 | This is anessay on pitfalls in avoiding repetition. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't overuse synonyms – they distract readers and remove clarity. |
Elegant variation is the attempt to relieve repetition by replacing words withsynonyms. For example:
The English lexicographerH. W. Fowler coined "elegant variation" as anironic criticism of this strategy.
Elegant variation distracts the reader, removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humour or muddled metaphors. It can confuse readers who are unaware, for example, that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. It fails to fix the real cause of repetitive prose, which is usually repeatedinformation, not repeatedwords. In other words, elegant variation treats the symptom and not the cause.
By replacing elegant variation withplain English, prose becomes clearer and simpler.
Elegant variation is often used on Wikipedia in reference to individuals – for example, writing "the director" instead of "Spielberg".
Here's a passage from an old version of the article aboutBubbles, a pet chimpanzee once owned by Michael Jackson. The elegant variation is bolded:
Bubbles (born April 30, 1983) is a common chimpanzee once kept as a pet by the American singer Michael Jackson, who boughtthe primate from a Texas research facility in the early 1980s.The animal frequently traveled withthe singer, whose attachment tothe animal led to media mockery.
This presumably emerges from an attempt to avoid repetition. But the English language already has a solution for repetitive nouns:pronouns (he / him / she / her / they / them / it). When a pronoun isn't clear, just use the original word. In 99% of cases, the result is perfectly natural:
Bubbles (born April 30, 1983) is a common chimpanzee once kept as a pet by the American singer Michael Jackson, who bought him from a Texas research facility in the early 1980s. Bubbles frequently traveled with Jackson, whose attachment to him led to media mockery.
Elegant variation can reduce clarity and introduce confusion. For example, it can create the impression that the identity of the person or thing being referenced is unknown. It makes the reader work harder to keep track of who or what is being discussed, sometimes requiring them to reread text – or forcing them to guess.
Consider this excerpt from the article on the filmTaxi Driver:
According to Scorsese, it was Brian De Palma who introduced him to Schrader. InScorsese on Scorsese,the director talks about how much of the film arose from his feeling that movies are like dreams or drug-induced reveries.
Scorsese, De Palma, and Schrader are all directors – so which director does this refer to?
The following example of elegant variation, from the article about the bandPavement, makes the sentence difficult to comprehend:
Nastanovich also later recalled an awkward incident where it became apparent that Godrich did not know the name ofthe auxiliary percussionist.
Who was the auxiliary percussionist? It was Nastanovich himself – a fact mentioned several thousand words earlier in the article, so good luck if you missed that.
This was once the lead sentence of the article about the albumHave One on Me:
Have One on Me is the third studio album by American singer-songwriter Joanna Newsom, released on February 23, 2010 via Drag City as the official follow-up tothe harpist's highly acclaimed second studio release, 2006'sYs.
... So who's the harpist?
Elegant variation is sometimes used to add information indirectly. TheNew Yorker editorial team calls this "indirection" (seethisNew Yorker article). For example, the following passage from theBeatles article uses indirection to tell us that George Harrison was 15 when he met John Lennon:
Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney met Lennon that July, and joined as a rhythm guitarist shortly after. In February 1958, McCartney invited his friend George Harrison to watch the band.The fifteen-year-old auditioned for Lennon, impressing him with his playing.
This isn't the clearest or most efficient way to provide that information. It requires the reader to work out who "the fifteen-year-old" refers to – made more difficult here as the preceding sentence says McCartney is also fifteen. It's no great riddle, but it's distracting and obfuscates information to no advantage. In the words of theNew Yorker writerDavid Owen: "When I read a story like this I feel as though two people are trying to talk to me at the same time, each repeatedly interrupting the other."
It's simpler and clearer to introduce information in a logical, sequential way:
Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney met Lennon that July, and joined as a rhythm guitarist shortly after. In February 1958, McCartney invited his friend George Harrison, also fifteen, to watch the band. Harrison auditioned for Lennon, impressing him with his playing.
"The former" and "the latter" are rarely the best solution to repetition. They typically obscure prose more than they clarify, and can force the reader to reread the prose.
In most cases, just repeating the name is clean and natural:
For example:
Coldplay's third album,X&Y (2005), was influenced by Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode and Johnny Cash. The song "Til Kingdom Come" was written as a collaboration withthe latter.
Can become:
Coldplay's third album,X&Y (2005), was influenced by Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode and Johnny Cash. The song "Til Kingdom Come" was written as a collaboration withCash.
Where repeating the name feels repetitive, the cause is usually inefficient syntax. For example:
Sarah and Louise went to a supermarket, wherethe former boughtthe latter an ice cream.
Without "the latter" and "the former", the sentence might feel repetitive:
Sarah and Louise went to a supermarket, where Sarah bought Louise an ice cream.
This is an example of how repetition usually emerges from repeatedinformation, not repeatedwords. As it stands, the sentence structure requires us to state the subjects (Sarah and Louise) twice. We already know who the subjects are, so this is repeated information.
The solution is to restructure the sentence:
At a supermarket, Sarah bought Louise an ice cream.
The word "title" is sometimes used as a synonym for media such as movies, magazines, and particularly video games. For example:
This is a kind ofjournalese. It seems to have been absorbed from press releases and video game journalism (reliable sources of bad writing). It's an example of thespecialized style fallacy – in other words, copying the writing style of specialist sources without considering Wikipedia's general readership.
"Title" removes information and creates ambiguity. For example:
Why be imprecise? Be clear and direct and write "game", "film", etc instead of "title". Or remove the word entirely where possible:Sega announcedSonic Colors in 2010
.
Readers can see when a word or phrase is in a title. We don't need to tell them.
Consider this sentence:
Batman Returns is a 1992 Americansuperhero film directed byTim Burton, based on thetitular DC Comics character.
This likely derives from a fear of repeating the word "Batman". But replacing the second mention with words such as "titular", "eponymous" or "title character" only adds redundancy. It goes without saying that the name Batman is in the titleBatman Returns.
"Eponymous" can reduce clarity. Consider various company founders and the stores carrying their names: Benjamin Altman /B. Altman; Maxwell Kohl /Kohl's; Barney Pressman /Barneys; John Nordstrom /Nordstrom; Sam Walton /Sam's Club; Kenneth Wood /Kenwood. The names of these companies can't be predicted from the founders' names, nor vice versa.
When used with wikilinks, terms such as "eponymous" make the wikilink destination less clear (seeWP:EASTEREGG).
Be clear and direct:
Batman Returns is a 1992 Americansuperhero film directed byTim Burton, based on theDC Comics characterBatman.
And there's no excuse at all for "the Cars and their eponymous debut album,The Cars". Just say "the Cars and their debut album,The Cars".
A word sometimes used to avoid repetition. For example:
As with other cases of elegant variation, it's better to just write the word again, or use a pronoun:
The Standing Committee is the highest organ of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) when theCCDI is not convened in a plenary session.
Similarly to "titular" and "eponymous", readers can tell when you're mentioning something you have previously mentioned, and it probably isn't important to point out. Often, "the" or "this/that/these/those" will do. For example:
Huayllabamba may also refer to the capitals ofthose districts.
In articles about different works with the same title, it's common to wikilink using something like[[article title|of the same name]] or[[article title|the eponymous novel]]. For example:
Under the Skin is a 2013science fiction film directed and co-written byJonathan Glazer, based on the2000 novel of the same name byMichel Faber.
There are numerous problems with this:
The solution isn't necessarily obvious. For example:
Under the Skin is a 2013science fiction film directed and co-written byJonathan Glazer, based on thenovel byMichel Faber.
This isn't ideal, because it isn't clear where the wikilinknovel leads: the novelUnder the Skin, orthe article about novels generally?
Writing out the name in full is clear:
Under the Skin is a 2013science fiction film directed and co-written byJonathan Glazer, based on the 2000 novelUnder the Skin byMichel Faber.
It may be clunky, but it beats "of the same name", which tries to mask clunkiness withworse clunkiness.
Alternatively, including "the" in the link text makes "the novel" unambiguous, especially when combined with the year of publication, perMOS:LINKCLARITY:
Under the Skin is a 2013science fiction film directed and co-written byJonathan Glazer, based onthe 2000 novel byMichel Faber.
This comes at the cost of obscuring the name of the novel. That's OK if the context suggests the film and novel share the name, as in the example above.
Alternatively, we could use two sentences to reduce the sense of repetition.
The Martian is a 2015 science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and starring Matt Damon. Drew Goddard adapted the screenplay fromThe Martian, a 2011 novel by Andy Weir.
It is not elegant variation to vary word choice when a word is used in two different senses. As Edward D. Johnson writes, "Avoiding jarring repetitions of a word used in different senses is not elegant variation; these repetitions should be looked for in the course of revision and should be eliminated."[1]
Consider the following sentence:
Mother wore a hat that brought a smile to Father's worn face.
The various forms of the verb "wear" should be varied, because they have different meanings:
Mother wore a hat that brought a smile to Father's tired face.