My wonderful grad advisor once diagnosed why a lot of my academic writing read as convoluted & dull (he prob didn't use those words):
I give too many caveats & scope conditions BEFORE stating the main point; they almost always belong afterward
Still today, regularly, I realize this is my problem
(I would love to hear what other people have realized is the mistake THEY regularly make in their writing!
Also, let’s take a moment to appreciate my advisor for the close attention to be able to diagnose this in my writing, and for making the effort to tell me!)
Heard Fred Jameson give a talk where he began by saying, IIRC, "modernity begins with the council of Trent." Then as an aside he said, always start with an outrageous claim, gives people something to argue with, and went on. Good advice I think!
Theo only risk is that the more you are upfront with your argument the more you give your critics to chew or bite on. Havingsaid that, I would rather do that than say nothing (in a convulatated style).
Proposed: you cannot defend an assertion before you make it. Assert and make your case; then, with detractors cut down to size, dissolve their bullshit with the caveats and scope conditions as if they should be obvious given the force of your argument.
After I signed on with the National Academy of Sciences, my study director hired an editor. His job was to read one of my sentences, ask me what I was trying to say, and then write down my words. Irwin instilled in me a desire to communicate and not just try to sound smart. Oh, it took a while....
Oh, that’s so cool! I often do write by talking out loud (outside by myself, to a coach I pay, or in talks—I give A LOT of talks) and it is often where I figure out how to say things directly.
You get twenty seconds of someone's time, don't talk about tertiary or quaternary details ("nuance"). Make your main point! If there's time left over, repeat yourself!
