Repetition of Words
One thing we often flag for each other in the issue editing room - and change when editing issues - is repetition of the same word over and over.
edit:
One thing we often flag for each other in the editing room - and change when working on issues - is repetition of words.
In other words, we note that in writing it often looks less interesting when the same phrase or word is used more than once, especially within the space of a single option.
For example an issue I edited had this:
@choice: "After several cheaply repaired pieces of furniture have broken down causing several injuries, dozens of burned, scarred, and mortally wounded people demand change to the furniture restoration industry."
One of the first things I noted was that it was too gamist, emphasising 'the furniture restoration industry'. I think calling out a named industry is fine, but if we don't use synonyms, we run the risk of breaking a sense of reality and immersion, as it immediately frames a scenario in terms of game stats rather than story.
However, the second thing I noted was that in two lines, the word 'furniture' comes up twice. I read it out loud three times, and this jarred.
Recently, there have been many reported incidents of cheaply repaired pieces of furniture falling apart and causing serious injuries, including bruises, cuts and even one case of fatal friction burn. Bandage-covered victims are demanding action!
Repetition gone.
To be clear, I'm not saying I feel repetition is always undesirable. I think that actually, used right, it can be a powerful point of emphasis and persuasion, especially when repetition comes in threes. For example:
"Mathematics is the purest of all fields of study. Mathematics is the secret language of the universe. Mathematics is what you need to succeed."
Politicians do this a lot, because they know the power of the triple repetition and the three item list. Listen to any competent politician making a speech, and you'll see these triple drops all over the damn place.
What I don't like, however, is repetition that occurs when a speaker can't think of a better word. This gives the appearance of lower intellect: fine if depicting a character that is being depicted as of lower intellect, fine if lower intellect is what you want to transmit, but not so fine if we're trying to set up a scenario in a coherent way.
(Hey look, I did an overlapping triple repetition!)
Again, this is my opinion, please do chime in and disagree.
Redundancy
Issues have to be quite short, as long wordy issues don't hold attention, and frustrate the reader. This is why we're always slicing and dicing, cutting stuff out.
However, issues also have to be interesting, evoking scenarios and images. This is often why we're adding stuff on.
Let's look at a cut I made:
"It is a shame that all the nookular waste that our reactors have been producing' is building up." Says Snidely Industries CEO Cornelius Davidson Snidely while twirling his handlebar mustache. "Why a thinktank study we conducted a while back shows that this waste could be sold to consumers by grinding it up and putting it in their food. And that will provide my company with tons of easy money. Why I think that would give them a wonderful healthy glow" His secretary runs into your office and whispers into his ear. "WHAT! Those starving orphans we subjected to feeding radioactive waste did not glow, and they all died horrible deaths from radiation sickness? Well you learn something new every day. Regardless of that minor problem with the people dying horrible deaths from radiation sickness it is still a good idea because with the money this will make, I can ensure a healthy kickback for you too. Think bout' it for a minute."
became this:
"I feel ashamed to be offering you an even better and easier solution, one that won't cost you a thing and might even make you a little money," simpers Snidely Industries CEO Cornelius Davidson Snidely while twirling his handlebar moustache. "Why, this waste could be sold to some very special international clients who would be very discreet about where they bought it from. I just recently sold them a batch of suitcases and plenty of dynamite: your waste products are the last missing ingredient they need. Dirty money from dirty bombs? No... clean profit margins from a clean sale!"
Some of the edits there are for obvious reasons: punctuation and capitalisation fixes, and so on. However, I also sliced this from six lines to four lines. Initially, I did this slice while retaining the "add it to food" premise, but discussion with the editing team led to a group feeling that this lacked verisimilitude.
So why four lines instead of six? Is it because I don't think people can read six lines? Clearly not, or I wouldn't be writing this damn essay.
Rather, it was a question of redundancy. 'Villainous and quirky CEO' had been quickly established in the original text. The 'makes people glow' joke was repeated, which is like a comedian repeating the punch line because he thought the audience hadn't got the joke. Basically, too many words, not enough ideas.
My belief here is that you have limited space - two to five lines. Every bit of information and every piece of humour should be sold in as few words as possible.
But to contrast... Let's look at an expansion I made:
After your decision to use nuclear energy, the radioactive byproducts has been piling up in temporary storage. Soon the storage space will run out, which would force the reactors to shut down.
became:
Nuclear energy, the source of much of your growing nation's electricity, has been generating radioactive waste as a by-product. As the shadows cast by the mounting piles of warning-emblazoned concrete casks grow ever longer, a concerned populace is looking to you for a more permanent solution.
So to this example, I added lots of words. Why?
First off, I did do some redundancy snipping. Though I'm guilty of it myself, I believe it is lazy writing to start issue set-ups with "recently" and "after". All issue premises relate to something that has happened recently - if we can avoid these redundant phrases, that's a good thing.
So why did I add stuff? Well, for a while, I didn't.
This was how it looked for most of the editing process:
Nuclear energy, the source of much of your growing nation's electricity, has been generating radioactive waste as a by-product. Currently this is being stored in a mounting pile of concrete casks next to the power stations, but this can only be a temporary measure.
I'd added some information, in explaining how temporary storage works with radioactive waste, and retained the original information in less words.
However, while this transmitted information, it wasn't fun to read. Another editor suggested I needed to make it less boring. I didn't want to blow it up to three lines with useless padding, nor did I want to complicate the scenario by adding more narrative. However, my colleague was right: it was a weak opening, and unengaging.
So in expansion, I tried to go back to my GMing days, and think how I would describe the scenario to my roleplaying players. Something to create a mental image, with a little heavy handed symbolism thrown in, but still not going too crazy on prose.
So that's how we ended up where we did, and "the shadows cast by the mounting piles of warning-emblazoned concrete casks grow ever longer" is a phrase that I'm very proud of, and will remain so, whether it receives criticism or not.
Repetition
Again?
Yes, but in this case, I'm talking about the repetition within redundancy. I think a great self-edit technique is to back up over and issue, and see if something has been said already. If so, no need to say it in a different way.
Wait, didn't I just cover this when I was talking about redundancy?
Editors note: Remove this section.
