Writing Clearly is Clearly Hard

These days I am slow in my blogging. I am trying to write my thoughts out more clearly. I don't think I am very good at it. Consider this snippet of conversation:

Chewxy:

Star Wars is typical Campbellism.
and here I use the word "typical" in the typical fashion
which is to say, not the usual connotation of "usual"
what I meant is "a representative of a type"
where "type" is prototyped by the notion of a "type" as in a "specimen"

Chewxy:

hmm so what I meant to say is Star Wars is a archtypal specimen of Campbellism

It takes me on average five sentences to get my meaning clear. It's frustrating.

I know people who can structure their thoughts in clear order such that there is no need to explain and re-explain every sentence. When asked on how I can improve, the advice is to "write more".

But writing more only ever leads to less clear or super verbose writing. An exercise in writing clearly becomes either an exercise in muddling minds or an exercise in boring people to death. I find I keep repeating myself, but in different voices, as is the case with this paragraph.

Further, my sentences are frequently self-referencing. Sometimes, it's through a quoted word like "self-reference". Sometimes it's sentences that call back another in the same paragraphs.

I'd be tempted to cite George Lucas - "It's like poetry, they rhyme!" - but that'd be untrue. I try my best to not let any words that rhyme through. Funnily enough, discussing his specific phrase was the precursor to how the transcript above grew.

Any of these issues I have - self-referenciality, puns, rhyming and echoing - mostly come about unintentionally. Though I do occasionally intentionally throw in one or two such flourishes as an easter egg.

Lest you think I'm trying to be clever, I am not. I genuinely can't seem to write clearly. I don't know how to improve. I just want to be able to clearly communicate my idea across. Definitions seem to explode. In order to explain something, you need to explain its precursor, which necessitates explaining its precursor. It's an infinite regress! An exercise in futily.

Anyone knows any tips?

comments powered by Disqus