The reason that government writing (and institutional writing in general) is often so bad isn’t because the people writing it don’t know how to write plainly, but because they don’t want to.
When you’re reading something from an institution that seems unnecessarily obscure or indirect or passive, there is usually a reason, and that reason is usually that if they had stated the plain truth, it would make them look bad.
There was a great geeky essay about the language of the video game portal that went into this:
The height of government writing would be Rachel Carson. She's best known for Silent Spring but her Sea books are just as good. Much of her writing was published by the GPO.
I'm not telling definition should totally be avoided but when you write (technical documentation for instance), you often want to define some specific words. It uselessly extends the document and might confuse your reader.
Legalese tend to define things even if that seems absurdly excessive and obvious. IANAL but I've read recently that it's like that because of contra proferentem principle[1]. It's basically a defense against a chance someone may invent some interpretation (different from what's intended) that would look plausible enough.
A lovely case on this matter was over the leaseholder for the World Trade Center in New York against his insurance company: when two planes hit two buildings was it one event or two? The insurance policy rider specified a per event payout.
yes there is one big case in the uk concerning pensions the outcome depended on what seemed to a layperson trivial wording differences in the scheme of arrangement
This switch to CPI was bared a few years before for British coal - the two schemes of arrangement differ in a very minor way - that a lay person would say where identical
However, remember not to take a 99-year-old book literally as a style guide.
Strunk & White contains some timeless advice. Most (but not all) of the habits it identifies as bad writing are still considered bad. But for positive examples of how to write well, you can't follow the example of a book from 1918. Its language is inherently dated and it predates linguistics as a science. You need a newer style guide.
When you’re reading something from an institution that seems unnecessarily obscure or indirect or passive, there is usually a reason, and that reason is usually that if they had stated the plain truth, it would make them look bad.
There was a great geeky essay about the language of the video game portal that went into this:
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114904/Analysis_Portal_a...
And of course the classic Orwell essay:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...