Clarity of thought precedes clarity of expression. Most of the time.
Now there’s a quote that I’ve never been able to reliably pin down.
“Clarity of thought precedes clarity of expression.”
So, if you can't rephrase something in simple terms, it could be because the complicated version doesn't entirely make sense.
A good client of mine confesses that the thinking behind the draft I'm working on hasn't necessarily been very clear. And of course, that client is right, and one can see it in the text. At first glance the draft is polished. But look closer and there are passages in which the reasoning itself doesn't add up.
I sometimes ask a client to explain an entire passage to me. These questions seem, generally, to elicit one of two types of response. Either I get a simplified—sometimes bulleted—breakdown of what's on the page (which, of course, is what I'm looking for), or I get a lot of background (often interesting, sometimes helpful, sometimes not so helpful) but still don't understand how the elements on the page relate to one another.
And sometimes, together, we find that it's not a problem of expression, it's a problem with the underlying thinking.
In my experience, if an author can't rephrase a passage or explain in other words, it's a reasonable indication that we're still wrestling with the thinking behind it. Which is often part of the process of proofreading and correction.
At the same time, it's often discussing how an idea has (already) been expressed on the page that leads to a deeper understanding of the thinking behind it. Including for the author. And that can lead to a different, better way of expressing that thinking. But for this to be true, you have to trust your proofreader.
So, what came first, the chicken or the (chicken) egg?
It’s always the egg.
Unless it’s the chicken.
[Vegetarian and vegan versions of this post are available on request.]
[Illustration by unknown artist. Book scan, with thanks to Wikimedia.]
