[contravariant]

Oh now I'm actually curious, I have a weak spot for explanations that make surprising results seem inevitable.

Much better than articles that make stuff sound fancy to make it more convincing (e.g. I've seen articles that used $r^n \pi^(n/2) / \Gamma(n/2 + 1)$ instead of the more sensible 'volume of an n-sphere').

[ColinWright]

There's a balance to achieve between presentation of a NEW RESULT vs simple obfuscation. Achieving that balance depends in understanding your audience and adapting your style appropriately.

The "understanding your audience" bit is repeated again and again and again, but seems never to be heard or heeded.

To be fair, most PhDs in Pure Maths don't contain earth-shattering, field altering results. Mostly they are small things that are genuinely new, but not very substantial. The author then has to make it clear which wide they fall in the tension between "trivial observation" and "genuine progress". I didn't do that the first time.