This principle may apply broadly for popular level nonfiction, but if I only read clarity-oriented writing, I’d get bored of reading pretty quickly. Is this type of nonfiction that you mainly have in mind here? How might these principles apply to, say, literary fiction? Because if the clarity principle applied to that genre, that would stultify the art form.
Correct. This advice has in mind nonfiction. Although if you are curious how a similar principle could apply to narrative fiction, Paul Anletiner's work on earnestness vs cynicism in art is relevant here.
I cannot think of a situation in nonfiction where *less* clarity would improve a piece of writing. My guess is that sometimes the word "clarity" is understood to mean "plain" and "propositional" rather than stylish and artful. This can sometimes correlate (as it admittedly did in the example I use in the piece), but it's not the same thing. Lack of clarity in writing is IMO a universal negative.
Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" achieves this balance through its use of "central metaphors."
Each chapter begins with a clear phrase like this: "Central Metaphor: The righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors." This is then fleshed out with research studies, etc.
This way, you force your cleverness to be clear. Let loose with a central metaphor that appeals to the right hemisphere of your attention, but it's constrained by a left-hemisphere argument.
I begin each of my posts and each chapter of my book with this strategy, and I think it's equally as useful for theology and it was for Haidt's psychology.
So true, but at times you must feel like a voice crying in the literary wilderness. The flowery language, trendy sarcasm, clever asides, and constant pop culture allusion seem to be what is most popular (and profitable) in the market today. Unfortunately all one needs to do to participate in that market is open up Chat GPT and type in "Give me a Substack post of 1,000 words about...XXX." On the bright side, that's also one reason why AI will probably never put a good writer out of a job. It feeds on the literary marketplace writ large and there will always be many more drive-thrus handing out processed junk food in styrofoam with plastic sporks in that market than there will ever be sit down restaurants serving real food on plates with silverware.
"If you’re stuck, write out what you want to say in the same words and phrasing that you would use with a 7-year-old. If you can do that, keep that sentence, and then build on it...If you can’t write that sentence, consider revising your thesis until you can. If you can’t revise your thesis, ask yourself whether your thesis is worth saying anyway."
Or consider the possibility that you need to do some more thinking about the topic. At least in the humanities, if you can't explain something in words a seven year old can understand (even if they might not have the attention span or emotional maturity to deal with the concept), you don't actually understand it.
I agree. C. S. Lewis was both clever and insightful, but he never showed off.
This principle may apply broadly for popular level nonfiction, but if I only read clarity-oriented writing, I’d get bored of reading pretty quickly. Is this type of nonfiction that you mainly have in mind here? How might these principles apply to, say, literary fiction? Because if the clarity principle applied to that genre, that would stultify the art form.
Correct. This advice has in mind nonfiction. Although if you are curious how a similar principle could apply to narrative fiction, Paul Anletiner's work on earnestness vs cynicism in art is relevant here.
Yeah, I see what Samuel is saying (and I’ve said it myself!) But the purpose of all writing isn’t always and *primarily* about clarity.
It’s knowing when it’s called for and when the objective of writing might be another way of seeing, for instance.
I don’t want all writing to sound like a marketable Christian living book. 😇
I cannot think of a situation in nonfiction where *less* clarity would improve a piece of writing. My guess is that sometimes the word "clarity" is understood to mean "plain" and "propositional" rather than stylish and artful. This can sometimes correlate (as it admittedly did in the example I use in the piece), but it's not the same thing. Lack of clarity in writing is IMO a universal negative.
A strategy I recommend adding to your toolkit:
Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" achieves this balance through its use of "central metaphors."
Each chapter begins with a clear phrase like this: "Central Metaphor: The righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors." This is then fleshed out with research studies, etc.
This way, you force your cleverness to be clear. Let loose with a central metaphor that appeals to the right hemisphere of your attention, but it's constrained by a left-hemisphere argument.
I begin each of my posts and each chapter of my book with this strategy, and I think it's equally as useful for theology and it was for Haidt's psychology.
So true, but at times you must feel like a voice crying in the literary wilderness. The flowery language, trendy sarcasm, clever asides, and constant pop culture allusion seem to be what is most popular (and profitable) in the market today. Unfortunately all one needs to do to participate in that market is open up Chat GPT and type in "Give me a Substack post of 1,000 words about...XXX." On the bright side, that's also one reason why AI will probably never put a good writer out of a job. It feeds on the literary marketplace writ large and there will always be many more drive-thrus handing out processed junk food in styrofoam with plastic sporks in that market than there will ever be sit down restaurants serving real food on plates with silverware.
"If you’re stuck, write out what you want to say in the same words and phrasing that you would use with a 7-year-old. If you can do that, keep that sentence, and then build on it...If you can’t write that sentence, consider revising your thesis until you can. If you can’t revise your thesis, ask yourself whether your thesis is worth saying anyway."
Or consider the possibility that you need to do some more thinking about the topic. At least in the humanities, if you can't explain something in words a seven year old can understand (even if they might not have the attention span or emotional maturity to deal with the concept), you don't actually understand it.