The main difference between good writing and turgid mush — academese, corporatese, and so on — is that good writing is a window onto the world. The writer narrates an ongoing series of events which the reader can see for himself, if only he is given an unobstructed view. In academese, the writer’s chief goal is to defend himself against the accusation that he is naïve about his own enterprise.

So academics describe what other academics do instead of what they study (“In recent years there has been increased interest in X”). They use many metaconcepts — concepts about concepts, like level, perspective, framework, and approach — instead of writing “Call the police,” they write, “Approach this problem from a law-enforcement perspective.” They turn verbs into nouns — instead of writing, “People cooperated more,” they write, “Levels of cooperation increased.” And they sprinkle their prose with hedges — somewhat, virtually, partially — in an attempt to get off the hook should anyone ever try to prove them wrong.