Elegant variation
"Elegant variation" is the term coined by H.W. Fowler to refer to the writing practice of varying the words you use for a single concept. Fowler disliked elegant variation:
e
148 (2d ed., Ernest Gowers, ed., Oxford U. Press 1965).
Bryan Garner calls it "inelegant variation," and he says "variety for variety’s sake can confuse readers." Garner's Modern American Usage
at 448.
I suppose it might be okay in sports writing:
Here's an example I ran across the other day.
Let's look at two contexts for elegant variation in legal writing. But first, some common sense: Avoiding elegant variation does not mean avoiding pronouns. As long as the antecedent (the noun the pronoun refers to) is clear, a pronoun is fine.
Context 1: legal drafting
Everyone agrees that elegant variation in legal drafting is a bad idea. When you use different words for the same thing in a transactional document, you invite the reader to assume you mean different things. This is bad. Despite widespread recognition that elegant variation is bad in legal drafting, it occurs. It should not.
Context 2: other legal writing
Even in other legal writing, precision and clarity matter, and since elegant variation can lead to imprecision and confusion, it is to be avoided. It makes readers stop to figure out what you're referring to. For example, here are the first sentences from three consecutive paragraphs in a brief:
Here are some elegant variations from a single discussion I read about a service-of-process problem:
____________
Wayne Schiess
Director of Legal Writing | The University of Texas School of Law | Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand
| Better Legal Writing
| Writing for the Legal Audience
| The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
The fatal influence is the advice given to young writers never to use the same word twice in a sentence--or within 20 lines or other limit. . . . There are few literary faults so widely prevalent . . .H.W. Fowler, Modern English Usag
e
148 (2d ed., Ernest Gowers, ed., Oxford U. Press 1965).Bryan Garner calls it "inelegant variation," and he says "variety for variety’s sake can confuse readers." Garner's Modern American Usage
at 448.I suppose it might be okay in sports writing:
Temple beat Penn, while Villanova bested St. Joseph's, Duquesne outplayed Drexel, and Pittsburgh walloped LaSalle.But "using synonyms for the sake of variation alone is not recommended in legal writing." Wayne Schiess, Better Legal Writing, at 98.
Here's an example I ran across the other day.
The U.N has been working in the region for more than three years and says it has been making progress in resolving conflicts among factions. Local officials, however, are not as enthusiastic about the work done by the world union.Confused? I was. I finally figured out that "world union" meant the U.N.
Let's look at two contexts for elegant variation in legal writing. But first, some common sense: Avoiding elegant variation does not mean avoiding pronouns. As long as the antecedent (the noun the pronoun refers to) is clear, a pronoun is fine.
Wayne went to class without Wayne's lecture notes, and when Wayne got to class, Wayne realized that Wayne did not have time to run back to Wayne's office to get Wayne's notes.
Wayne went to class without his lecture notes, and when he got there, he realized he did not have time to run back to his office to get them.
Context 1: legal drafting
Everyone agrees that elegant variation in legal drafting is a bad idea. When you use different words for the same thing in a transactional document, you invite the reader to assume you mean different things. This is bad. Despite widespread recognition that elegant variation is bad in legal drafting, it occurs. It should not.
Context 2: other legal writing
Even in other legal writing, precision and clarity matter, and since elegant variation can lead to imprecision and confusion, it is to be avoided. It makes readers stop to figure out what you're referring to. For example, here are the first sentences from three consecutive paragraphs in a brief:
The court rejected the claimant's assertion of bias in the admission process . . .
Judge Coogan also held that the claimant had not made out a prima facie case . . .
Finally, the lower court went on to hold that the claimant could not satisfy the burden . . .When I read the original, it took me a few seconds to realize that "the court," "Judge Coogan," and "the lower court" were the same thing. This is bad. Notice that the author was consistent with "claimant." So why not with the court?
Here are some elegant variations from a single discussion I read about a service-of-process problem:
delivered in-hand / manual deliveryI don't like this. It confuses me.
left in his possession / left in his custody
aware of / cognizant of
intended recipient / person to be served
evade service / avoid service
____________
Wayne Schiess
Director of Legal Writing | The University of Texas School of Law | Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand
| Better Legal Writing
| Writing for the Legal Audience
| The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
I absolutely agree. It's a question of genre/purpose. A contract is like a computer program. It's meant to be dry, boring and supremely consistent. I imagine most transactional lawyers catch on to that eventually.
With briefs and memos, even experienced litigators (frustrated English majors / novelists that many of us are) can go overboard in trying to make their writing "interesting" or "literary." You don't want to put the reader to sleep but, in most cases, he pretty much has to read the whole document through, no matter how boring the prose. Maybe there's some limited value in scoring a few style points along the way, but not at the expense of the litigator's ultimate purpose: conveying an argument with precision.
I saw a great tip the other day in a book called "The Craft of Research" (no connection to me, I simply bought a copy) that might help writers avoid "(in)elegant variation": write an introduction (or, maybe your question presented / short answer), identify and circle the key words/phrases, list them out and refer to them as you write (perhaps before you start writing each new page). I'm embellishing here, but the list might also include key court names, filings and the like. I imagine writers sometimes vary terms out of forgetfulness rather than literary ambition (I'm sure I have), and applying this process could be helpful in either case.
Reply to this
If "beat," "bested," "outplayed," and "walloped" are a progression in point differences, the sports example isn't elegant variation because each term refers to a different concept. Just a quibble.
At http://tinyurl.com/d53pb3, I respond to the main entry and Greg's comment.
Wayne says:
Yes, if the 4 different words were intended to convey a progression in point differences, I suppose it isn't elegant variation. But what do you think? Do you think they were intended to convey a point progression? I do not.
Reply to this
Without knowing the score differences, I still lean toward a progression. Say, the game's decided by one point. To call it a "walloping" would enrage the losing team. "Outplay" is somewhat inappropriate where the difference is too small to eliminate chance and settle who played better. "Bested" rubs in a small loss a bit too much, but no one would probably complain. "Beat" only states who won.
Reply to this
Inelegant variation is a rule of thumb against another rule of thumb: monotony makes for bad prose.
For instance, I just made a note, "I need a case where a party offered an extension, another party accepted, and the original party reneged." You nearly get lost in there, and it's a short, simple sentence!
Maybe the rule of thumb should be: eliminate repetition through tightening, and not through synonymity. (Cool word, eh?) The sentence becomes, "I need a case where a party extended a deadline, but then reneged." Consistency may trump variety for variety's sake, but monotony=predictability=boredom=skimming. =rereading=reader unhappiness.
Reply to this