Is repeating a word OK?

Simple answer: Yes, if it’s a common word; no, if it’s an uncommon word.

If you’re writing an essay about your dog, you’re going to need to repeat your dog’s name, or the word dog, or both, many times before you’re through. There just aren’t many useful synonyms for dog. Canine companion? Animal that makes woofing noises?

Just stick to dog.

Are you doubting me? Are you afraid that repeating dog, dog, dog will make you sound trite? OK, let’s try an experiment. Get out today’s newspaper, scan the front page, and count how many times you find the word said. Guess what? Every quotation includes said. It’s repeated over and over. Newspapers never use synonyms for said (such as reply, state, remark, note). It’s said, said, said, said.

You never noticed before, did you? It’s true. Our brains skip over ordinary words (said, the, and, house, money, store and many more), never noticing how often they’re repeated.

The prohibition against repeating a word applies only to conspicuous words. You can say that your trip to the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World was wonderful exactly once. After that, you need to find some different words. It was fun, hilarious, pleasurable, fascinating, and so on.

Better yet, be specific about what you did and how you felt. You laughed at the funny tombstones behind the Haunted Mansion. You slurped a milkshake on Main Street. You chatted with Mary Poppins and got her autograph. You applauded when Goofy skipped down the street during the parade.

Yes, it was wonderful! (But only once, right?)

I don’t subscribe to the New York Times (all my spare cash goes for dance lessons). So I’m lucky to have a friend who saves the back issues of the New York Times Magazine and Book Review for me. Of course I’m always months and months behind.

So I didn’t get around to reading the July 30, 2017 issue of the New York Times Magazine until last week. It featured an article I enjoyed reading: “The Majestic Marble Quarries of Northern Italy.” The author is Sam Anderson, and Luca Locatelli took the pictures (which are wonderful).

Not-so-wonderful is the caption under one of those pictures. Read it yourself and see what you think (for copyright reasons, I’m not posting the picture here):

Two workers who specialize in cleaning scale the cliffs of the Bettogli quarry, knocking away outcroppings and clutter that could fall and hit the quarrymen.

Clearly there’s no problem with the grammar. But working out what it’s trying to say is another matter. When I first read the sentence, I thought it was about cleaning scale:

Two workers who specialize in cleaning scale

Wait a minute! How do you clean scale? It doesn’t make sense!

I started over. When I reread the sentence, I realized it was saying something very different:

Two workers…scale the cliffs of the Bettogli quarry….

Here’s a handy writing rule for you: One idea per sentence. The more information you try to cram into a sentence, the greater the chance your readers are going to be confused.

Here’s the sentence again:

Two workers who specialize in cleaning scale the cliffs of the Bettogli quarry, knocking away outcroppings and clutter that could fall and hit the quarrymen.

Look at all the information jammed between the capital T at the beginning and the period at the end:

• there are two workers
• they’re cleaning
• they’re scaling the cliffs
• they’re at the Bettogli quarry
• they’re knocking away outcroppings and clutter
• the outcroppings and clutter could fall and hit the quarrymen

Too much! Remember this rule: One idea per sentence.

Today I have two writing snippets for you to read. The message is the same in both of them, but the approaches are different. I want you to decide which one you think is better – and why.

Here’s Version #1:

Anecdotal evidence suggests that depression is often manifested in clients enmeshed in ongoing relationships with persons engaged in alcohol abuse.

And here’s Version #2:

Once as I flew to a speaking engagement, I happened to be seated next to a director of a mental health center. We began talking about our work, and he mentioned that whenever anyone came to his clinic suffering from depression, he automatically checked for alcoholism in the individual or in the family. Impressed (and somewhat shocked), I asked him to explain. He replied that he had found that when the presenting problem was depression, the real diagnosis was frequently alcoholism or alcohol related.

Which one did you choose? I prefer #2. But when I’ve asked writing groups to do this activity, they often choose #1. “It sounds more professional,” they’ll say. “And it’s more direct.”

Right on both points…until I ask more questions: “Which would you prefer to read? Which is more convincing? And which would stay in your head longer?”

They always sheepishly switch their votes to #2.

*  *  *  *  *  * 

Version #2 is from Anne Wilson Schaef’s amazing book When Society Becomes an Addict. It’s a slim volume written in everyday language, and there are loads of stories. She talks about Lincoln Logs, beachcombing, and making tacos. But don’t be fooled – every time I go back to reread it, I find something new.

I wrote Version #1 myself. (I can be stuffy when I put my mind to it!)

Now I have another question for you. Which is better: to be read and remembered – or to  sound like an impersonal writing machine? (Hint: Anne Wilson Schaef has sold tons of books.)

In my previous post, I suggested a practical remedy for procrastination: Turn that overwhelming task into something you want to do.

Let’s apply that suggestion to writing. (A caveat: I’m talking about a process here. I hope you’ll go through the thinking steps I’m suggesting to come up with your own solution.)

The first step is to ask yourself what don’t you like about writing. For me, it’s sitting down at my computer keyboard. Even with Pandora.com playing nonstop (I’m listening to Simon & Garfunkel right now), it feels like work.

After many unsuccessful battles with procrastination, I finally hit on a solution: I started taking my laptop into the bedroom, stretching out on the bed, and doing some of my writing there. Now I have company (Charlie and the cat are usually next to me, watching a hockey game), and I’m lazily comfortable. My aging laptop isn’t as easy to work with as my fancy Mac – but the change in setting works great for me.

But wait! A member of my writing group had an even better suggestion. Elana Parker is a terrific writer who knows a lot more about technology than I do. At one of our meetings she enthusiastically told us about the voice dictation feature in Evernote. With a few taps you can dictate anything and store it online. Evernote automatically converts it into text that you can copy and paste into a Word document – no typing required.

It works! (Hint: Remember to say “period” at the end of every sentence.) Of course the Word documents require editing (some of the mistakes are hilarious!). But it’s still much easier than sitting at a keyboard and typing, typing, typing. And Evernote does a surprisingly good job. Often it inserts the capital letters with no prompting, for example.

So if you were to drop by my condo, it’s likely you’d find me stretched out on the living room sofa, phone in hand, dictating a letter or an outline for a chapter or an article. Best of all, it’s an easy way to collect quotations for the book about Major Barbara that I’m writing.

But I don’t want you to get bogged down in Evernote and this dictation idea. There’s a larger principle we need to keep in mind: Make it easy. Make it fun.

Helen Gurley Brown (longtime editor of Cosmopolitan magazine) used to wear a pin that said “Fight that willpower!” She had it absolutely right.

What could you do today that’s easy and fun?

Write Strong Sentences!

That’s great advice – but how do you do it?

One practical strategy is to flip that advice into “Avoid weak sentences.”  For me, that translates into looking for sentences that sputter. For example, I recently read this comment by New Yorker critic Richard Brody:

Rudolf Serkin: The Complete Columbia Album Collection is a seventy-five-disc set featuring some of the very best piano recordings that exist.  WEAK

Read Brody’s sentence aloud, and you’ll hear that sputter when you come to “that exist.” You can feel the sentence losing energy. Solution? I would revise the sentence to eliminate “that exist.” (You wouldn’t even be talking about the disc set if it didn’t exist!)

 Rudolf Serkin: The Complete Columbia Album Collection is a seventy-five-disc set featuring some of the very best piano recordings.  STRONGER

Here’s another example. Last week I was typing a column about hummingbirds for Charlie. Take a look at this sentence (or – better yet – read it aloud):

If a garden features plants with appropriate blossoms, hummingbirds will find it.  WEAK

Ending a sentence with it is a surefire way to write a weak sentence – exactly what you don’t want. (There’s a usage problem as well: “it” is an indefinite pronoun reference.)

Here’s how I revised the sentence to make it stronger:

If you fill your garden with appropriate blossoms, hummingbirds will come.  STRONGER

I had one more suggestion for Charlie: “appropriate blossoms” feels too dry and abstract. How about mentioning some of those plants? For example:

If you fill your garden with foxgloves, impatiens, and other nectar-rich plants, hummingbirds will come.  STRONGER

Many writers make the mistake of rushing through the writing process. The key to stronger sentences is…persistence. Read your sentences aloud, listen for sputters, and always be on the lookout for small changes that will add power to your writing.

           Ruby-throated Hummingbird

One of my Christmas presents was a copy of Operation Fortitude: The Story Of The Spies And The Spy Operation That Saved D-Day by Joshua Levine. 
Years ago I visited some of the D-Day beaches, and l’ve long been fascinated by the elaborate deceptions that helped the Allies keep their planned invasion under wraps. I dove into my new book right away, and I’m really enjoying it.

But I can testify that copyediting isn’t what it used to be, at least at Harper Collins. Of course the grammar and usage are impeccable. But no one seems to have checked the book for flow and readability. I’ve had to backtrack a number of times to unravel a story that unnecessarily confused me.

Here’s an example – a puzzling story about a German-born man who grew up in England and worked as a British spy:

Along with his brother, Eschborn been recruited as a German agent thee years before, but he now assured Robertson that he had only agreed to work for the Abwehr for fear of what the Germans would do to another brother in Germany. Terrified by his predicament, Eschborn told his interrogator that he was entirely British in his sympathies. He had lived in Britain nearly all his life, he said, and would do anything that M15 asked. Robertson chose to trust him and, codenaming him Charlie, recruited him as MI5’s third double agent, after Owens and Williams. Robertson found Eschborn’s brother and fellow German agent less trustworthy, however, and he was interned.

It would have been a huge help if the paragraph had explicitly said that there were three brothers, two in Britain and one in Germany.

Here’s the problem: the paragraph talks about “his brother,” “another brother,” and “Eschborn’s brother” – always singular. I kept picturing one brother, and I ended up assuming the brother who spied for Britain was the same as the brother living in Germany.

If you’re thinking that I might have been reading too fast, you’re right. It was Christmas, and I probably wasn’t reading with total concentration. But writers need to remember that reading often happens in less-than-perfect settings. The person reading your story might be tired. Or the TV is on in the background. Or the kids in the next room are arguing.

Good writers help their readers along. That doesn’t mean have to dumb down your story or over-explain your ideas. Just remember to throw a little help your readers’ way. Sometimes a simple word (like three!) can make all the difference.

  Approaching Omaha Beach on D-Day

Can you spot the error in this sentence?

Overcharging for building materials after hurricanes and other natural disasters are illegal.  INCORRECT

The answer is that “are” should be “is”:

Overcharging for building materials after hurricanes and other natural disasters is illegal.  CORRECT

Today I’m going to offer you two explanations about the mistake. First I’ll use traditional grammar terminology. Then I’ll give you a more user-friendly way to fix it.

1.  A traditional grammarian might say that there’s a subject-verb agreement error. You need to remember to skip over the prepositional phrase. In today’s sentence, that’s the idea beginning with the preposition for:

Overcharging for building materials after hurricanes and other natural disasters is illegal.  CORRECT

Skip over that prepositional phrase, and you instantly know that you need is in today’s sentence: Overcharging…is illegal. (You can download and print a free handout about subject-verb agreement by clicking .)

2.  OK – now for the easier way. In English, sentences are usually front-loaded. All the important stuff is at the beginning. So – in today’s sentence, you instantly know that overcharging is the word that really matters. Overcharging…is illegal. Easy!

Overcharging for building materials after hurricanes and other natural disasters is illegal.  CORRECT

Incidentally, looking at the beginning of a sentence can help you avoid many other writing problems. Click here to learn more.

Many people – alas – think that apostrophes are random decorations in words. Nope! Those apostrophes signify an “of” relationship. So:

car of Don = Don’s car

job of Chris = Chris’ job or Chris’s job (you’re allowed to add another “s”).

Did you notice that I said “of” and not “ownership”? That’s why there’s an apostrophe in “New Year’s Eve”: it’s the Eve of the New Year. (New Year’s Day works the same way: Day of the New Year.)

The apostrophe always follows the last letter of the original word or name. That’s why it’s Don‘s car but Chris‘s job (or, as I prefer to write it, “Chris’ job.” (You can practice using apostrophes here.)

Some self-proclaimed but mistaken grammar experts may try to tell you that apostrophes have to be reserved for actual ownership. According to them, you can’t write “the dog’s leash” or “a week’s pay.” I once heard an uninformed expert argue that expressions like “the tree’s bark” and “the building’s age” were new (and suspect) usages.

Nope again. Take a look at the lyrics to “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which dates back to 1814. The first stanza has three “of” usages with apostrophes:

the dawn’s early light (early light of dawn)

twilight’s last gleaming (last gleaming of twilight)

rocket’s red glare (red glare of the rocket)

Best wishes for 2018!