On writing (and law)
grellas.com
grellas.com
However, I must say it: I don't think this is good writing.
Writing is like design. It can only be meaningfully called "good" when it achieves a purpose. What is the purpose of this article? It seems to be "to help people (lawyers in particular) to write better".
Does it do that? Well, it's got some tips about writing better, but they are generally hidden underneath the beautiful sentences. Let's take, as an example, one of the clearer paragraphs:
In advocacy, good writing will reflect muscularity, pulling a reader from first to last by force of logical inevitability. This style requires a firm grasp of subject. It requires solid, understated control so as to convey a feel of assured confidence. And it avoids key flaws: it does not strain, or vaunt, or table-pound, or attack the person. It is professional. It has class. It works like a powerful engine under the hood: it does not show itself, but anyone who hears that quiet hum will immediately sense its power. Done right, it projects quintessential vigor: it races along and even leaps off the page on the strength of its own power alone.
That's all very true, but I'm not entirely sure it will help someone who doesn't already understand this point. It is not actionable advice for people who don't already know how to do it.
This article would serve its purpose better if it not only described what good writing is, but also how to achieve it, and if it did so in a way that makes it easier for the reader to extract the information out of it (at the moment, the only way to get the information out of this article is to read through every single sentence, and evaluate each of them to see if it actually brings some new insight).
That said, the prose is beautiful. But this article is like a beautiful design that looks brilliant but isn't functional (either that, or I haven't figured out the purpose of this article).
Thanks again for the honest criticism. That is one of the great benefits of putting one's work out there. It definitely helps you sharpen and refine it as it is appraised by smart people.
The simple title of the HN submission works better for me than the original title.
At the most basic level, good writing does involve ensuring that the reader can comprehend the ideas that are being introduced. However, in my opinion, it also involves knowing something about the intended audience's ability to comprehend the subject being discussed. If someone's studying law, I'd assume that they'd have no difficulty understanding the quoted paragraph. I'd certainly hope that someone studying law wouldn't need to be spoon-fed ;)
"Writing is like design"
Writing is also an art-form. 'Quality' is difficult to define - so sometimes, a full tool-kit of literary devices might need to be used to illustrate a point. Sometimes the reader will be required to infer meaning.
This section of text uses metaphor, it provides itself as an example of the didactic rhythm that the author's discussing, and it does all of this without being patronising or condescending.
I think one of the important, if implicit, ideas of the essay is that it's not possible to learn to write very well without being able to fix in your own mind an ideal representation of what good writing is against which to measure your own real efforts. Reading and recognizing the right examples can go a long way towards reaching that goal, and while the essay emphasizes the hard work of writing over the work of attentive reading, it nonetheless is the kind of essay that contributes, by virtue of its logical development and style, to my idea of what good writing is.
I'm not convinced it was the best use of my time, and it's quite possible the resulting documents were a legal disaster (although I thought they were pretty good). But it was certainly an interesting experience.
After a couple of weeks I came to the conclusion that drafting contracts is actually a lot like programming. The aim of both is to specify precisely what should happen in response to various conditions.
if partyA terminates agreement then partyB should get X, Y, and Z. And so on.
One key difference is that, whilst programming languages are built for precise, unambiguous writing, English is not. It's very hard to write English in a completely unambiguous way. It's even harder to write English in a way that can't be intentionally misinterpreted by someone who stands to gain by doing so.
Breaking up a sentence to improve the readability can often add new ways in which the meaning can "reasonably" be interpreted. Often it's easier to be precise in meaning with a 500-word sentence than with five 100-word sentences. And many English words can be interpreted in multiple ways, so you often have to use unusual words that have a precise accepted meaning set by legal precedent. Hence the complexity you often see in legal documents.
I talked to my lawyer friend about this, and he agreed. He also pointed out that, as professional legal drafters improve, they typically write more readable documents with less jargon, but no less precision of meaning. Irrespective of how precise they are in meaning, contracts that are hard to make sense of are often the sign of a rookie. A bit like programming again.
What spurred you to write this?
As to the first, my first language was Greek, not English, and I spent literally years going through all the resources available (S&W, Zissner, Hugh Blair, many others) in trying to lay a sound foundation for how to write well. Even as I did so, though, I realized that technical rules were insufficient in themselves to help you master the art of writing well. This essay identifies other factors that affect good writing but are not normally discussed as part of technique (thinking for oneself, mastering languages, etc.). I wrote this piece in part to try to give others a broader perspective on why it is important to focus on more than technical rules if they want to write well.
As to the second, I have seen all sorts of ways that those in my profession would mess up in connection with written items, and these often went far beyond writing technique. I wrote this piece in that sense both as a caution to lawyers and also as a guide to clients in what to look for in good lawyer writing.
This, then, was my attempt to articulate a broader perspective on "good writing" (not focused on technique) as it applied to the things lawyers do. I thought it might be useful to the HN community both because many here are keenly focused on the topic of writing and also because many are consumers of legal services.
I went for a dual major in English and Mathematics, so I'm not entirely an autodidact in English, but I still like to believe my own study and practice was more beneficial than directed study. At least, it feels that way, but this is most likely due to cognitive bias.
I have multiple lawyers, judges, and justices in my family, as both immediate and distant relatives. I enjoy case law and "reading law" albeit I have no true aspirations towards becoming a lawyer. The idea of "reading law" to become a lawyer is very tempting challenge, but there's little point in becoming a lawyer when I can lose my ability to write for long periods of time.
As a bit of a shut-in with too much time on his hands (pun intended), I have read your posts for years, even longer than I've had this account. Again, there was little point in joining HN when I could not post and participate.
Your mastery of the English language has always been impressive, but far more importantly, your mastery of the given subject matter is far more impressive. You think well, and hence, you write well --not the other way around.
In fast paced exchanges, you do not always take the time to read well. But this is true of nearly everyone.
In my question to you in my previous post, instead of the term "spurred" I could have easily used "inspired" or "caused" to lessen effect, or alternatively used "incited" to give greater effect.
The subtle point being, I see this particular piece of your writing as reactionary. The vast majority of written law (as I know it) and legal correspondence (as I know it) is reactionary. Given the significant time and effort you have obviously put into both reading and writing legal related text, you have gained the habit of reaction and think in terms of crafting correctly leveled response. It is the perfect mindset of a lawyer doing their job, but there is more to writing itself.
In the case of this particular piece, it seemed as though something had been bothering you for a long time, and finally escaped in a frustrated reaction. I know that feeling far better than most since I live with it building every day. Then again, it could simply be my own externalization, a confirmation bias running rampant.
You did not have the luxury of English as your first language, so more than most US lawyers, you had to work much harder to learn it. Those in your profession who did not bother to learn beyond the basics they already knew stand as an affront to the work you've invested in becoming more proficient than they are. In short, they don't care when you do care, and this kind of disparity is always annoying to the latter.
Your reaction was a correctly measured and level response, but if I read it correctly, your real desire was to convince, express and instruct. Instead of trying to write in a new and unfamiliar way, you fell back on your training, or better said, your habits if you will, and wrote a reactionary piece.
If per chance my analysis is not completely flawed, can you isolate in your own mind the "last straw" that finally provoked you to react?
Take the time to write a full and harsh rant about the last straw with the intent on never sharing it with anyone. The real goal is to get the frustration out of your system rather than mask your frustration behind a leveled response. You may think you vented already in your rough drafts, but it's not out until it's out with a vengeance. Be vicious. It really helps.
When you're done with the rant, rest. Sleep on it.
Now you can get back to the underlying problem; How do I convince others in my profession to care about writing?
You'll first need to accept this will be an uphill battle. Lawyers are, by definition, trained to convince others and trained to avoid being convinced by others. Your target demographic is exceedingly difficult. Both your reasoning and your rhetoric will need to be extraordinary to have any lasting effect. You may need to stop thinking like a lawyer, or thinking like a judge, or even thinking like a statesman to have your desired effect.
In attempting to make your piece accessible to lay people, namely clients, you are not merely helping all of us normal people, but you are also leveraging your position with the lawyers you are trying to convince. How else can you use leverage? I'm sure you have better ideas than I do, but the bar association comes to mind, as well as the judges and even the actual laws.
The major point I would like to make should be self-evident; we all have writing habits, but the means and methods we normally use may not be well suited for the task at hand. Taking a step back from our usual habits, scrutinizing them, and finding our own biases can be very fruitful, especially when you can see the need for another approach and you have the courage to try something different.
I'm sorry but my hands are sore and I have to stop here. As always, it's tough to show critical thinking without seeming overly critical, but I hope this rough draft of my thoughts is of some use to you.