Clarity matters. Yet it’s often lacking in documents about investments, wealth management, and financial planning. Joseph M. Williams’ chapter on clarity in Style: Toward Clarity and Grace intrigued me because it takes a different approach to writing clearly. It focuses on the characters in  your writing. The concept of a “characters” is a bit murky, but it appears to refer to the main actors or topics in a sentence.

Key recommendations for writing clearly

Here are his Williams’ recommendations for clear writing:

Readers are likely to feel that they are reading prose that is clear and direct when

(1) the subjects of the sentences name the cast of characters, and

(2) the verbs that go with those subjects name the crucial actions those characters are part of.

Here is my attempt to write a bad sentence to illustrate his points:

It should be understood that one’s lack of understanding of what is needed to improve asset allocation may be a contributing factor in the development of asset allocations that experience failure in helping people in the achievement of their goals.

To Williams’ points, who are the “characters” in my sample sentence? “One” is vague. So is “people.” It looks to me as if they refer to “investment managers” and “clients.” Using these words will satisfy the author’s suggestion that you use specific instead of abstract nouns.

Also, there don’t appear to be any verbs that go with “one” or “people.”

Here’s my rewrite:

When investment managers don’t understand asset allocation, they create portfolios that fail to achieve client goals.

Do you see how my rewrite follows Williams’ suggestions and is easier to read than my original sentence?

Related rules

I found more rules for writing clearly in Williams’ chapter on clarity.

• Avoid abstract nouns when possible.
• When rewriting, name the missing characters to improve clarity.
• Don’t turn verbs into nouns.
• “If you find that (1) you have to go more than six or seven words into a sentence to get past the subject to the verb and (2) the subject of the sentence is not one of your characters, take a hard look at that sentence; its characters and actions probably do not align with the subjects and verbs…. Revise the sentence so that characters appear as subjects and their actions as verbs.”
• “…there is nothing wrong with a long sentence if its subjects and verbs match its characters and actions.”
• “In some cases, nominalizations are useful, even necessary. Don’t revise these.” As the saying goes, “There are exceptions to every rule.”
• “…whenever you find in  your writing a string of nouns that you have never read before and that you probably will not use again, try disassembling them.”

Williams explains many examples in his book. Check it out if you enjoy learning by analyzing sentences.

Style: Toward Clarity and Grace isn’t an easy read.In fact, I wrote this post partly to help myself figure out the main lessons of his “Clarity” chapter. However, it’s a thoughtful book that may help you improve your writing.

Disclosure: If you click on the Amazon link in this post and then buy something, I will receive a small commission. I only link to books in which I find some value for my blog’s readers.

Many financial marketers and writers complain to me about investment and wealth management experts who love bad writing. Well, maybe they don’t love bad writing, but they insist on jargon-laden, wordy prose, even when offered better alternatives. I’ve tried to provide ammunition for talking experts out of bad writing, in posts like “Seven Ways to Talk Your Financial Execs Out of Jargon and Bad Writing” (free registration with MarketingProfs required) and “Financial jargon killer: The Wall Street Journal.” In this article, I share one author’s take on why people insist on bad writing.

Four reasons for bad writing

Here are some reasons offered by Joseph M. Williams, author of Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. He says that the writers:

1. “…feel compelled to use pretentious language to make ideas that we think are too simple seem more impressive.” By the way, he’s citing author Michael Crichton in this statement.
2. “…use difficult and therefore intimidating language to protect what they have from those who want a share of it: the power, prestige, and privilege that go with being a part of the ruling class.. We can keep knowledge from those who would use it by locking it up, but we can also hide facts and ideas behind language so impenetrable that only those trained in its use can find them.”
3.  “…are seized by the memory of an English teacher for whom the only kind of good writing was writing free of errors which only that teacher understood: fused genitives, dangling participles, split infinitives.”
4. sometimes “experience transient episodes of stylistic aphasia…. This kind of dismaying regression typically occurs when we are writing about errors that we do not entirely understand for readers who do.”

What do YOU think?

Do you think that the reasons suggested by Williams account for financial experts’ insistence on sticking with bad writing? If so, which do you think is the most powerful explanation for their stubbornness? I’ve found pockets of stubbornness across investment, wealth management, and financial planning.

Does Williams miss any explanations? For example, one marketer suggested that experts lack compassion for clients. They don’t appreciate how their jargon makes clients and other readers struggle.

I found another potential explanation in Steven Pinker’s The Sense of Style. Perhaps they’re using what Pinker calls the classic style instead of the practical style. The classic style contrasts with the practical style in which “the writer’s goal is to satisfy the reader’s need.” Pinker also compares the classic style with the plain style, “where everything is in full view and the writer has worked hard to find something worth showing and the reader needs no help in seeing anything.” These snippets make me prefer the practical and plain styles, but classic style may appeal to some. It has its place, but I don’t think its place is in financial client communications.

Pinker says,

Classic style, Thomas and Turner explain is aristocratic, not egalitarian. “Truth is available to all who are willing to work to achieve it, but truth is certainly not commonly possessed by all and is no one’s birthright.”

I don’t think experts are evil for sticking with hard-to-understand writing styles, including Pinker’s classic style.. I think they haven’t been educated about good writing. As a result, they fall back on the kind of writing that they know best. Also, the senior executives in their firms may not emphasize good writing. It’s hard for experts to invest in better writing when senior management won’t recognize their efforts.

Disclosure: If you click on the Amazon link in this post and then buy something, I may receive a small commission. I only link to books in which I find some value for my blog’s readers.

Image courtesy of aechan/freedigitalphotos.net

Check out my top posts from the last quarter!

They’re a mix of practical tips on email (#1), writing (#2, 5, 7, 9, 10), compliance (#3), marketing (#4, 6), and blogging (#8).

If you only read one of these posts, I suggest you pick #1. It could save you time as it boosts your email productivity.

1. Email productivity booster for investment and wealth management  <– This post sparked quite a few comments.
2. “Deep Work” rules to help you write more <– I’d like to give a shout out to Cal Newport for his great book.
3. 7 ways Compliance can work with investment writers for their mutual success  <–This post benefits from input from several compliance professionals.
4. 6 ways financial advisors can differentiate themselves
5. Stop being happy–and win more readers
6. Do I need to use the (r) mark with my CFP designation?
7. Financial writing lesson from my sneakers
8. Infographic: 5 Ways to Add Personality to Your Financial Writing
9. 3 fixes for lousy quotes in your financial writing
10. How to write calendar dates in your financial communications