But what is elegance?
I encountered the concept when I was watching Hardball the 8th episode of Numb3rs season 3. The mathematician encountered a guy who does baseball betting and who had a formula for doing his baseball statistics. The guy's formula was considered "elegant."
Elegance is your capacity to convey your message loud and clear without having to shout.
It's a paradox.
I used to be in debate and I always would bring home the best speaker award, I had eloquence in speaking - the verbal version for elegance. Sometimes though, one may be eloquent in speaking but not elegant in writing.
I learned that the hard way when I handed my first manuscript for publication to an editor friend of mine. The draft was not a rough draft, it was a tough draft and gave her a headache. We learn from those mistakes and try to learn in such a way as to be able to compose our thoughts into publishable material.
There's also a set of concepts on elegance that we can come to know so that we can give them particular attention when we are writing.
Writing is not about the length of pages and the number of words per see. Journals have maximum word counts since they need to be able to budget the space of the issue to be published. Minimums exist, though, because of the expected substance that a manuscript should have. Take for example in debate. Our Grand Chancellor during our first lesson explained that the 7 minutes is a standard because anything less than 7 will not have have been explained well and not substantiated enough. Anything beyond 7 is already boring and tedious.
Journals in some way have the same line of thought. The minimum in journals ranges from around 6 thousand to 8 thousand words. Somewhat give or take a thousand from the magic 7. But just because we have the minimum, it doesn't mean to say that we simply write to meet it. Personally, I also consider that just because we have a lot to say means that we have an excuse to go beyond the maximum. We strategize, that's the reason we outline, that's the reason we do concept mapping and create frameworks. It helps us determine what to include and what not to include.
The same also applies to frameworks or any diagram that we use. We have to ask ourselves, does the image help or does it merely repeat what you are already writing?
Notice how even if we're talking about the clarity of what we say, I keep on entwining it with the substance of what our message is? Both go hand in hand together. Since you don't want to give boredom and tedium to your reader, you try to make sure that what you put into what you write is just the relevant information needed to make your point. There's also a corollary to this principle, did you give enough information or did you skip a particular line of thought? This can happen when our minds assume that the information we are talking about is something that everyone should be aware of. Trust me, not everyone does. This is dangerous for thesis students and for those who are trying to publish. We assume that our professors, our panel of evaluators, and our peer reviewers know everything there is under the sun on that topic. Well, journals do try to do their best. But here's a situation, just as your mind can get lost in the idea that a part of your topic is common knowledge, then other people's minds can also get trapped in their own particular fields of pieces of knowledge and interests. That's the reason why reviewer 2 or panel 2 tries to give so many other suggestions that are irrelevant to what you are writing about. That is why sometimes, they say that they can't make sense of what you wrote.
So, the answer is, make sure that you are making the reader make sense of what you wrote. Write in such a way as to guide the reader toward your point. Guide in such a way that you lead the reader as if you are a tour guide and you are helping them identify things in the wilderness (pages, and probably lots of it) that is your manuscript. Lastly, write in such a way that the way you talk through ink and paper is pleasant to read.