I'm convinced that part of the problem is that we think that readers shouldn't be stopped dead in their tracks in order to figure out what something means. I think the strongest feature of didactic writing is the fact that it slows the reader down. It forces them to stop and take it in.
It forces them to think, to wonder, to take time to make connections, to savor the words, and yes, to pick up a dictionary, and look up a word. What are we so afraid of? Why such a utilitarian approach to writing?
===========
An excellent post, which raises some very important matters.
Regarding the communication of complex ideas with panache, free of condescension, to non-specialist audiences...
The idea of the *reading-learner* Kelley describes (a lovely notion, by the way) or, more specifically, the idea of a writer crafting her work for the reading-learner has an elegant precedent amongst science populizers.
Physicists and astrophysicists in particular seem to have a passion for writing the results and implications of their work in book length form for general audiences.
Everything from Sagan's *Cosmos* to Feynman's, *QED* (quantum electrodynamics) provide examples of accomplished people who've worked with exquisitely complex ideas, writing the details of this work down for *ordinary* folks without *talking down* or indulging in needless jargon.
I've always been puzzled by the insistence of some who work with political ideas or economics or any of the related areas that the monstrously deep nature of the subject prevents them from writing clearly or, more commonly, that they are writing clearly even though it is obvious they're not.
If people studying the structure of matter, the life cycle of the stars or the behavior of organisms can do it - preserving complexity while bringing the audience along step by step - surely someone writing about power relations or US foreign policy or any of our other concerns can match or exceed this generosity.
DRM