|
Here you need to start considering the goal of the text and different tools work for different kinds of work. With Diataxis[1] in mind: In a non-fiction reference style document, neither repetition nor wordy descriptions have a place. Repetition in such a document always risks inconsistency, redundancy and breeds confusion for the reader. That's very much not good. In a guide or educational material, repetition gains a function. If the document is supposed to teach, repetition from different point of view increases retention and anchors the new knowledge better, by placing it in more contexts. In a guide, repetition can act as beneficial redundancy - re-checks of work for example. In a fictional work, it's a style of writing. Some modern authors for example vary the wordiness or terseness to signify the overall sense of alarm and pressure on the character. Like, if nothing is going on, they spend words on just showing how everything is good for the character at the moment - smells of the coffee, the sun with a light breeze, how you either smell the flower shop to the left or the spice shop to the right, how there's a dog running after a bee. It's a lot of words with very little progress, but that's how a peaceful sunday morning in a cafe is. And once the dramatic action starts, they switch to a much terser style. Suddenly, only a few things matter. The weight of a weapon on arms, the recoil in a shoulder, cover, screams, the path to regroup. This ends up being a matter of writing style and reading taste. For example, it was too much for me in some parts of Tolkiens works. [1]https://diataxis.fr/ |