Is a parenthetical reference to a later part of the text redundant in non-fiction writing?
The response will either be an evasion (we will come to that later), or it will be . . .
Is the above (or similar) parenthetical redundant?
(I couldn't find a suitable tag for this question, something like principles-of-good-non-fiction-writing.)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/37496. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
Yes - everything in the brackets is redundant. If you were to omit '(we will come to that later)' then the sentence would still have the same effect on the reader's mind - that of making a promise that you must fulfil.
This is because the rest of the sentence: 'The response will either be an evasion, or it will be . . .' already alludes to a future event - something that sets up an expectation in the reader's mind that it will dealt with by you further into the script.
As I'm sure you already know: setting up expectations by virtue of writing sentences that refer to something later in the text forms a contract with the reader that should not be broken, because to do so erodes trust between the two parties. Break such a promise and you may well lose your readers.
Good luck with your writing.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37536. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It is not redundant. You are providing information about the structure of your presentation to come, making a promise to discuss all of the possible classes of "a response". Such promises are recommended, if the alternative to "evasion" is XYZ, then it is easier for people to listen to your XYZ discussion if they know you won't ignore their question of how to deal with "evasion"; whether or not you will get to dealing with "evasion" will not occupy their minds: You said you would.
Whether to use parentheticals is a matter of opinion. In my opinion (a professor and research scientist that writes non-fiction academic articles) parentheticals should be avoided.
The reason for that is they appear to be a narrator with interrupting thoughts they have not bothered to order. It looks unprofessional. In non-fiction, you have plenty of time to order your thoughts, and should not appear to be speaking extemporaneously.
Just break it up into two sentences.
The response will be either an evasion, or XYZ. We will discuss XYZ, and then dealing with evasion.
Or, as Michael said in commentary below, something like
The response will be either an evasion, or XYZ.
\subsection{ Evasion }
...
\subsection{ XYZ }
...
0 comment threads
0 comment threads