Repetition Literature students learn about differentall kinds of artful repetition as they examine great writing: for instance,

they usually learn that anaphora, chiasmus, and other rhetorical forms involving repetition can be hugely effective in conveying important points. Yet we tend to warn these same students away from redundancy, which is almost always born of repetition, in their own writing. Because redundancy is almost always born of repetition, tThese conflicting instructions form an apparent paradox for writers and editors. Some editors argue that rules exist to help us make the distinction between repetition and redundancy, but. However, others claim that distinguishing effective repetition from clunky redundancy is a natural skill that cannot be taught. I submit that editors must acquaint themselves with the rules of repetition as well as learn to trust their gut instincts. Amy Einsohn, author of Copyeditors Handbook, reduces the issue to a few basic principles. She states that good repetition can reinforce key points and lend stronger continuity to a piece, while. bBad repetition, or redundancy, occurs when the text becomes boring or simplistic. Finally, bad variety is variety that causes confusion (like using severallots of names for the same object or person) or that makes the text sound overwrought and pretentious. As she acknowledges, this breakdown is perhaps a bit oversimplified. However, it at least begins to answer the question of repetitions place in writing. When dealing with repetition, Aan attuned ear, according to Karen Lufstrom, is the only tool to use in this case. She writes that finding the right balance between elegant variation and florid repetition is something that one can only do by ear. To make matters all the more difficult, Lufstrom argues that every writers and editors ear will differ. Thus, though some

Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1"

Commented [CS1]: Who is we? Teachers? Authors? Editors? Commented [CS2]: This way, the reader can see the connection write away, instead of being confused about why redundancy is being mentioned. Commented [CS3]: Very interesting point. Commented [CS4]: If you want to add more lines to your paper, you could talk here about how this paradox is frustrating for you as an editor. Then go on to say that youve researched it and found that some editors argue rules exist, etc., etc. Commented [CS5]: There are a lot of short sentences in a row, so combining these helps with the flow.

Commented [CS6]: This word is mentioned several times in the introduction paragraph, but only once again after that (in the concluding paragraph), so it might be good to refer to it more often in the body of the paper. Commented [CS7]: In-text citation with page number? Commented [CS8]: How would variety make the text sound overwrought and pretentious? Does this kind of variety entail using a lot of big words and jargon? Commented [CS9]: Does this case refer to dealing with repetition (which is what I assumed)? I also moved this to the beginning of the paragraph for cohesion.

Commented [CS10]: In-text citation?

consensus may be possible, a certain amount of disagreement about good and bad types of repetition will be inevitable. Lufstroms point about depending on ear for style and repetition choices seems to conflict with Einsohns basic principles for repetition and variety,. yYet even Einsohns rules require some measure of instinct. Particularly, her descriptions of bad repetition and bad variety involve careful attention to the word cadence and overall effect of a piece of writings word cadence and overall effects. Perhaps certain editors canmay train themselves to recognize repetition, or redundancy, that creates confusing or childish writing, b. But these skills do not come naturally to everyonehence the need for editors in the first place. Thus, I propose that editors canmay make a distinction between clunky redundancy and artful repetition by using both general principles and gut instincts. Einsohn provides a strong foundation for editors to begin analyzing issues of repetition;: using this foundation as a reference point, editors may ask themselves questions about the effects a text hasmay have on them. Such a strategy allows editors to follow their instincts and also prevents them from making arbitrary decisions without any real justification.
Commented [CS14]: How will you apply this in your editing. We need to relate the conclusion more to you and your editing here. Commented [CS15]: Arbitrary includes without justification and vice versa, so delete one of them. Commented [CS16]: Thank you for letting me read your paper! You did very well at joining the two conflicting ideas about using redundancy. Commented [CS12]: It seems that good repetition and bad repetition are the two that particularly require instinct. Bad variety, on the other hand, seems pretty straightforwardstick with one or two names for something. Commented [CS13]: Is this what you mean? Commented [CS11]: This is a very good concession to include here. Thank you. :)

Works Cited Einsohn, Amy. https://list.indiana.edu/sympa/arc/copyediting-l/2013-01/msg01605.html. Lofstrum, Karen. https://list.indiana.edu/sympa/arc/copyediting-l/2013-01/msg01607.html.

Commented [CS17]: Its better to cite this from the direct source (the book) then to cite it from a source that is citing it. You can mention in your paper, though, that someone on the copyediting list brought up Einsohns instructions.