Plain Talk

• Author: Bryan A. Garner
• Pages: 24-25

24 || ABA JOURNAL JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2019

Plain Talk

A conversation on simplicity with Rudolf Flesch

Bryan A. Garner

Among the most innovative wr iting spe-

cialists of the 20t h century was Rudolf Franz

Flesch (1911–1986), who immigrated to the

United States from Aust ria in 1938. Having

already ear ned a doctorate in law from the

University of Vienna, he enrolled in C olumbia

University and earned a PhD in libra ry sci-

ence. While working at Columbia’s Reading

Laboratory, Flesch became i nterested in the

burgeoning fi eld of reading comprehension.

Seeking to bring the scienti fi c method to

bear on readabilit y, Flesch advocated a simple and d irect

style of writi ng: short paragr aphs, short sentences, few

prefi xes and su xe s, and relative informality. He devel-

oped two measures for a ssessing readability: (1) reading

ease and (2) human interest.

Although some criticize d his insistence on plain style,

Flesch’s books prove d enormously popular and i nfl uen-

tial. Since his death , variations on his readability formu-

las have been integrate d into all sorts of softwar e (such

as Microsoft Word) to assess the qua lity of prose. Even

today, lawyers have much to learn from Fles ch.

As I’ve done with many long-gone authors, I sat down

recently to interv iew Flesch about two of his best-sell-

ing books from the 1940s: The Art of Plain Talk (19 46)

and The Art of Reada ble Writing (1949). His answers are

(with minor adaptations) verbatim.

Garner: In your fi rst book, The Art of Plain Talk, you

develop the idea that writers a nd speakers are always

guessing about whether they’re get ting their points

across.

Flesch: There’s nothing more importa nt to you as a

speaker or writer t han that your audience understand

you; and on this point you can never be sure.

Garner: That’s unfortun ate, isn’t it?

Flesch: It means you may never lear n how to make

yourself better underst ood. As long as you’re just guess-

ing, you have no way of knowing whether your guess w as

good or bad, and whether you’re getting bet ter or worse.

Garner: You try to teach pe ople “plain talk .” How do

you defi ne plain talk?

Flesch: Plain ta lk is mainly a question of language

structure a nd of spacing your ideas. If you don’t carry

simplifi cation too far into primer style, your re aders will

not only stay with you, but they’ ll read you faster, enjoy

it more, understa nd better and remember longer. Every

single one of these statements can be prove d by scientifi c

evidence.

Garner: I know you brought empiricism to bea r

in your work in analyzi ng writing styles . You’ve been

particula rly hard on lawyers.

Flesch: They ’re the most notorious long-

sentence writers. The rea son is that they won’t

let the reader escape. Behi nd each intermi-

nable legal sentence seems to be the idea th at

all citizens w ill turn into crimina ls as soon as

they fi nd a loophole in the law; if a sentence

ends before everyt hing is said, they will stop

reading right there and jump to t he chance of

breaking the rule t hat follows after the period.

Garner: But isn’t that questionable

psycholog y?

Flesch: What is c ertain is that legal languag e is hard

even on lawyers.

Garner: What’s the best adv ice on writing, then?

Flesch: It’s what the Fowler brothers said in The King’s

English (1906): Before allowing yourself to be tempt ed

by the showier qualities, tr y to be direct, simple, brief,

vigorous and lucid. Prefer the fami liar word to the far-

fetched, the concrete word to t he abstract and the short

to the long.

Garner: That yardst ick would be pretty unkind to

most legal writi ng today. I’m thinking espe cially about

federal regulat ions.

Flesch: If we ana lyze the Federal Register, it is obvi-

ously designed to make read ing as di cult as p ossible.

The sentences simply never stop, colloquial root words

are carefu lly avoided, and there is never a hint of who is

talking to whom. The Fede ral Register is not supposed

to be read at all. It simply prints t hings so that someday,

somewhere, some government o ci al can say: “Yes, but

it says in the Federal Regi ster ... .” All this government

stu , in other words, is not reading matter but prefabr i-

cated part s of quarrels.

Garner: You’re especially critica l of rules that begin

with unless and t hen stack lots of negatives.

Flesch: Try to rea d and understand, “Unless you don’t

disapprove of saying no, you won’t refuse.” Here it is in

Federalese: “Unless the O ce of Price Administration

or an authorized representat ive thereof shall, by let-

ter mailed to the applicant w ithin 21 days from the date

of fi ling the application, disapprove the maximum price

as reported, such pr ice shall be deemed to have been

approved, subject to nonretroact ive written disapproval

or adjustment at any later time by the O ce of Price

Administration.”

Garner: That’s certa inly opaque.

Flesch: What does t hat mean for an ordinary per-

son who has reported a cei ling price? Let’s see: Suppose

your price is not so high that OPA would disapprove of it.

PHOTOS BY BETTMANN/CONTRIBUTOR AND WINN FUQUA PHOTOGRAPHY

Bryan

Garner

on Words

FOLLOW ON TWITTER

@BryanAGarner

Practice