How to write boring?

Writing boringly is a powerful skill that moves you up many, many professional hierarchies. Life is unfair though. Some were blessed with a natural gift for writing unreadably, others should learn it

The first concept we need is the level of abstraction🧵

Three principles of boring writing:

1. Stay on the same level of abstraction
2. Stay on the same level of abstraction
3. Do not give reader any explicit or implicit hints he could use to get to another level of abstraction on his own. Lock him on his level and throw away the key

Imagine you are describing empirical evidence. Give one example, two examples, three examples, give as many as you can. But never include any hint or clue on how these examples may reflect more general and (God forbid!) nontrivial patterns. Lock the reader and throw away the key

Aiming to present an exhaustive account of events while sticking to one level of abstraction may be the single best way to put a reader to sleep. Exhaustive evidence leading nowhere - that's so boring that it may get funny in its absurdity www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/charles-dickens/

Long, wannabe exhaustive accounts that lead nowhere can be excruciatingly boring. At the same time, purely theoretical arguments detached from anything empirical may have a similar effect. It's not that theory or empirics are boring, it's sticking to one level of abstraction

(I'll finish my tea and continue)

Now what is the opposite of a boring text? The one switching between different levels of abstraction, connecting high levels with low ones. For example, meticulously detailed empirics illustrating fundamental patterns of reality. The vaster the gap, the more interesting it can be

Connection between low and high level of abstraction doesn't have to be explicit. Many great texts lack explicitly formulated argument. They do however, give reader a more subtle, implicit clue on what it is all about, so he could find a way on his own

www.marxists.org/archive/tolstoy/1886/how-much-land-does-a-man-need.html

They may be leaving false clues, too. Leo Strauss argued that great philosophical texts were essentially esoteric. Their literal reading is wrong, that's not what the author meant. If you want to get to the true meaning, you gotta look for the hidden, implicit clues and dig there

Explicit or implicit, hidden or obvious, interesting texts do have a clue leading to another level of abstraction. And that's what makes them interesting. Staying on the same level is dull. Travelling to another one is joyous. The vaster the gap, the greater the joy

It is guiding a reader to other levels of abstractions that makes writing interestingly highly problematic. Choosing a level of abstraction = dominance, whether in oral or in written conversation. Interesting writing does have an element of sexual aggression

Here I'm gonna stop