On being deserted by the Explanation Fairy ™

skepticlawyer — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:02:46 +0000

One of the things I’ve always strived for when I write is clarity. Most of the time in my writing career, I’ve been successful in achieving this clarity, and people haven’t had to come back to me with queries like ‘what does this mean?’ and ‘please explain’. Other faults – my disagreeable politics, my abysmal taste, my reprehensible attitudes, my [insert critical view du jour] – have at least been obvious, thanks to a clear style.

However, for the last month or so, I’ve felt like the Explanation Fairy ™ has gone on holiday. First there was a torturous attempt to explain just how difficult it is to incorporate morality into law on this abortion thread over at LP. Then I had people thinking I’d abandoned my willingness to defend freedom of speech in this post nominating Danny Nalliah and his wingnut friends for the Australian Skeptics’ ‘Bent Spoon Award’. To cap it all off, I got about 15,000 words of my thesis back from my supervisor with the comment ‘please explain’ (and variations thereof) appearing multiple times. (In case anyone is wondering, he’s not Australian, so ‘please explain’ has no particular cultural resonance for him).

And, reviewing his comments — as I have been this afternoon — I can not only see how easy it is to fix in all but one section (which needs, I fear, reordering in order to work properly). I’ll also have to give myself a sound kick up the backside for failing to get something so basic as clear explanation right in the first place.

I know some people think that clarity is a cover, and that academic writing is doomed to be dense and unreadable. Fortunately this attitude hasn’t invaded either Oxford’s Law or Economics faculties. Both value clear exposition as much as I do.

Has anyone else ever been abandoned by the Explanation Fairy? Is it unusual to get this irritated, or is it only me?

Skepticlawyer » expression

On being deserted by the Explanation Fairy ™