Checklist for Plain Language

The reason that government writing (and institutional writing in general) is often so bad isn’t because the people writing it don’t know how to write plainly, but because they don’t want to.<p>When you’re reading something from an institution that seems unnecessarily obscure or indirect or passive, there is usually a reason, and that reason is usually that if they had stated the plain truth, it would make them look bad.<p>There was a great geeky essay about the language of the video game portal that went into this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gamasutra.com&#x2F;view&#x2F;news&#x2F;114904&#x2F;Analysis_Portal_and_the_Deconstruction_of_the_Institution.php" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gamasutra.com&#x2F;view&#x2F;news&#x2F;114904&#x2F;Analysis_Portal_a...</a><p>And of course the classic Orwell essay:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.orwell.ru&#x2F;library&#x2F;essays&#x2F;politics&#x2F;english&#x2F;e_polit&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.orwell.ru&#x2F;library&#x2F;essays&#x2F;politics&#x2F;english&#x2F;e_polit...</a>

The height of government writing would be Rachel Carson. She&#x27;s best known for <i>Silent Spring</i> but her Sea books are just as good. Much of her writing was published by the GPO.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rachel_Carson#List_of_works" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rachel_Carson#List_of_works</a><p>But as for writing advice, the CIA isn&#x27;t so bad.<p><i>Thinking and Writing: Cognitive Science and Intelligence Analysis</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cia.gov&#x2F;library&#x2F;center-for-the-study-of-intelligence&#x2F;csi-publications&#x2F;books-and-monographs&#x2F;Thinking-and-Writing-Feb2010-web.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cia.gov&#x2F;library&#x2F;center-for-the-study-of-intellig...</a><p>Also, the earlier <i>Bestiary of Intelligence Writing</i>.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cia.gov&#x2F;library&#x2F;readingroom&#x2F;docs&#x2F;DOC_0000619161.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cia.gov&#x2F;library&#x2F;readingroom&#x2F;docs&#x2F;DOC_0000619161....</a>

See also the Accessible Information standard from the English NHS.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.england.nhs.uk&#x2F;ourwork&#x2F;accessibleinfo&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.england.nhs.uk&#x2F;ourwork&#x2F;accessibleinfo&#x2F;</a><p>(I have a few problems with the NHS England accessible info stuff, most of which are around how inaccessible it all is.)

Don&#x27;t try to replace a good dictionary. In other words, don&#x27;t fill your writing with definitions.

If anyone is interested, here&#x27;s <i>Strunk, William, Jr. 1918, The Elements of Style</i>:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bartleby.com&#x2F;141&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bartleby.com&#x2F;141&#x2F;</a>

Defines any word as the speaker intends, not as the word is normally defined. ;)

Also, doesn&#x27;t omit anything in the name of &quot;simplicity&quot; or &quot;plain-liness&quot;.