Dear Geist, Is it usual for an editor to change a writer's text so that some words are repeated several times? I wrote an article on feral dogs for an ecology magazine. The editor loved it and gave it a good placement and even sprang for a couple of professional photos. But I had gone to some trouble to not repeat dogs, dogs, dogs all through it, to avoid boring repetition. I went with homeless hounds, feral fidos, primitive pooches, etc.—a practice I learned as a journalism student, reinforced over ten years—and the editor changed them all back to “dogs.” It's my first eco article and the deadline was looming so I let it go. But it's bugging me. Any insights? —Rosa, Cyberspace Dear Rosa, We aren't sure where journalism schools stand on this now, but English usage guides are unanimous on thumbs-down to the “elegant variation,” the rewording of a term after the first mention, in order to avoid repeating it. In fact, the lexicographer Bryan Garner calls it the “inelegant variation,” elegant having morphed into a compliment some years after “elegant variation” came into use. Why is it frowned on? Because no two words for a thing have exactly the same meaning or connotation, so the practice tends to confuse readers and impede reading—the opposite of what writers and editors strive for. Charles W. Morton (1899-1967), a writer, humorist and longtime associate editor at the Atlantic, once called the practice “the elongated yellow-fruit school of writing,” invoking an elegant variation of “banana.” His examples included “the succulent goober” (for peanut) and “the numbered spheroids” (for billiard balls). —The Editors
