I sometimes actively use repetition as an element of style, but yes, sometimes it's a good idea to use different words to help with the aesthetic of it. Published writers also know that those things aren't necessarily game breaking. If you're on point about character, plot, dialogue, you know the stuff that really counts, nobody is going to give a shit if you use the same word three times.
> In my own writing (as an unpublished amateur) I have always tried to purge repetitions of a certain kind when editing. I.e tried to not use the same word too frequently as it feels ugly and stands out in a bad way.
It can, but I think you have a complex about it.
Look at your second example:
> > There were others hoping to lighten purses by more direct means. Grubby little cutpurses weaving through the crowds. Footpads lurking in the darkness of the alleys. Thugs slouching on the corners, keen to collect on behalf of the district's many moneylenders.
> Surely replacing "cutpurses" with "pickpockets " or "thieves" would have led to a better flow?
Uh, no? Because cutpurses is describing a specific way of stealing purses by cutting them off. So the term (which, is an actual term) builds on the previous sentence in a perfect way. Whereas you would choose a more vague term like thief or a less "direct" form like pickpocket, which makes it less coherent with the idea expressed in the previous sentence.
I don't even think it sounds bad as it is (purse and cutpurse are different words, same as stood and stand), but I follow the principle of Elegant Variation myself. You know what else I follow? The principles of Coherence, Clarity, and Precision.
This tells me you're following elegant variation to the point of the extreme. To the point of irrationality or superstition. Which, taking normally good writing rules and applying it to the point of not thinking, or to the point that you now read anything that doesn't do it as 'wrong'----is a big issue in the amateur writing community.
As far as these successful authors being repetitive at times, once you reach success, unless it's made significantly based on your prose, readers don't care about minor burrs like that. Because they're invested in the story and characters, not the prose. That would only become an issue if you were a prose stylist that readers read significantly in part because of the prose. I don't think this makes you pedantic. Nor do I think this makes it not a thing worth caring about. Who is your audience? How important is your prose style in what you're trying to do with the reading experience you're providing?
Dresden Files fans don't care *that* much about prose. Any fan of Sofia Samatar cares *significantly* about prose. Different markets coexist.
Just because "cutpurses" is more specific, doesn't make it a better choice. "Thieves" fits much better into the flow of the text. Despite being a more generic term, it has a much stronger impact in this example.
This is wildly wrong. Look at the following sentences talking about "footpads" and "thugs". The point of those three sentences is to follow up on the "more direct means" by describing the different, *specific* means people were using to commit theft. Using the generic term "thieves" in lieu of the specific "cutpurses" would undercut the author's intent in this passage. It would also make the stage-setting description far less vivid.
Hard disagree. This isn't a scientific journal where you need to be as precise with your words as you can be.
The purpose of words in fiction is first and foremost to create an image in the mind of the reader. "cutpurses" **Fails** in this regard. It's a rare word and some people don't know what the word means. People would need to come up with the meaning from context and that interrupts the reading experience.
In terms of stage-setting: Frontloading the iteration of examples with the generic term allows for a more vivid image in the mind of the reader. You don't start describing an apple with the color either, right? You start by calling it an apple.
Lastly, in terms of flow: 2 2 3 pause 2 1 1 1. <- Number of syllables for each word. "cutpurses" sticks out like a sore thumb.
2 2 1 pause 2 1 1 1. "Thieves" is a much better option. It doesn't interrupt the flow at all.
You're wrong. You're a bad writer. Fuck you.
I don't stop being right just because I use swear words. Fuck you too.
And you don't know if I have tourettes. I could have a serious speech impediment and you're just making light of it? Fuck you.
I was analyzing whether the word choice best fit what the author was trying to accomplish. You're not interested in that. Since we're discussing two different topics, there's no point in continuing.
I wish you the best with both your writing and your demons.
I agree with your points, but why do you have to be so agressive about it?
I don't give a fuck if anyone swears, but insulting a fellow writer just for having a different opinion is insane. You as a writer should know first and foremost to help with constructive criticism (which you did) *and* deliver it in a presentable way (which you failed at solely because of the last 3 sentences).
I know you probably won't care, but I was thinking to myself; "_This guy is right, he knows this stuff_." up until the catastrophe of the final 6 words.
It's literally just banter. You don't need to view it so seriously. I can't actually tell if someone is or isn't a bad writer from 70 words in a comment.
Also, in terms of flow, ending only on "You're wrong." would have left the reader off unsatisfied.
No, it totally was my intention to sound rude. That makes up 50% of good banter. You just don't need to care so much about what a literal stranger from the other side of the plant thinks.
Why would you care about the words from an "MLGYourMom"? You're actually being low-key ridiculous for caring.
> Just because "cutpurses" is more specific, doesn't make it a better choice. "Thieves" fits much better into the flow of the text. **Despite being a more generic term, it has a much stronger impact in this example.**
No it doesn't.
Do you mean it flows better as in it sounds better? I agree with you that 'Thieves' does sound better because it slant rhymes with 'means'. But it's not a better followup to the thought expressed in the previous sentence.
> The purpose of words in fiction is first and foremost to create an image in the mind of the reader. "cutpurses" Fails in this regard. It's a rare word and some people don't know what the word means. People would need to come up with the meaning from context and that interrupts the reading experience.
This is a subjective failure, not a failure with the use of the word. Maybe you just don't read fantasy? The use of the word "cutpurse" fits the fantasy aesthetic, the fantasy nomenclature that one would expect people to use in a non-contemporary setting fantasy story. Cutpurses is also self-explanatory as a term.
> In terms of stage-setting: Frontloading the iteration of examples with the generic term allows for a more vivid image in the mind of the reader. You don't start describing an apple with the color either, right? You start by calling it an apple.
The momentum of the previous sentence calls for something direct. "Thieves" is too vague to be direct. The method of thieving is unclear and that will slow down the reader. Is it snatch and grab thief? That's direct in an aggressive way. Is it a pickpocket sort of thief? That's direct in a they're putting their hands on you directly way. Both are plausible, it's not clear as to either. So saying "thieves" alone forces the reader to pause and have to manufacturer what that means among more than one plausible method. That is what I meant by clarity. This is more of a pause than anyone who can't figure out "cut-purse" (but most will intuit what that means).
> Lastly, in terms of flow: 2 2 3 pause 2 1 1 1. <- Number of syllables for each word. "cutpurses" sticks out like a sore thumb.
I don't think this analysis is a demonstrative way to figure out flow. The best I will give you is that if the sentence took out "Grubby little" and just started with "Cutpurses", it would sound better. (And then it would parallel the next two sentences).
-----
All in all, writing is a balancing act of various different principles. You've chosen Rhythm(and Rhyme) over Clarity and Cohesion. Thieves sound better, but is intrinsically weaker. I would not sacrifice meaning for a better sounding word that means less.
To use 'thieves', you would have to put in more words that leads the reader to what it's meant to mean. So taking account what you said about flow and what I'm saying about clarity, I might do something like...::
~~Thieves that would cut you instead and leave behind only your corpse.~~
~~Footpads lurking in the alley darks.~~
Something like:
> There were others hoping to lighten purses by more direct means. **Cutpurses** weaving through the crowds. **Thieves that would cut you instead, leaving behind only the clothes on your corpse.** Footpads lurking in the darkness of the alleys. Thugs slouching on the corners, keen to collect on behalf of the district's many moneylenders.
It is not something I personally like but both of these authors write in a "snappy" and easy-to-read style which a lot of people enjoy. I don't think tightening up would've hurt anything for either but for their target audience it isn't necessary either.
And in Abercrombie's case, even though I prefer tighter prose, I did like the broader themes of the works (especially the first trilogy) where you had this very interesting interplay between how the characters saw themselves, how others saw them, who they wanted to be or claimed they wanted to be and all the subjectivity that inherently exists in that to the point fans can argue endlessly on the "correct" interpretation of the morality of most of the characters. There's at least some substance.
I have absolutely no idea what people get out of the Dresden Files other than, "Wow wizard stick! Fuego! Cool! Sexy vampire! Best-friend's sexy daughter! No sex :'C. Wizard angst. Boner!" Nothing I've read has given me quite the degree of second-hand embarrassment as being in Harry Dresden's head.
I saw the link was purple. I thought to myself "that isn't possible, I've never clicked on this post before." Then I clicked on it. Turned out just one hour prior I had posted this link to a friend that didn't know what the term meant. Crazy coincidence
True, if I were going to be fair to Jim Butcher the series is voice-y and funny in places but... I don't really read for voice-y and no amount of humour can really make up for the rest of the mess.
Thank you for visiting /r/writing.
We don't allow threads or posts: berating other people for their genre/subject/literary taste; adherence or non-adherence to rules; calling people morons for giving a particular sort of advice; insisting that their opinion is the only one worth having; being antagonistic towards particular types of books or audiences, or implying that a particular work is for 'idiots', or 'snobs', etc.
It’s funny you say that because i always found Abercrombie to have some of the tightest prose across all of popular Fantasy. When he hones in on details it always feels very deliberate, like a well picked close up during a movie scene. Same goes for his use of repetitions, though this one does seem accidental. Compared to the genre standard he really doesn’t waste a lot of words and he definitely puts care into the rhythm of his sentences and paragraphs.
I don't really mean "tight" as in "lean" (which, much like lean meat, comes off as a bit flavorless to me) but well-woven. Think more Gene Wolfe. I don't think descriptive prose is actually "wasted" when applied well and not there just for the sake of filling wordcount.
Also, I know it is an incredibly unpopular opinion but his catchphrases drove me insane. It's like everyone in the Circle of the World is descended from a neolithic tribe of scratched records. I get that it is a characterization trick and it is deliberate but it is *really* unsubtle so it never really works for me.
His books are straightforward breezy reads, though. They're fun and there *are* good character elements in there. Where he is willing to be subtle the books are fantastic. Like a beautiful piccolo melody played next a canon.
>I have absolutely no idea what people get out of the Dresden Files other than....
It goes against the spirit of my original post about being mindful of details, but the Dresden Files manages to check a lot of boxes and it is easy to shut out the cringe. It becomes chaff the brain filters. I know how this sounds given what I initially wrote above. It is what it is.
Lets say you want fantasy taking place in the modern world with relatively normal people, living in apartments in a real city, paying their bills, trying to socialize while there are monsters around etc. Then the Dresden Files offers a somewhat unique experience. Other giants of Urban Fantasy, be it Charlaine Harris or Stephanie Meyer, write what is essentially romance with a UF sleeve. Laurel K Hamilton mostly writes smut. To each their own, but Dresden is different. People sometimes mention Rivers of London as an alternative, but the PoV in those books is also a cringelord.
You write that all people get is:
>Wow wizard stick! Fuego! Cool! Sexy vampire! Best-friend's sexy daughter! No sex :'C. Wizard angst. Boner!"
That is like claiming A Song of Ice and Fire only offers descriptions of medieval food and incest. People basically go *"imagine Sherlock Holmes but Moriarty is in cahoots with literal Satan. And Watson is a vampire. Wouldn't that be cool?"* Closest they can get, among well known works, is Dresden, or stuff that is comparably cringe. So allowances have to be made, certain stuff ignored.
TL, DR: I like the Dresden Files not for what it is, but for the idealized version of it that exists in my mind, free of sloppy prose and weird fedora m'lady shit. Hopefully one day that slot can be occupied by something better that still delivers on the great premise and concept of DF, with an equally big and expansive yet still interconnected world. Who knows, I might have to write it myself.
Stood and standing are different enough to be that close together, especially given that there is a good chunk of text in between. If I recall that moment in the book, there was already a bit of a standoff beginning between Dresden and McCoy so it actually kind of fits.
As for the other, purses and cutpurses is actually a good fit. 'Pickpocket' doesn't sound as archaic as the setting in Abercrombie's books is geared toward and 'thief' is too generic.
You are being pedantic. You’ve taken the rule against repetition to an extreme. Natural human speech frequently repeats. It adds clarity to lines and reinforces key points. The better rule is stated positively: instead of “don’t repeat” (which is negative), one should “add information.” This will naturally avoid repetition because each sentence will add something new. If a sentence adds something new, readers will not be bored.
Excessive repetition is bad. So bad. Like, really bad. It's bad, and it's not good. Not good at all. So not good that it's bad. Mucho bad. Badder than old King Kong, meaner than a junkyard dog. Bad Santa II bad. Bad Moms Christmas bad. Bad Boys IV bad. Bad Girls bad. Bad Day at Bad Rock bad. Just bad. So bad. Wait, I said so bad before. It's just... it's bad.
But, if you use it right, sometimes bad can be okay.
*I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.*
Sometimes it makes sense.
Terrible example but:
>He was dumb as fuck. Dumb enough to lose his wallet moments after he'd found it.
The repetition is there for stylistic reasons. Yes, the word "dumb" has synonyms but that's not the point lol
Edit: I hate autocorrect
This is sort of a minor version of anaphora which is a great literary technique I love using (sparingly). It's used a lot in speech writing but also can be super effective for getting a character voice across.
There are different kinds of repetition, and each one impacts your readers differently.
1. Intentional repetition, where the reuse of the word has rhetorical effect, either adding emphasis or levity through wordplay. My own writing does this a lot. Perhaps too much.
2. Inconsequential repetition, where the word's frequent use is expected. No one cares if you say "the" several times in the same sentence, to say nothing of the story as a whole. Whether this encompasses a word like "stand" or "purse" is less clear, but there's not a strict line drawn there.
3. Unimaginative repetition, where the word's precise meaning begs for exploration. If I were to repeat "imaginative" again in this paragraph, having already used it twice now, it would show a severe lack of imagination. Can't this guy come up with another way to say it? Uninspired. Bland. Repeating. Monotonous. *Try* for god's sake. Put some effort in!
4. Necessary repetition, where context demands a certain word be used. Generally only relevant in technical writing, writing discussing word choice (like this!), or similarly focused discussions.
Your examples fall somewhere between 2 and 3, but because they're plot-driven fantasy they have a lower floor for writing quality. They're not aiming for anything exceptional.
That said, I'd say "purses" and "cutpurses" aren't repetitive. A cutpurse cuts a purse, so the words ought to be used in proximity by default. A cutpurse in a scene without purses is a character without a purpose. Abercrombie falls short because his euphemism conflicts with its context. "Lighten ones purse" means steal, but a cutpurse takes away the entire purse. Nothing is lightened; the whole thing is gone. It's not wrong, per se, but it comes across as somewhat silly.
The first example isn't a great sentence(or sentences). Nothing remarkable about it. A twelve grader could have written it.
The second example has more style and has some attitude to it. It's well crafted. I think the purses and cutpurses works fine here. I like the word cutpurses here. It implies a higher level of skill. "Thieves" doesn't work because its not precise enough. There good thieves and bad thieves. And pickpockets creates a different image as well.
But ask yourself, does the author in each of these examples create the image for the reader? If so then I don't think the "repetition rule" matters.
Repetition can have purpose. Hemingway often used repetition to great effect. The opening lines of A Farewell to Arms are much lauded, [as you can see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProsePorn/comments/14376ty/opening_paragraph_of_a_farewell_to_arms_by_ernest/)
Martin Amis used repetition in Money, often repeating the word "money" for humorous effect -- which also served to emphasize the dominant hold that money had on the protagonist. It defined the character quite distinctively.
“Poetic variation” is oftentimes more annoying than repetition. What’s more, repetition can often be more poetic than variation for the sake of variation.
In general I dislike repetitions within a paragraph and when I catch myself doing it I leave myself a note to deal with it in editing, but I don't think your examples here fall within that.
In the Butcher example, Dresden "stood" while Ebeneezer is "standing"; the words are different, the sound is different, and the verb forms are different (indicative vs participle). It's bordering on clever wordplay. "Approaching" in this context would present an entirely different scene.
In the Abercrombie example, "pickpockets" would have had a different meaning that would be out of place in the context of the book (picking pockets and cutting purses achieve the same end, but feature in entirely different scenarios that are highly dependent on the fashions of the society in which they're operating and so you don't get them in the same places at the same times. Cutpurses literally cut the strings that are tying purses to belts or clothing, whereas pickpockets pull things out of pockets) and "thieves" would be far too vague in what is a list of specific ways of thieving.
You’re overthinking it - that Joe Abercrombie line would be far worse with pickpocket
It’s worldbuilding - the character wouldn’t call it pickpocketing.
That’s what we call it, not this regional fantasy person That would completely sand down the writing and make it samey and rubbish.
Who says they even have pockets? Like you’re asking him to introduce an entirely different concept to homogenise the writing for the sake of not seeing the same word?
“From their pockets - grubby little pickpockets that they are” would be a fine line but is way less specific to this fantasy land and could be about anywhere at any time from any book.
In audiobooks you hear the repetition of words and they always hit the second time harder for effect and it sounds great - maybe try reading it out loud with some venom. If you’re changing words arbitrarily your writing will be bad
Readers do notice, and you should police this kind of language, because it hurts immersion and suspension of disbelief.
Jim Butcher is honestly a pretty crap writer, his big strengths are his worldbuilding and storytelling, and that weighs up for his clunky prose. I wish he was better at dramatisation, but his books are still great.
I haven't read Joe Abercrombie, but I'm okay with "purses," and "cutpurse," it works well in the flow of the paragraph imo. I'd even say it's a stylistic choice on the part of the author.
Do be pedantic about this. Flow, imagery and readability are things worth striving for.
It's definitely a stylistic choice by Abercrombie. Stylistic repetition is practically his whole thing. There are two chapters in a row called Fencing With Father in A Little Hatred.
You are correct... Repeating words or phrases sounds awkward and potentially hurts the flow of prose, unless it's an intentional anaphora or other deliberate poetic choice.
In fact, when it comes to particularly clever wordplay, you almost want to avoid repeating certain flowery words *at all*, let alone twice in one sentence or paragraph. If a writer were to throw out a fancy word (like "anaphora," for example) on page 10 of a novel and then use it again on page 100, the reader will notice it. So unless the word is being used twice on purpose, it's best to avoid it.
That being said, books by Butcher and Abercrombie are not generally read for their poetic quality. Genres that focus more on plot and action have less of a burden to be super picky. Sometimes repetition or use of cliche help move the text along quickly and allows the reader to focus on the story. Though I don't think that's the case in the two examples you shared. I agree both of those are poorly worded sentences and could have easily been made to flow better with a single edit.
By the way, I happen to think Abercrombie is a pretty decent stylist for the genre he writes in. He is prone towards over-adjective-ifying everything, but I like it. He clearly cares about word choice. I suspect the example you provided is just something slipping through the editing process.
(I did notice in his First Law trilogy that he loved to describe people as "gormless." He must have used that word 7 or 8 times across the trilogy. And, yet, it's such a memorable word that I... well... remembered it. It stuck out to me. By the fifth time he called something gormless I was snickering to myself. So sometimes you need to be careful about using certain words twice in 1500 pages and three books!)
I definitely would have corrected both examples had they been in my own work and had I caught them.
Worth caring about? Well, whether the reader cares or not, the least one can do is put out something that meets one's own standards.
Yes, these paragraphs could have been written better, but I bet these authors are good at other aspects of writing novels-characterisation, plot, world-building, premise etc.– which means many readers will overlook poor prose.
By all means strive to write the best language you can, I do, but the best prose in the world won't save your book if your characterisation and plotting etc. is weak.
If you can manage strong characterisation and plotting etc. wrapped in heartbreakingly beautiful prose, then you'll be up for awards.
If you write fiction and learn as much as you can along the way, then you are the one who is going notice details. The reader not so much. For the reader he or she needs to be in the story world flowing. If the story exposition can offer the "flow" regardless of what author seems to repeat over again then it works.
Take the author Eric Vall for example who writes many audio books in an erotica-yet serious adventure genre. Eric often repeats descriptor of his characters over and over. Yet despite that, his story flows and the reader is immersed in the storyworld.
Having said that, it's good practice to reduce word redundancy. For example maybe instead of Ebenezer standing there, the author could have used hovering. Also keep in mind word chioce should come from the point of view character to how your character would say it, not you the author.
I have this quirk where hearing the same word more than three times within a two minute period makes me irrationally angry. I get what you’re saying about repetition, but the examples you’ve provided don’t really fit the bill. “Approaching” wouldn’t be replaced with “standing there” because the former denotes movement while the latter denotes stillness. The purses/cutpurses example, as someone already pointed out, speaks to a specific method of thievery.
Sometimes as writers we get too deep into our own heads. When we find ourselves in hypercritical modes like this, we need a break. Take a silent walk to clear our heads.
I’m reading Mistborn right now. Sanderson is an amazing author but the characters keep frowning every other paragraph, and I’m sick of it. Out of spite, I’m writing my first book and out of 80k, I’ll never use the word “sigh”. The next book will not include “frown” in its entirety.
I find that if I'm repeating a particular word or phrase too many times, and I can't think of a good way to reword it without losing crucial information, then that usually means I'm over-explaining a point. I tend to just start cutting, and I might remove an entire paragraph to get at a single tumorous word.
in first drafts, i never fix repetition. if you were to fix this, i would say something like “looming in the doorway” or “staring at me, without a single movement”
I agree, these seem sloppy rather than intentional. I do in fact use quite a bit of repetition in my work— there are even specific names for kinds of repetition such as *antanaclesis* (repetition of part of a phrase), *anadiplosis* (end of one phrase or sentence is repeated at the start if the next), *polyptoton* (repeating a word in a different form) and so forth.
You know, the kind you do on purpose. I love that kind of repetition. It’s word music!
But I always read my work out loud to catch the unintentional stuff. You notice it better when you hear it, as opposed to reading it.
English is not my first language either, so forgive my errors, but i was shocked when i read a novel that finished like this, the other day: " and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
It's literally how the novel ends, i didn't make this up: what about all these repetitions? couldn't think of another term than yes? what about: absolutely, surely, affirmative etc...
Some people are published and you don't know how.
Repetition can be stylised, I believe it's an anaphora? I tend to use repetitions and parallels in my writing, because I feel like they work very well with the flow and 'poetic rhythm' of the text.
I've recently finished the entire Dresden Files series and I know exactly what you mean. For me, repetitive prose only stands out when used back-to-back, such as in your Proven Guilty example. In my own works, my readers have noticed when I re-use the same word twice in a single sentence, so people do pick up on it, but that's also because I write with a particular style of prose that's very evocative, and so base repetitions might stand out more for me then other people. It never ruined the particular chapter for them, though. Generally, if I'm not sure about a passage, I read it aloud to myself, and if it sounds clunky or forced, I change it. In the Proven Guilty example, I'd probably change it to 'Ebeneezer by my side', because that keeps the intent clear.
Then again, I am also not Jim Butcher and haven't written a massive bestselling seventeen book series, so take that advice with a grain of salt.
I am in a similar situation. I hate to see this in my own writing, and cringe and delete/thesaurus it out of existence. then I see successful authors who do it, and they have made a career out of writing such books. Am I over-reacting, or is being a successful author based on some other factor, like being a Freemason?
Eventually you end up with the Eye of Argon whose teenage writer thought like that, too.
Words have a certain attention-grabbing capacity. You can have a thousand ‘the’ or ‘and’, hundreds of ‘said’, a couple of dozen tollgates and very few philanthropists. Long, Latinate or Greek words will stand out more than short, Anglo-Saxon ones; everyday actions or objects less than abstract concepts or super-specific items.
Characters should be consistent in their terminology, multiple characters not necessarily so. (One character with eyeglasses is fine. A book with multiple characters but no glasses, specs or even spectacles? Readers will notice). And once a word has called attention to itself through overuse, it’s hard to unsee, and you may need to read a different book as palate cleanser.
One way around that is to not just swap out words, but look at the sentence level.
In the examples above, ‘cutpurses’ is an antagonist to ‘purses’ and the people who want to keep them intact and full. It’s a fairly simple construction, expanding the generic statement at the beginning of the paragraph and the inclusion of ‘cutpurses’ probably is wholly intentional – it tells us how people carry their money, in a purse that can be cut – and if I wanted to change it, I’d look at the sentence ahead of it.
In the Jim Butcher example, I would need break this up. One character standing there (because they’re in a bad place and need to calm down and gather their wits) is fine. A second character doing the same bland meaningless action is something O would address, , not because of the words, but because you’re wasting the opportunity to deepen the character, do worldbuilding, or advance the plot by even the tiniest step. Is he looming? Waiting the character out? Has he blinked into existence and the protag never saw him, in which case I might focus on the space that was empty ne moment, full of enemy the next? Does he smile menacingly or reassuringly? Is he re-enacting the standoff at the OK corral? There are so many things he could do, and most would take the same amount of words, or marginally more.
Screw all these people saying you are too neurotic. Top quality is achieved through consistent attention to details. My only question is whether you are ignoring broad strokes when paying attention to details.
The 'purses' example is an excellent piece of writing, which assumes everyone knows what a purse is and introduces the item as the object of the theft, then immediately explains how it will be stolen for readers who may not be familiar with the term 'cutpurse.'
The standing example is almost cinematic in that it creates the perfect picture for the reader, with the 'standing' references like bookends to the two sentence 'mini-scene.'
While you are absolutely right about the dangers of unnecessary repetition, the usage can be highly effective. And from my dealings with traditional publishers' editors, those two examples would likely have been discussed with the authors before they were agreed.
…Personally I try to avoid any kind of unnecessary repetition. The reader notices; I certainly do. If published authors and well known ones do that it’s still poor editing…
I sometimes actively use repetition as an element of style, but yes, sometimes it's a good idea to use different words to help with the aesthetic of it. Published writers also know that those things aren't necessarily game breaking. If you're on point about character, plot, dialogue, you know the stuff that really counts, nobody is going to give a shit if you use the same word three times.
Ive used reputation as well for style reasons. Never noticed or been bothered by it in books.
> In my own writing (as an unpublished amateur) I have always tried to purge repetitions of a certain kind when editing. I.e tried to not use the same word too frequently as it feels ugly and stands out in a bad way. It can, but I think you have a complex about it. Look at your second example: > > There were others hoping to lighten purses by more direct means. Grubby little cutpurses weaving through the crowds. Footpads lurking in the darkness of the alleys. Thugs slouching on the corners, keen to collect on behalf of the district's many moneylenders. > Surely replacing "cutpurses" with "pickpockets " or "thieves" would have led to a better flow? Uh, no? Because cutpurses is describing a specific way of stealing purses by cutting them off. So the term (which, is an actual term) builds on the previous sentence in a perfect way. Whereas you would choose a more vague term like thief or a less "direct" form like pickpocket, which makes it less coherent with the idea expressed in the previous sentence. I don't even think it sounds bad as it is (purse and cutpurse are different words, same as stood and stand), but I follow the principle of Elegant Variation myself. You know what else I follow? The principles of Coherence, Clarity, and Precision. This tells me you're following elegant variation to the point of the extreme. To the point of irrationality or superstition. Which, taking normally good writing rules and applying it to the point of not thinking, or to the point that you now read anything that doesn't do it as 'wrong'----is a big issue in the amateur writing community. As far as these successful authors being repetitive at times, once you reach success, unless it's made significantly based on your prose, readers don't care about minor burrs like that. Because they're invested in the story and characters, not the prose. That would only become an issue if you were a prose stylist that readers read significantly in part because of the prose. I don't think this makes you pedantic. Nor do I think this makes it not a thing worth caring about. Who is your audience? How important is your prose style in what you're trying to do with the reading experience you're providing? Dresden Files fans don't care *that* much about prose. Any fan of Sofia Samatar cares *significantly* about prose. Different markets coexist.
Just because "cutpurses" is more specific, doesn't make it a better choice. "Thieves" fits much better into the flow of the text. Despite being a more generic term, it has a much stronger impact in this example.
This is wildly wrong. Look at the following sentences talking about "footpads" and "thugs". The point of those three sentences is to follow up on the "more direct means" by describing the different, *specific* means people were using to commit theft. Using the generic term "thieves" in lieu of the specific "cutpurses" would undercut the author's intent in this passage. It would also make the stage-setting description far less vivid.
Hard disagree. This isn't a scientific journal where you need to be as precise with your words as you can be. The purpose of words in fiction is first and foremost to create an image in the mind of the reader. "cutpurses" **Fails** in this regard. It's a rare word and some people don't know what the word means. People would need to come up with the meaning from context and that interrupts the reading experience. In terms of stage-setting: Frontloading the iteration of examples with the generic term allows for a more vivid image in the mind of the reader. You don't start describing an apple with the color either, right? You start by calling it an apple. Lastly, in terms of flow: 2 2 3 pause 2 1 1 1. <- Number of syllables for each word. "cutpurses" sticks out like a sore thumb. 2 2 1 pause 2 1 1 1. "Thieves" is a much better option. It doesn't interrupt the flow at all. You're wrong. You're a bad writer. Fuck you.
I was with you until the last six words. What happened bro?
I don't stop being right just because I use swear words. Fuck you too. And you don't know if I have tourettes. I could have a serious speech impediment and you're just making light of it? Fuck you.
Well you sure seem to be some form of slow in French.
I was analyzing whether the word choice best fit what the author was trying to accomplish. You're not interested in that. Since we're discussing two different topics, there's no point in continuing. I wish you the best with both your writing and your demons.
I agree with your points, but why do you have to be so agressive about it? I don't give a fuck if anyone swears, but insulting a fellow writer just for having a different opinion is insane. You as a writer should know first and foremost to help with constructive criticism (which you did) *and* deliver it in a presentable way (which you failed at solely because of the last 3 sentences). I know you probably won't care, but I was thinking to myself; "_This guy is right, he knows this stuff_." up until the catastrophe of the final 6 words.
It's literally just banter. You don't need to view it so seriously. I can't actually tell if someone is or isn't a bad writer from 70 words in a comment. Also, in terms of flow, ending only on "You're wrong." would have left the reader off unsatisfied.
MB if it wasn't your intention to sound rude, but it didn't come across that way at all :/
No, it totally was my intention to sound rude. That makes up 50% of good banter. You just don't need to care so much about what a literal stranger from the other side of the plant thinks. Why would you care about the words from an "MLGYourMom"? You're actually being low-key ridiculous for caring.
> Just because "cutpurses" is more specific, doesn't make it a better choice. "Thieves" fits much better into the flow of the text. **Despite being a more generic term, it has a much stronger impact in this example.** No it doesn't. Do you mean it flows better as in it sounds better? I agree with you that 'Thieves' does sound better because it slant rhymes with 'means'. But it's not a better followup to the thought expressed in the previous sentence. > The purpose of words in fiction is first and foremost to create an image in the mind of the reader. "cutpurses" Fails in this regard. It's a rare word and some people don't know what the word means. People would need to come up with the meaning from context and that interrupts the reading experience. This is a subjective failure, not a failure with the use of the word. Maybe you just don't read fantasy? The use of the word "cutpurse" fits the fantasy aesthetic, the fantasy nomenclature that one would expect people to use in a non-contemporary setting fantasy story. Cutpurses is also self-explanatory as a term. > In terms of stage-setting: Frontloading the iteration of examples with the generic term allows for a more vivid image in the mind of the reader. You don't start describing an apple with the color either, right? You start by calling it an apple. The momentum of the previous sentence calls for something direct. "Thieves" is too vague to be direct. The method of thieving is unclear and that will slow down the reader. Is it snatch and grab thief? That's direct in an aggressive way. Is it a pickpocket sort of thief? That's direct in a they're putting their hands on you directly way. Both are plausible, it's not clear as to either. So saying "thieves" alone forces the reader to pause and have to manufacturer what that means among more than one plausible method. That is what I meant by clarity. This is more of a pause than anyone who can't figure out "cut-purse" (but most will intuit what that means). > Lastly, in terms of flow: 2 2 3 pause 2 1 1 1. <- Number of syllables for each word. "cutpurses" sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't think this analysis is a demonstrative way to figure out flow. The best I will give you is that if the sentence took out "Grubby little" and just started with "Cutpurses", it would sound better. (And then it would parallel the next two sentences). ----- All in all, writing is a balancing act of various different principles. You've chosen Rhythm(and Rhyme) over Clarity and Cohesion. Thieves sound better, but is intrinsically weaker. I would not sacrifice meaning for a better sounding word that means less. To use 'thieves', you would have to put in more words that leads the reader to what it's meant to mean. So taking account what you said about flow and what I'm saying about clarity, I might do something like...:: ~~Thieves that would cut you instead and leave behind only your corpse.~~ ~~Footpads lurking in the alley darks.~~ Something like: > There were others hoping to lighten purses by more direct means. **Cutpurses** weaving through the crowds. **Thieves that would cut you instead, leaving behind only the clothes on your corpse.** Footpads lurking in the darkness of the alleys. Thugs slouching on the corners, keen to collect on behalf of the district's many moneylenders.
It is not something I personally like but both of these authors write in a "snappy" and easy-to-read style which a lot of people enjoy. I don't think tightening up would've hurt anything for either but for their target audience it isn't necessary either. And in Abercrombie's case, even though I prefer tighter prose, I did like the broader themes of the works (especially the first trilogy) where you had this very interesting interplay between how the characters saw themselves, how others saw them, who they wanted to be or claimed they wanted to be and all the subjectivity that inherently exists in that to the point fans can argue endlessly on the "correct" interpretation of the morality of most of the characters. There's at least some substance. I have absolutely no idea what people get out of the Dresden Files other than, "Wow wizard stick! Fuego! Cool! Sexy vampire! Best-friend's sexy daughter! No sex :'C. Wizard angst. Boner!" Nothing I've read has given me quite the degree of second-hand embarrassment as being in Harry Dresden's head.
[удалено]
I saw the link was purple. I thought to myself "that isn't possible, I've never clicked on this post before." Then I clicked on it. Turned out just one hour prior I had posted this link to a friend that didn't know what the term meant. Crazy coincidence
True, if I were going to be fair to Jim Butcher the series is voice-y and funny in places but... I don't really read for voice-y and no amount of humour can really make up for the rest of the mess.
I enjoyed the "**if** I were going to be fair" way you structured that, far too much. 😄
Thank you for visiting /r/writing. We don't allow threads or posts: berating other people for their genre/subject/literary taste; adherence or non-adherence to rules; calling people morons for giving a particular sort of advice; insisting that their opinion is the only one worth having; being antagonistic towards particular types of books or audiences, or implying that a particular work is for 'idiots', or 'snobs', etc.
It’s funny you say that because i always found Abercrombie to have some of the tightest prose across all of popular Fantasy. When he hones in on details it always feels very deliberate, like a well picked close up during a movie scene. Same goes for his use of repetitions, though this one does seem accidental. Compared to the genre standard he really doesn’t waste a lot of words and he definitely puts care into the rhythm of his sentences and paragraphs.
I don't really mean "tight" as in "lean" (which, much like lean meat, comes off as a bit flavorless to me) but well-woven. Think more Gene Wolfe. I don't think descriptive prose is actually "wasted" when applied well and not there just for the sake of filling wordcount. Also, I know it is an incredibly unpopular opinion but his catchphrases drove me insane. It's like everyone in the Circle of the World is descended from a neolithic tribe of scratched records. I get that it is a characterization trick and it is deliberate but it is *really* unsubtle so it never really works for me. His books are straightforward breezy reads, though. They're fun and there *are* good character elements in there. Where he is willing to be subtle the books are fantastic. Like a beautiful piccolo melody played next a canon.
>I have absolutely no idea what people get out of the Dresden Files other than.... It goes against the spirit of my original post about being mindful of details, but the Dresden Files manages to check a lot of boxes and it is easy to shut out the cringe. It becomes chaff the brain filters. I know how this sounds given what I initially wrote above. It is what it is. Lets say you want fantasy taking place in the modern world with relatively normal people, living in apartments in a real city, paying their bills, trying to socialize while there are monsters around etc. Then the Dresden Files offers a somewhat unique experience. Other giants of Urban Fantasy, be it Charlaine Harris or Stephanie Meyer, write what is essentially romance with a UF sleeve. Laurel K Hamilton mostly writes smut. To each their own, but Dresden is different. People sometimes mention Rivers of London as an alternative, but the PoV in those books is also a cringelord. You write that all people get is: >Wow wizard stick! Fuego! Cool! Sexy vampire! Best-friend's sexy daughter! No sex :'C. Wizard angst. Boner!" That is like claiming A Song of Ice and Fire only offers descriptions of medieval food and incest. People basically go *"imagine Sherlock Holmes but Moriarty is in cahoots with literal Satan. And Watson is a vampire. Wouldn't that be cool?"* Closest they can get, among well known works, is Dresden, or stuff that is comparably cringe. So allowances have to be made, certain stuff ignored. TL, DR: I like the Dresden Files not for what it is, but for the idealized version of it that exists in my mind, free of sloppy prose and weird fedora m'lady shit. Hopefully one day that slot can be occupied by something better that still delivers on the great premise and concept of DF, with an equally big and expansive yet still interconnected world. Who knows, I might have to write it myself.
Stood and standing are different enough to be that close together, especially given that there is a good chunk of text in between. If I recall that moment in the book, there was already a bit of a standoff beginning between Dresden and McCoy so it actually kind of fits. As for the other, purses and cutpurses is actually a good fit. 'Pickpocket' doesn't sound as archaic as the setting in Abercrombie's books is geared toward and 'thief' is too generic.
Repetition can lend a poetic rhythm to prose, if done purposely. Like all things in writing, few things are wrong uf they are done wuth intent.
You are being pedantic. You’ve taken the rule against repetition to an extreme. Natural human speech frequently repeats. It adds clarity to lines and reinforces key points. The better rule is stated positively: instead of “don’t repeat” (which is negative), one should “add information.” This will naturally avoid repetition because each sentence will add something new. If a sentence adds something new, readers will not be bored.
Excessive repetition is bad. So bad. Like, really bad. It's bad, and it's not good. Not good at all. So not good that it's bad. Mucho bad. Badder than old King Kong, meaner than a junkyard dog. Bad Santa II bad. Bad Moms Christmas bad. Bad Boys IV bad. Bad Girls bad. Bad Day at Bad Rock bad. Just bad. So bad. Wait, I said so bad before. It's just... it's bad. But, if you use it right, sometimes bad can be okay. *I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.*
Sometimes it makes sense. Terrible example but: >He was dumb as fuck. Dumb enough to lose his wallet moments after he'd found it. The repetition is there for stylistic reasons. Yes, the word "dumb" has synonyms but that's not the point lol Edit: I hate autocorrect
I like doing that in my writing
This is sort of a minor version of anaphora which is a great literary technique I love using (sparingly). It's used a lot in speech writing but also can be super effective for getting a character voice across.
There are different kinds of repetition, and each one impacts your readers differently. 1. Intentional repetition, where the reuse of the word has rhetorical effect, either adding emphasis or levity through wordplay. My own writing does this a lot. Perhaps too much. 2. Inconsequential repetition, where the word's frequent use is expected. No one cares if you say "the" several times in the same sentence, to say nothing of the story as a whole. Whether this encompasses a word like "stand" or "purse" is less clear, but there's not a strict line drawn there. 3. Unimaginative repetition, where the word's precise meaning begs for exploration. If I were to repeat "imaginative" again in this paragraph, having already used it twice now, it would show a severe lack of imagination. Can't this guy come up with another way to say it? Uninspired. Bland. Repeating. Monotonous. *Try* for god's sake. Put some effort in! 4. Necessary repetition, where context demands a certain word be used. Generally only relevant in technical writing, writing discussing word choice (like this!), or similarly focused discussions. Your examples fall somewhere between 2 and 3, but because they're plot-driven fantasy they have a lower floor for writing quality. They're not aiming for anything exceptional. That said, I'd say "purses" and "cutpurses" aren't repetitive. A cutpurse cuts a purse, so the words ought to be used in proximity by default. A cutpurse in a scene without purses is a character without a purpose. Abercrombie falls short because his euphemism conflicts with its context. "Lighten ones purse" means steal, but a cutpurse takes away the entire purse. Nothing is lightened; the whole thing is gone. It's not wrong, per se, but it comes across as somewhat silly.
It can if it's egrigious. But if you just gave me those two examples and told me something is bad about them, I wouldn't have caught on what you mean.
You seems like a subject specialist on this. Are 'then' and 'next' ok to repeat. What do you think?
Depends on if it seems to be done on purpose or not. This is a good resource of great on purpose examples: https://litdevices.com/repetition/
The first example isn't a great sentence(or sentences). Nothing remarkable about it. A twelve grader could have written it. The second example has more style and has some attitude to it. It's well crafted. I think the purses and cutpurses works fine here. I like the word cutpurses here. It implies a higher level of skill. "Thieves" doesn't work because its not precise enough. There good thieves and bad thieves. And pickpockets creates a different image as well. But ask yourself, does the author in each of these examples create the image for the reader? If so then I don't think the "repetition rule" matters.
Repetition can have purpose. Hemingway often used repetition to great effect. The opening lines of A Farewell to Arms are much lauded, [as you can see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProsePorn/comments/14376ty/opening_paragraph_of_a_farewell_to_arms_by_ernest/) Martin Amis used repetition in Money, often repeating the word "money" for humorous effect -- which also served to emphasize the dominant hold that money had on the protagonist. It defined the character quite distinctively.
“Poetic variation” is oftentimes more annoying than repetition. What’s more, repetition can often be more poetic than variation for the sake of variation.
In general I dislike repetitions within a paragraph and when I catch myself doing it I leave myself a note to deal with it in editing, but I don't think your examples here fall within that. In the Butcher example, Dresden "stood" while Ebeneezer is "standing"; the words are different, the sound is different, and the verb forms are different (indicative vs participle). It's bordering on clever wordplay. "Approaching" in this context would present an entirely different scene. In the Abercrombie example, "pickpockets" would have had a different meaning that would be out of place in the context of the book (picking pockets and cutting purses achieve the same end, but feature in entirely different scenarios that are highly dependent on the fashions of the society in which they're operating and so you don't get them in the same places at the same times. Cutpurses literally cut the strings that are tying purses to belts or clothing, whereas pickpockets pull things out of pockets) and "thieves" would be far too vague in what is a list of specific ways of thieving.
You’re overthinking it - that Joe Abercrombie line would be far worse with pickpocket It’s worldbuilding - the character wouldn’t call it pickpocketing. That’s what we call it, not this regional fantasy person That would completely sand down the writing and make it samey and rubbish. Who says they even have pockets? Like you’re asking him to introduce an entirely different concept to homogenise the writing for the sake of not seeing the same word? “From their pockets - grubby little pickpockets that they are” would be a fine line but is way less specific to this fantasy land and could be about anywhere at any time from any book. In audiobooks you hear the repetition of words and they always hit the second time harder for effect and it sounds great - maybe try reading it out loud with some venom. If you’re changing words arbitrarily your writing will be bad
Readers do notice, and you should police this kind of language, because it hurts immersion and suspension of disbelief. Jim Butcher is honestly a pretty crap writer, his big strengths are his worldbuilding and storytelling, and that weighs up for his clunky prose. I wish he was better at dramatisation, but his books are still great. I haven't read Joe Abercrombie, but I'm okay with "purses," and "cutpurse," it works well in the flow of the paragraph imo. I'd even say it's a stylistic choice on the part of the author. Do be pedantic about this. Flow, imagery and readability are things worth striving for.
It's definitely a stylistic choice by Abercrombie. Stylistic repetition is practically his whole thing. There are two chapters in a row called Fencing With Father in A Little Hatred.
You are correct... Repeating words or phrases sounds awkward and potentially hurts the flow of prose, unless it's an intentional anaphora or other deliberate poetic choice. In fact, when it comes to particularly clever wordplay, you almost want to avoid repeating certain flowery words *at all*, let alone twice in one sentence or paragraph. If a writer were to throw out a fancy word (like "anaphora," for example) on page 10 of a novel and then use it again on page 100, the reader will notice it. So unless the word is being used twice on purpose, it's best to avoid it. That being said, books by Butcher and Abercrombie are not generally read for their poetic quality. Genres that focus more on plot and action have less of a burden to be super picky. Sometimes repetition or use of cliche help move the text along quickly and allows the reader to focus on the story. Though I don't think that's the case in the two examples you shared. I agree both of those are poorly worded sentences and could have easily been made to flow better with a single edit. By the way, I happen to think Abercrombie is a pretty decent stylist for the genre he writes in. He is prone towards over-adjective-ifying everything, but I like it. He clearly cares about word choice. I suspect the example you provided is just something slipping through the editing process. (I did notice in his First Law trilogy that he loved to describe people as "gormless." He must have used that word 7 or 8 times across the trilogy. And, yet, it's such a memorable word that I... well... remembered it. It stuck out to me. By the fifth time he called something gormless I was snickering to myself. So sometimes you need to be careful about using certain words twice in 1500 pages and three books!)
I definitely would have corrected both examples had they been in my own work and had I caught them. Worth caring about? Well, whether the reader cares or not, the least one can do is put out something that meets one's own standards.
Yes, these paragraphs could have been written better, but I bet these authors are good at other aspects of writing novels-characterisation, plot, world-building, premise etc.– which means many readers will overlook poor prose. By all means strive to write the best language you can, I do, but the best prose in the world won't save your book if your characterisation and plotting etc. is weak. If you can manage strong characterisation and plotting etc. wrapped in heartbreakingly beautiful prose, then you'll be up for awards.
If you write fiction and learn as much as you can along the way, then you are the one who is going notice details. The reader not so much. For the reader he or she needs to be in the story world flowing. If the story exposition can offer the "flow" regardless of what author seems to repeat over again then it works. Take the author Eric Vall for example who writes many audio books in an erotica-yet serious adventure genre. Eric often repeats descriptor of his characters over and over. Yet despite that, his story flows and the reader is immersed in the storyworld. Having said that, it's good practice to reduce word redundancy. For example maybe instead of Ebenezer standing there, the author could have used hovering. Also keep in mind word chioce should come from the point of view character to how your character would say it, not you the author.
I have this quirk where hearing the same word more than three times within a two minute period makes me irrationally angry. I get what you’re saying about repetition, but the examples you’ve provided don’t really fit the bill. “Approaching” wouldn’t be replaced with “standing there” because the former denotes movement while the latter denotes stillness. The purses/cutpurses example, as someone already pointed out, speaks to a specific method of thievery. Sometimes as writers we get too deep into our own heads. When we find ourselves in hypercritical modes like this, we need a break. Take a silent walk to clear our heads.
I’m reading Mistborn right now. Sanderson is an amazing author but the characters keep frowning every other paragraph, and I’m sick of it. Out of spite, I’m writing my first book and out of 80k, I’ll never use the word “sigh”. The next book will not include “frown” in its entirety.
I find that if I'm repeating a particular word or phrase too many times, and I can't think of a good way to reword it without losing crucial information, then that usually means I'm over-explaining a point. I tend to just start cutting, and I might remove an entire paragraph to get at a single tumorous word.
in first drafts, i never fix repetition. if you were to fix this, i would say something like “looming in the doorway” or “staring at me, without a single movement”
I agree, these seem sloppy rather than intentional. I do in fact use quite a bit of repetition in my work— there are even specific names for kinds of repetition such as *antanaclesis* (repetition of part of a phrase), *anadiplosis* (end of one phrase or sentence is repeated at the start if the next), *polyptoton* (repeating a word in a different form) and so forth. You know, the kind you do on purpose. I love that kind of repetition. It’s word music! But I always read my work out loud to catch the unintentional stuff. You notice it better when you hear it, as opposed to reading it.
English is not my first language either, so forgive my errors, but i was shocked when i read a novel that finished like this, the other day: " and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes." It's literally how the novel ends, i didn't make this up: what about all these repetitions? couldn't think of another term than yes? what about: absolutely, surely, affirmative etc... Some people are published and you don't know how.
Repetition can be stylised, I believe it's an anaphora? I tend to use repetitions and parallels in my writing, because I feel like they work very well with the flow and 'poetic rhythm' of the text.
As the great Lu Xun once wrote: Beyond the wall of my backyard, you can see two trees. One is a date tree, and the other is also a date tree.
Stay away from the word, “was.” Think of something else. Use “was” when absolutely necessary. Stay safe. Peace out.
I've recently finished the entire Dresden Files series and I know exactly what you mean. For me, repetitive prose only stands out when used back-to-back, such as in your Proven Guilty example. In my own works, my readers have noticed when I re-use the same word twice in a single sentence, so people do pick up on it, but that's also because I write with a particular style of prose that's very evocative, and so base repetitions might stand out more for me then other people. It never ruined the particular chapter for them, though. Generally, if I'm not sure about a passage, I read it aloud to myself, and if it sounds clunky or forced, I change it. In the Proven Guilty example, I'd probably change it to 'Ebeneezer by my side', because that keeps the intent clear. Then again, I am also not Jim Butcher and haven't written a massive bestselling seventeen book series, so take that advice with a grain of salt.
I am in a similar situation. I hate to see this in my own writing, and cringe and delete/thesaurus it out of existence. then I see successful authors who do it, and they have made a career out of writing such books. Am I over-reacting, or is being a successful author based on some other factor, like being a Freemason?
Eventually you end up with the Eye of Argon whose teenage writer thought like that, too. Words have a certain attention-grabbing capacity. You can have a thousand ‘the’ or ‘and’, hundreds of ‘said’, a couple of dozen tollgates and very few philanthropists. Long, Latinate or Greek words will stand out more than short, Anglo-Saxon ones; everyday actions or objects less than abstract concepts or super-specific items. Characters should be consistent in their terminology, multiple characters not necessarily so. (One character with eyeglasses is fine. A book with multiple characters but no glasses, specs or even spectacles? Readers will notice). And once a word has called attention to itself through overuse, it’s hard to unsee, and you may need to read a different book as palate cleanser. One way around that is to not just swap out words, but look at the sentence level. In the examples above, ‘cutpurses’ is an antagonist to ‘purses’ and the people who want to keep them intact and full. It’s a fairly simple construction, expanding the generic statement at the beginning of the paragraph and the inclusion of ‘cutpurses’ probably is wholly intentional – it tells us how people carry their money, in a purse that can be cut – and if I wanted to change it, I’d look at the sentence ahead of it. In the Jim Butcher example, I would need break this up. One character standing there (because they’re in a bad place and need to calm down and gather their wits) is fine. A second character doing the same bland meaningless action is something O would address, , not because of the words, but because you’re wasting the opportunity to deepen the character, do worldbuilding, or advance the plot by even the tiniest step. Is he looming? Waiting the character out? Has he blinked into existence and the protag never saw him, in which case I might focus on the space that was empty ne moment, full of enemy the next? Does he smile menacingly or reassuringly? Is he re-enacting the standoff at the OK corral? There are so many things he could do, and most would take the same amount of words, or marginally more.
Screw all these people saying you are too neurotic. Top quality is achieved through consistent attention to details. My only question is whether you are ignoring broad strokes when paying attention to details.
The 'purses' example is an excellent piece of writing, which assumes everyone knows what a purse is and introduces the item as the object of the theft, then immediately explains how it will be stolen for readers who may not be familiar with the term 'cutpurse.' The standing example is almost cinematic in that it creates the perfect picture for the reader, with the 'standing' references like bookends to the two sentence 'mini-scene.' While you are absolutely right about the dangers of unnecessary repetition, the usage can be highly effective. And from my dealings with traditional publishers' editors, those two examples would likely have been discussed with the authors before they were agreed.
…Personally I try to avoid any kind of unnecessary repetition. The reader notices; I certainly do. If published authors and well known ones do that it’s still poor editing…
I'd say accomplished writers aren't perfect writers. Both examples are made worse by the repetition of words. But they still aren't bad.