Art vs. Manufactures of Metal

Brancusi: “Simplicity is complexity resolved.” (And I’ll throw in a picture: Bird in Space)

One of my mantras for case writing is the good old K.I.S.S. formula, i.e., keep it simple. This may in fact be number one on my theoretical case-writing hit parade that I hand out to the Sailors. This is not to say that your ideas are simple, in the dismissive, derogatory sense of the word, but that your writing is simple, and that your explanations are clear, straightforward, and easy to understand (three perhaps synonymous concepts). For that matter, much of my brief against a lot of writers is their inability to write clearly. Academic writing seems to demand obfuscation as the badge of profundity, whereas lack of lucidity is not testament to profundity but merely to, well, lack of lucidity. The more complicated the thing you are trying to explain, the simpler ought be your explanation, if you want anyone to understand it.

Few people, however, follow this advice.

In debate circles, complexity has often become the substitute for—or perhaps better, the metaphor for—meaningfulness. If one criterion is good, two criteria must be better, while five criteria is approaching sainthood. Cases that use straightforward analysis of the resolution in light of a simple value (e.g., how does the death penalty fit into social justice) are tortured into digressive readings of modern philosophy (which must, teleologically speaking, be better than classic philosophy, because it’s newer). Note that I charitably did not say modern “philosophy”: say what you will about me, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, you yabbo! You’ll also note that I added no alerting signals to that parenthetic statement about how new philosophy must be better than old philosophy; once again, I trust your intelligence, and I trust that you know when I am going Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge.

In other words, have an idea of why the death penalty does or does not fit into a pattern of social justice. Then explain it to me so as to convince me that you are right. Explaining it in a way that I can understand it is the best way to go about that. And don't blame me for being dumb if I don't understand you. You're the one who has the job of convincing to do. My only job is to be, or not be, convinced.

Do I make myself clear?

More Brancusi: “I do not aspire to be in fashion. For what is in fashion, goes out of fashion....”