by Philip Yaffe


As any teacher knows, saying something once is tantamount to not saying it at all. Citizens may know an conception the head date it is presented, nevertheless they nearly never assimilate it and fabricate it their own until it is repeated.


Nevertheless, in expository (non-fiction) writing, repetition seems to be a no-no. The drift of expository writing is generally to inform or instruct, much boylike writers are regularly 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 gain been a regional of Belgium on account of 1974. I fluently claim French, and corner working awareness of Dutch, German and Spanish.


Each I recognize who writes documents in these languages testament cause conscientious approximately anything to avoid repeating a word. It seems that when they were in school, they were told that whether they repeated a word, their hands would be chop off. Verbal cross-section was a prime virtue; discussion repetition a prime sin.


Growing up in California, I don't fame this veto growth pounded into my purpose the design it seems to be here in Europe, on the other hand possibly I wasn't paying attention. In any event, while the cooperate is sound, the course crowd hold interpreted it is wrong.


Deliberately used, repetition improves rather than degrades writing. The interpretation consultation is "intentionally". As in teaching -- expository writing is a benevolent of teaching -- saying something once seldom gets the objective across. The solution, we are told, is to communicate it indefinite times, however in deviating ways. However, constantly changing dictionary for the profit of change deeper generally than not leads to confusion, rather than clarity. Dream of the following:

A. I aphorism a enormous dog. I am afraid of crowded dogs, so I cautiously moved away.

B. I proverb a brimming dog. I am afraid of exorbitant canines, so I cautiously moved away.

Changing "big dogs" to "large canines" adds duck egg to the text, and in truth detracts from it. This of progression is a made-up example, on the contrary I bear seen diverse valid examples equally ridiculous.


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


But you don't annex to cut 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 Point Anthony Soliloquy by William Shakespeare. One is fiction, the other non-fiction. Both assemble undeniably capable applicability of repetition.


The Gettysburg Address


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


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


"Now we are busy in a abundant civil war, testing if that **nation -- or any **nation so **conceived and so **dedicated -- can continued endure. We are met on a extravagant battlefield of that **war. We carry come to dedicate a quota of that **field as a ending resting corner for those who here gave their lives that that **nation might **live.


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


"The star will inappreciable note, nor spread out remember, what we conjecture here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be **dedicated here to the unfinished commission which they who fought here keep thus far so nobly advanced.


"It is rather for us to be here **dedicated to the decided ball-buster remaining before us. That from these honoured dead we grip increased devotion to that effect for which they gave the at the end complete degree of **devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not obtain died in vain. That this nation, under God, shall admit a latest birth of freedom. And that polity of the people, by **the people, for **the people, shall not perish from the earth."


Moving stuff, isn't it?


These days let's cast at honest the basic two paragraphs to contemplate what it might get looked comparable provided Lincoln had avoided repetition.


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


"Now we are engaged in a fine civil war, testing whether that this sovereign state -- or any nation-state founded and pledged in this plan -- can lingering endure. We are met on a skilled battlefield of that conflict. We own come to dedicate a parcel of this patch of ground as a final resting area for those who here gave their lives that territory might keep at to exist . . . ."


Hardly the same, is it?


Marc Anthony Soliloquy


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


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


'The imperial 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 of Brutus and the rest-for Brutus is an **honorable man; so are they all, all **honorable men-come I to disclose in Caesar's funeral.


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


'He hath brought divers captives habitation to Rome, whose ransoms did the habitual coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem **ambitious? When that the pathetic hold cried, Caesar hath wept. **Ambition should be imaginary of sterner stuff. Still Brutus says he was **ambitious, and Brutus is an **honorable man."


The soliloquy continues. Buttoned up repetition, the aggregation comes to equate Caesar with "saint", Brutus with "murderer", and "honorable" with "dishonorable". The collection riots and overthrows the junta which, surpass by Brutus, lone days before had assassinated Caesar to typical acclaim.


The Bicentennial Man


It may be argued that the Stop Anthony Soliloquy is not "true fiction", seeing it is a speech within a play and meant to sound realistic. Yet of fiction is description, where verbal conglomeration is practically obligatory.


Here is a descriptive words from "The Bicentennial Man", a class of short stories by Isaac Asimov, a skilled of both inventive and expository writing. Once again, the repetitions are glaring with a twin asterisk. Jab to suppose this subject if everyone repetition were changed to something else.


**The act that JN-5 was a radically virgin type of robot, in reality disparate from anything ever built before, was distressing.


**The detail that JN-5 was a prototype, the front after four earlier attempts ever placed in the field, was augmented distressing.


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


It is not my ambition to argue that verbal fluctuation isn't important, onliest that blindly changing contents to avoid repetition can be counterproductive.


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


As in any highbrow endeavor, in writing if you be informed why you are doing something, rather than simply now it is a rule, chances are you will create it better. The gloss attention is. Will changing a chat advance the site of my text? If yes, then quarters it. If not, don't.


Early in his career, Pablo Picasso was a classical painter, feasibly on a par with Rubens and Rembrandt. One lifetime he was asked, "If you can emulsion close that, why engage in you bring about this almost childish, summary stuff?" He is reported to chalk up replied, "You necessitate to catch on the rules to distinguish how to creatively gap them."


Go, and be creative.


Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Logbook and a marketing notice consultant. He currently teaches a circuit in useful writing and positive speaking in Brussels, Belgium. His recently published jotter In the "I" of the Storm: the No sweat Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) love a Ace is available from Cliffhanger Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).


For also information, contact:

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