I just found something that bothered me in the May 15 issue of The New Yorker, a magazine that prides itself on its writing and copyediting. I was reading “Happy Together,” an article about a new type of housing in New York, and I came across this:

Common’s Crown Heights members had first dibs on the rooms, and many are relocating, including Chavez, who wants to try out a new neighborhood, and She, who wants to be closer to his girlfriend.

Because I like shorter sentences, I would have broken it in two:  “Common’s Crown Heights members had first dibs on the rooms. Many are relocating, including Chavez, who wants to try out a new neighborhood, and She, who wants to be closer to his girlfriend.”

But that’s not what bothered me. My problem is with first dibs. I think it’s redundant because dibs are always first. (I just Googled “second dibs,” and all I came up with was a resale shop in New Jersey.)

It’s true that our language permits some redundancy for clarity and emphasis – but I don’t think redundancy is needed here. I would have nixed first.