[Petrushka]

KISS. Too much writing in the non-fiction world, whether it be academic, scientific, or related to business, is far too complex for its own good. This is seemingly to overwhelm, to simultaneously weed out and impress those who are not deeply versed in the subject, but in almost no cases is that a positive development. For academia and science, the point of your work should be to encourage knowledge and learning, which complex language in no way helps. In business, the last thing you want to do is assume a level of expertise from a customer, except in very specific and rare circumstances.

I am aware that there are certain fields and types of works that have to use difficult phrasing and structure for the purpose of limiting ambiguity, but often such writing is found in cases where such strictness is not necessary. So, Keep It Simple, Stupid.

P.S. - Not trying to be rude, but your initial post is a great example of writing at a more complex level that is in anyway necessary. Micro- and macrostructure, the usage of an undefined and unnecessary acronym in USP? It doesn't matter whether it is a safe assumption that your audience knows what you are talking about, as you never know when that audience may shift without your knowledge.

[nelsonweiss]

Rewritten to be less complex and avoid unnecessary use of an acronym (not picking on you, just figured your good advice would be more easily read if it was written simpler):

Keep it simple, stupid.

Too much non-fiction writing is overly complicated. It seems like people write elaborately in order to overwhelm and impress those less familiar with the subject, but this is a bad idea because complexity interferes with communication.

There are certain types of writing that depend on the use of complicated phrasing or structure to limit ambiguity, but much of the time such strictness is unnecessary. So keep it simple.

[Petrushka]

I wouldn't consider the use of KISS to be unnecessary. It's sufficiently well-known to effectively be considered a word (sort of the way en cia is used in Spanish), and I define it, albeit not explicitly. I also read way too many military documents to have an issue with acronyms, as their usage as an easily pronounceable vocalization for often complex wordings really helps language flow. Again, I don't have any issues with acronyms themselves, simply their usage when they aren't defined.

And I would argue you don't simplify my comment at all, although you do make it more concise. I consider simplicity to be the primary concern with writing, however being as quick to the punch as possible is also an extremely valuable trait. It must be noted though that they are not the same thing. Often times, especially with technical writing, they are at loggerheads.

With all that said, your re-write is actually quite a lot better. Thanks.

[ianstormtaylor]

Just having fun...

Non-fiction writing is plagued by unnecessary words and complicated structures. Extra words aren't impressive; they're confusing! Legal documents are a rare exception that use complex structures to limit ambiguity (or to create it). Unless you're drafting an air-tight contract, complexity will only contaminate your message.