Talk:Elegant variation

Notes

• "is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude that there is none.":-

Big rogerdee on that. I also get tired of seeing different words in the same text and wondering if they mean anything different or not. E.g. a game is a bout is a match in some sports, but not in tennis. Anthony Appleyard 06:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is valid in scientific, technical, or legal writing, and some other contexts. However, in a literary context, "wondering if [words] mean anything different or not" may be quite desirable. In addition, the sound of the language is at least as important as the meaning in literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.131.164.135 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Errant hypothesis

Who says it's "unnecessary and misleading"? ( unfounded assertion) This is an opinion masquerading as a definition.

Using the same word repeatedly within a short bit of text causes a kind of echo in the reader's mind, which distracts him and interferes with cognition. (The same is true in music; a constantly repeated motif quickly becomes annoying.)

Further, employing synonyms or appropriate near-synonyms can add subtle shades of meaning and facilitate euphony, essential to readability. Any accomplished writer can tell you that.

The current article is simply erroneous. Sca (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

H.W. Fowler deprecated this stylistic error in 1926. The 3rd edition of his book (edited by R.W. Burchfield, 1998) also deprecates it. So does Bryan Garner in Garner's Modern American Usage (2009). Wahrmund (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fowler is dated. As to the others, I can see where this position would be true of scientific or techical writing, but absolutely not for literary prose, for the reasons stated above. Quatsch! Sca (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca, are you claiming that the term "elegant variation" applies to all uses of synonyms within a text, and that such word variation is only sometimes unnecessary? The current definition is saying that the term "elegant variation" applies only to those synonyms which are unnecessary. Your supporting argument is that varied terminology is sometimes desired, which contradicts nothing in this article, because such variation — by definition (as currently presented in the article) — falls outside the scope of the term. 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Negativity

The article seems to me, on the whole, to present the phenomenon in a negative light. I would have thought anybody who calls it "elegant variation" thinks positively of it, unless using the phrase sarcastically or referring to others' use of the phrase.

Looking at the lead paragraph: "Elegant variation is the unnecessary and sometimes misleading use of synonyms to denote a single thing. It often comes from the belief that simple parallel structure is monotonous or harms euphony or compositional tone. Elegant variation can produce problems including loss of clarity, muddled metaphor, and inadvertent humor."

The use of the phrase "unnecessary and sometimes misleading" already sets the tone. While the second sentence may be at face value a justification for elegant variation, the third sentence seems to be criticising this viewpoint rather than simply providing an alternative viewpoint.

As such, I claim that we need to refactor the article to balance better the arguments for and against the style, and generally make it more neutral. I have just had a go at rewriting the opening sentence as a starting point. — Smjg (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You miss the point. The term by definition means inappropriate use. EEng 18:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)