I certainly hope to achieve, too, in the future as a prospective school librarian. Thank you for your purpose of writing.
Thanks, Jennifer. Please consider writing yourself for the good of the profession and your students!
Doug