100,000 words in one head.

[elfs]

Writers often divide words into two categories: scaffolding words, and functional words. Scaffolding words are all the words we use all the time: "The," "is," "said." Functional words are those that actually move the story. You wouldn't use "hurtle," "admonish," "furious," too often and too close to one another because then they become repetitious and the reader gets the impression that your vocabulary is limited.

I thought about the difference between these two kinds of words when I came across the use of the word 'congenitally' twice in Sterlings. Polly (one of Rhiane's peers) uses it first: "Rhiane was congenitally incapable of caring about her appearance herself." And Tempany (Rhiane's commanding officer) uses it later again to describe Rhiane: "She's congenitally incapable of giving less than her best."

These two incidents are separated by about 50,000 words, which makes me wonder if I should bother cutting one out. I figure that's enough time for the reader to have forgotten the first one. But it's still one of those places where a Big Functional Word appears twice in the same book, and it's a standout word, so I think twice about using it.

Comments

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

in both cases, it also seems to be used metaphorically, as opposed to its biological nature... unless through bio-engineering, she's been born with an absurd amout of work ethic and little care for outwards appearances. I'd think of a better synonym for one of them, perhaps...

[sagittaria.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Perhaps "consitutionally"? And yeah, I'd cut one of them out altogether. Sorry.

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

Just how dumb do you expect your readers to be? I wouldn't notice it.

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

What I mean is, it's a common word in my daily lexicon so it's not something I'd even twig on. If you have similar "quality" of words in the story there shouldn't be anything to worry about, but if you're afraid it's standing out by duplicating it after that many words and in a totally different scene, could it be it's just plain going to stand out regardless?

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

I have to say, when reading a novel, if an author falls into a rut of re-using a certain term or phrase, it does bug me a bit. Not sure why, but it breaks me out of the reverie of reading, and gets my brain annoyed at word usage.

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

Anne Rice's use of "preternatural" is the worst one, for me.

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

As a novelist and editor, I have some thoughts on using those types of weighty words more than once in a story:

I think using the same word twice (or even more) is fine, as long as it is the common parlance of the people in your book. If it isn't, it's better if it's used, each time, either by a first-person narrator or in the quotes attributed to only one of the characters. We all have words we like to say over & over; it's part of each person's language.

What you have here is two different characters using it -- and I don't know anything about the world you're writing, but I'm guessing (since you are questioning its repetition) that this is not a word that people in the written-world commonly use. While it's being used to describe the same person, it's being used as an adverb to modify two different descriptions, so it's not like one of these people picked it up and thought the description so apt that they're echoing it. One of the references should probably be dropped.

[And, if you don't mind, I would suggest dropping 'herself' from the end of that first one -- change it to 'her own appearance.' The 'herself' is a bit on the ungrammatical side.]

[lucky-otter.livejournal.com]

I agree: one use should be dropped. If it was the same speaker, it'd be fine, but as it is, it doesn't work.

However, the grammatical correction suggested is unnecessary since it's dialog. People speak (and write) ungramatically.

It's more than a Big Functional Word.

[(Anonymous)]

1. It's an entire stock phrase: "X is/was congenitally incapable of Y" 2. It's in *dialog* spoken by *different* characters. I don't so much mind the author using a stock phrase twice in 50,000 words. But when two different characters use the same stock phrase, I think it can be worse. But your characters are using an expression that's not outrageously rare in our language, so it's not entirely implausible as a coincidence. Worst of all is when two or more characters use the same very unusual expressions with no obvious reason that they would be sharing such expressions. Ayn Rand has sometimes gotten on my nerves by doing this a few times in the course of an entire novel. But you're writing skiffy or even SF, so if you find yourself portraying different characters using the same unusual expression in the same story, you can invent a clever expression that's part of a culture of which they are both members, or by which they are both influenced. Using the same expression isn't laziness anymore; it's world building! :-) But if that doesn't appeal to you, or doesn't seem to work naturally for you, remember, no written work is perfect and yousa gotta prioritize what youse gonna fix or change. :-)

When I previewed my post, it was formatted.

[(Anonymous)]

1. It's an entire stock phrase:
"X is/was congenitally incapable of Y"
2. It's in *dialog* spoken by *different* characters.

I don't so much mind the author using a stock phrase twice
in 50,000 words. But when two different characters use the
same stock phrase, I think it can be worse. But your characters
are using an expression that's not outrageously rare in our language,
so it's not entirely implausible as a coincidence.

Worst of all is when two or more characters use the same
very unusual expressions with no obvious reason that they would
be sharing such expressions. Ayn Rand has sometimes gotten on my
nerves by doing this a few times in the course of an entire novel.

But you're writing skiffy or even SF, so if you find yourself
portraying different characters using the same unusual expression in the
same story, you can invent a clever expression that's part of a culture of
which they are both members, or by which they are both influenced.
Using the same expression isn't laziness anymore; it's world building! :-)

But if that doesn't appeal to you, or doesn't seem to work naturally
for you, remember, no written work is perfect and yousa gotta prioritize
what youse gonna fix or change. :-)

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I don't think my audience is "dumb," but it is an unusual enough word (a word you don't use every day) and having it show up twice in the same book can be disconcerting.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

I'd notice it. Not so much for the single word used twice, but the same phrasing used twice.