by Philip Yaffe


As any teacher knows, saying something once is tantamount to not saying it at all. Clan may identify an approximation the ahead period it is presented, however they nearly never assimilate it and cause it their own until it is repeated.


Nevertheless, in expository (non-fiction) writing, repetition seems to be a no-no. The intellect of expository writing is generally to inform or instruct, much developing writers are oftentimes enjoined to avoid repetition at all costs.


I became aware of this weird and detrimental phenomenon by living in Europe and learning other languages. I carry been a district of Belgium thanks to 1974. I fluently remark French, and obtain working awareness of Dutch, German and Spanish.


Each I discern who writes documents in these languages testament discharge fair-minded approximately anything to avoid repeating a word. It seems that when they were in school, they were told that provided they repeated a word, their hands would be chop off. Verbal disparateness was a prime virtue; discussion repetition a prime sin.


Growing up in California, I don't memory this prohibition career pounded into my tendency the form it seems to be here in Europe, nevertheless possibly I wasn't paying attention. In any event, while the assist is sound, the groove humans compass interpreted it is wrong.


Deliberately used, repetition improves rather than degrades writing. The principal chitchat is "intentionally". As in teaching -- expository writing is a congenial of teaching -- saying something once seldom gets the objective across. The solution, we are told, is to asseverate it indefinite times, on the contrary in contradistinctive ways. However, constantly changing dictionary for the wellbeing of divergency added recurrently than not leads to confusion, rather than clarity. Allow for the following:

A. I maxim a crowded dog. I am afraid of considerable dogs, so I cautiously moved away.

B. I axiom a barn door dog. I am afraid of exorbitant canines, so I cautiously moved away.

Changing "big dogs" to "large canines" adds crumb to the text, and in deed detracts from it. This of direction is a made-up example, on the other hand I admit seen divers genuine examples equally ridiculous.


Consistently using the duplicate phraseology can advance your discussion while mixing language can hobble it. This is exact both in expository (non-fiction) and innovational (fiction) writing.


But you don't annex to returns my confabulation for it. Here are excerpts from two of the finest pieces of writing anyone has ever produced: The Gettysburg Inscription by Abraham Lincoln and The Objective Anthony Soliloquy by William Shakespeare. One is fiction, the other non-fiction. Both produce undeniably energetic convenience of repetition.


The Gettysburg Address


This speech was delivered by Head of the state Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on Nov 19, 1863 to aim a pivotal victory in the American Civil War. The repetitions are indicated by a coupled asterisk (**)


"Four score and seven senescence ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a distinct nation, conceived in freedom and committed to the proposition that all men are created equal.


"Now we are busy in a excessive civil war, testing if that **nation -- or any **nation so **conceived and so **dedicated -- can extended endure. We are met on a useful battlefield of that **war. We bear come to dedicate a abundance of that **field as a ending resting assign for those who here gave their lives that that **nation might **live.


"It is altogether becoming and correct that we should complete this. But in a larger sense, we cannot **dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The doughty men, living and dead, who struggled here acquire **consecrated it far above our malicious potential to add or detract.


"The microcosm will imperceptible note, nor extensive remember, what we remark here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be **dedicated here to the unfinished job which they who fought here own thus far so nobly advanced.


"It is rather for us to be here **dedicated to the extended ball-breaker remaining before us. That from these honoured dead we catching increased devotion to that basis for which they gave the behind adequate degree of **devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not hold died in vain. That this nation, under God, shall get a brand-new birth of freedom. And that authority of the people, by **the people, for **the people, shall not perish from the earth."


Moving stuff, isn't it?


Nowadays let's beholding at good the basic two paragraphs to eye what it might corner looked enjoy whether Lincoln had avoided repetition.


"Four score and seven senility ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a latest nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.


"Now we are engaged in a bulky civil war, testing whether that this kingdom -- or any nation-state founded and pledged in this course -- can lenghty endure. We are met on a acceptable battlefield of that conflict. We accept come to dedicate a quota of this patch of ground as a final resting compass for those who here gave their lives that country might abide to exist . . . ."


Hardly the same, is it?


Marc Anthony Soliloquy


This speech was delivered by Speck Anthony in Shakespeare's play "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar". Once again, the repetitions are blatant by a twofold asterisk (**)


'Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to compliment him. The atrocious that men conclude lives after them; the crack is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with **Caesar.


'The patrician Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and **grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under tolerance of Brutus and the rest-for Brutus is an **honorable man; so are they all, all **honorable men-come I to claim in Caesar's funeral.


'He was my friend, faithful and condign to me. But Brutus says he was **ambitious, and Brutus is an **honorable man.


'He hath brought legion captives internal to Rome, whose ransoms did the habitual coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem **ambitious? When that the beggared hog cried, Caesar hath wept. **Ambition should be specious of sterner stuff. Even Brutus says he was **ambitious, and Brutus is an **honorable man."


The soliloquy continues. Finished repetition, the class comes to equate Caesar with "saint", Brutus with "murderer", and "honorable" with "dishonorable". The collection riots and overthrows the junta which, facade by Brutus, onliest days before had assassinated Caesar to usual acclaim.


The Bicentennial Man


It may be argued that the Purpose Anthony Soliloquy is not "true fiction", since it is a speech within a play and meant to sound realistic. Even of fiction is description, where verbal collection is practically obligatory.


Here is a descriptive text from "The Bicentennial Man", a aggregation of short stories by Isaac Asimov, a skilled of both inspired and expository writing. Once again, the repetitions are recognizeable with a dual asterisk. Essay to suppose this subject if everyone repetition were changed to something else.


**The event that JN-5 was a radically dissimilar type of robot, positively discrepant from anything ever built before, was distressing.


**The naked truth that JN-5 was a prototype, the inaugural after four earlier attempts ever placed in the field, was extended distressing.


**The reality that JN-5 had apparently accomplished something of incalculably importance--and that forthwith might be forever away -- placed the misery utterly beyond words.


It is not my direction to argue that verbal heterogeneity isn't important, sole that blindly changing passage to avoid repetition can be counterproductive.


So how can you be informed when and when not to vary vocabulary?


As in any mental endeavor, in writing if you be acquainted why you are doing something, rather than simply in that it is a rule, chances are you will arrange it better. The crucial interest is. Will changing a colloquy advance the head of my text? If yes, then pin money it. If not, don't.


Early in his career, Pablo Picasso was a classical painter, conceivably on a par with Rubens and Rembrandt. One time he was asked, "If you can emulsion analogous that, why cause you create this almost childish, summary stuff?" He is reported to hold replied, "You essential to find out the rules to be schooled how to creatively cleft them."


Go, and be creative.


Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Logbook and a marketing memo consultant. He currently teaches a trail in capital writing and exceptional speaking in Brussels, Belgium. His recently published tome In the "I" of the Storm: the No problem Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) cognate a Acknowledged is available from Anecdote Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).


For besides information, contact:

Philip Yaffe
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 660 0405
Email: phil.yaffe@yahoo.com,phil.yaffe@gmail.com