Not true in general: good people can write bad prose. E.g. scientist who have nothing to hide and no need to impress.
Implication: it was better before the digital age. Which is not true.
Readers are unknown, invisible, inscrutable
Good sense
Bad sense
Obsolete advice
Baffling advice
Base advice on the science & scholarship
Good style requires a coherent mental model of the communication scenario
Prose as a window on to the world
Academic typically write in Postmodern/Self-conscious style
The focus is on the thing being shown, not on the activity of studying it
Corollary 1: minimize apologizing. E.g. The problem of language acquisition is extremely complex. It is difficult to give precise definitions of the concept of 'language' and the concept of 'acquisition' and the concept of 'children'. There is much uncertainty about the interpretation of experimental data and a great deal of controversy surrounding the theories. More research needs to be done.
Corollary 2: minimize hedging.
Keep up the illusion that the reader is seeing a world rather than listening to verbiage
Mixed metaphors
A.W.F.U.L. (Amercians Who Figuratively Use Literally)
Classic prose is about the word, not about the conceptual tools with which we understand the world
Avoids metaconcepts: approach, assumption, concept, condition, context, framework, issue, level, model, paradigm, perspective, process, role, strategy, tendency, variable
Classic prose narrates ongoing events
Non-classic prose thingifies events and then refers to them
Nominalization (a dangerous tool of English grammar)
Overused
The design of language
The order of words in a sentence has to do two things at once
Present some bits of information to the reader before others (affects how the information is absorbed)
The passive is a workaround for this inherent design limitation of language
The passive is the better construction when the done-to is currently the target of the reader's mental gaze
The chief contributor to opaque writing
Doesn't occur to the writer that readers
So the writer doesn't bother to
Better solutions
Other are Not So Clear
Tacit, evolving conventions
Some make important semantic distinctions
Many supposed rules of usage
Have always been flouted by the best writers
It's all right to split an infinitive in the interest of clarity. Since clarity is the usual reason for splitting, this advice means merely that you can split them whenever you need to. -- Merriam-Webster Unabridged
There is no grammatical basis for rejecting split infinitives -- Encarta World English Dictionary
...
Usage advice is based on evidence
Correct usage should be kept in perspective
Far less important than
Modern linguistics & cognitive science provide better ways of enhancing our writing:
A model of prose communication
An understanding of the way language works
A diagnosis of why good prose is so hard to write
A way to make sense of rules of correct usage