Plain Language Writing - A boon of understanding? Or a shaky foothold

A good friend of mine recently gave me a book titled The Origins of Creativity. The book discusses the foundations of creative thought by looking at the humanities through a lens of technology and biology. It’s an interesting read, but it takes a lot of buying into in order to fully comprehend. While I can’t know the reasons my friend gave me this book in particular, I can say that it’s a good fit for me. Science has always been a hobby while the humanities have always been my bread and butter. This is the opposite for the author, Edward O. Wilson, making the book an excellent present for me, so whenever he gets time to read this, thank you for the gift.

I’d like to call myself creative, but I have trouble with any label that is vaguely complimentary. It often feels like a self-compliment is taking away from someone else, or maybe that you’re rating your skills at a higher standard, but maybe that’s just me.

Is calling yourself creative even a compliment? Is it a fact? How do you rate that? Is there anyone who isn’t creative?

This dialogue might seem needless, but it interests me because of what I planned to talk about today, which is the nature of language. A pretty simple and straightforward thing to approach, right? Well, the same friend who lent me the book gave me some ideas for my blog, again, eternally grateful, and one of the things he mentioned was the plain language movement. I didn’t know what that was and being curious I’ve been reading about it for a few days and what I have found has perplexed me.

In these blogs, I make it clear what I think, but I don’t try to sway opinions. I do my best to present the facts as I see them and read facts as they’re presented to me. I’m not here to change anyone’s minds, but maybe their habits when it comes to approaching these kinds of conversations.

The plain language movement, however, puts me in a strange place. You see, the web description for “PlainLanguage.gov” states “Plain language is a movement no more.” This is almost inflammatory, and throughout their website and their documents they make a clear argument as to why the world should shift to using their style of writing. It shouldn’t be shocking that their website is well written and straightforward, but certain phrases are almost… vindictive, and it all seems almost cultish. Which to me is a great irony. How can a “movement (even if it is no more)” be simultaneously interested in simple language, but also use hyperbolic practices and examples to make an argument?

There is a debate to be made for plain language in law, just as there is an argument to be made that the law needs to be universally interpretable, which is MUCH harder to do with plain language. There is an interest in making sure business, finance, healthcare, and the sciences all utilize plain language writing. I get that. The logical side of my brain understands this. It makes sense to make information approachable, but at the same time… the melding of the creative and the logical is much, much more interesting. Additionally, policing syntax is essentially policing thought and we all know how that turns out.

Maybe an example is in order, on the Plain Language UK campaign page they give the example that this sentence: “High-quality learning environments are a necessary precondition for facilitation and enhancement of the ongoing learning process,” should be written like this “Children need good schools if they are to learn properly,” and suddenly their interests make sense! That is a wordy sentence made much simpler. It saves time! But one of their key tenements is that it saves on misunderstanding too, which this sentence doesn’t accomplish anymore. The term “good” versus “high-quality” is night and day! Who decides what is “proper” learning? It also gets rid of the idea that learning is an ongoing process and makes the entire sentence about children. That’s a lot of change, isn’t it? Reread the sentences, which one would you want to be on your government’s mission statement?

This is, of course, their example. So, take biases with a grain of sodium chloride, (that, plain language writers, is called a joke). Plain language writing makes issues diminutive and seems like it would be less accurate, which runs counter to its entire purpose.

AND IT IS BORING AS HECK DUDES and if that’s a cross we all have to bear for understanding, then I’m just lost here. I feel like, effective language is flowery. If you want something to be interesting, memorable, or accurate, you have to jazz it up. I’m not asking for Shakespeare-esque puns, Donne level metaphors, or even Hemingway elegance. What I want is personality. Intrigue!

So rather than plain language, maybe we can focus on conversational language? Where our writing indulges other people with our lovely personalities. Where we can express ourselves by being ourselves. Doesn’t that sound more interesting and dynamic? This “essay,” which I shudder to call an essay, breaks nearly every formatting rule on the Plain Language guide. Was it difficult to understand? Were you able to adequately find my intent? Was it interesting, informative, or at the very least, approachable?

I have more qualms about this concept. Relegating specific disciplines to specific styles of writing lengthens the bridgeless gap in education. It makes ideas less communicable between the different faculties of thought and would make speculative sociobiology pieces like The Origin of Creativity impossible.

Thanks for reading and have a plain day!