We can see what not to do by looking to academic writing. This is the abstract to a Harvard Law Review article about how a victim can sue when his rights have been violated by the government:
The system of government accountability has changed dramatically in the years since Marbury v. Madison promised remedies for government violations of individual rights. For one thing, modern remedial law focuses on prospective, declaratory-style litigation, in which the federal courts proclaim the law and government agencies carry those interpretations into effect. That preference for declaratory adjudication has led to a distrust of retrospective enforcement of law through tort-based suits for damages. Comments by Chief Justice Roberts, expressing a clear preference for prospectivity, find a reflection in Egbert v. Boule and the various immunity doctrines that the Court has erected to shield the government and its officers from tort-based liability in damages.
Not exactly clear. To establish clarity, we want our subjects to be actors, and our verbs to be actions. Here, grammatical subjects are changing from sentence to sentence with no clear link established between them — we are moving from one conceptual noun to another: the remedial system; the court’s preferences; two types of litigation; and Supreme Court decisions. But what is the link between these different concepts?
Who Are the Actors and What Are Their Actions?
Sentence by sentence, let’s consider who the grammatical subjects are, and see if they correlate to the real actors.
Sentence 1:
Grammatical Subject: System of governmental accountability.
Real Actor: Courts
Sentence 2:
Grammatical Subject: Modern remedial law
Real Actor: Courts.
Sentence 3:
Grammatical Subject: Preference for declaratory adjudication
Real Actor: Courts
Sentence 4:
Grammatical Subject: Comments by Chief Justice Roberts expressing a clear preference for prospectivity.
Real Actors: Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court.
So, we will largely use the federal courts as a continuous actor but include additional actors at the end. To set this up, using the original text, we will consider who is doing what. In this way, we will begin to eliminate unclear concepts.
New Sentence 1:
Actor: Courts
Action: Changed the system for how they hold governments accountable
New Sentence 2:
Actor: Courts
Action: Focus on prospective, declaratory litigation/proclaim the law.
New Sentence 3:
Actor: Courts
Action: Distrust retrospective torts suits.
New Sentence 4:
Actor: Supreme Court.
Action: Based on what Chief Justice John Roberts said, immunized government and its officers from tort-based suits.
We can also feel free to break up long sentences for clarity.
Revision
We could write this:
(My version)
Since Marbury v Madison, courts have changed how victims can sue when the government violates their rights. Currently, the courts prefer that victims use declaratory litigation, where the courts say what the law will be in the future and governmental agencies implement court orders. The courts currently distrust backward-looking suits for torts seeking damages.
In Egbert v Boule and other rulings, using Chief Justice John Roberts’ comments in other cases, the Supreme Court shielded the government and its employees by creating an immunity doctrine for when victims sue them for damages in tort.
A bit better, no?
The progression of ideas is clearer — what the courts want → what Roberts and the Supreme Court said → how their immunity doctrine protects the government based on how the victims sue.
And even though we broke the ideas into two paragraphs, the word count went down from 110 to 93.
Thoughts on Academic Writing
In the original, the author might be using his jargon to establish credibility with his audience — perhaps an audience of scholars. But that is theatre: from this vantage point, the academic readers and writer implicitly agree to feign dealing with monumentally complex concepts. Often, they are not.
My mission is not to immerse you in confusing jargon so that you seduce the easily fooled and alienate the genuinely curious. My job will be to help you say things in a linear but stylish way so that the reader is captivated by both your ideas and prose.
Find this information useful? Work with me so that we can improve the clarity and style of your writing and speaking so that you communicate with clarity and command.
Contact me at: [email protected]
