Should you avoid redundant information after dialogue?
Should we avoid repeating redundant information after a dialogue and is there a way around this? Sometimes, you feel prompted to write the description of an action that follows a line, but that also seems to be redundant, and it leads to some pretty bad prose. How would you work around this?
For example:
"Here's the chip in question." he said as he handed the chip to him. "It's a very old chip, make sure you take care of it."
Sounds redundant, but the fact he's handing it is also important somewhat, or can be important for what may follow. What would you do in this situation?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/46558. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Just get rid of the redundancies, and it will sound fine.
Original: "Here's the chip in question." he said as he handed to chip to him. "It's a very old chip, make sure you take care of it."
Revised: "Here's the chip in question," he said, as he handed it to him, "It's very old, make sure you take care of it."
You don't have to repeat "chip" every time. An alternative is to name the object second:
Revised: "This is the one," he said, handing him an anti-stat bag holding a chip. "It's very old, make sure you take care of it."
0 comment threads
Why don't you paraphrase the action? Say what he is literally doing. How does he give the chip? Is it in an envelope? Does he extend his arm? Is he tossing it? ....
"Here's the chip in question" he said as he passed him the sealed envelope, making sure [Jack] had a firm grip on it before he let go. "It's a very old one, make sure you take care of it.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46559. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Redundancy is neither good nor bad. It either works for you or doesn't. In your brief lines, you have a lot of redundancy that, not knowing the context, can probably be removed without sacrificing understandability.
"Here's the chip. It's very old so make sure you take care of it."
"In question" isn't needed. The handing over of the chip isn't needed; it's implied with "here's the chip" and in the next sentence the other character will pocket it so it's clear that he has it.
Seems to me that there's no need to linger on that sentence any longer than that. Just pass the coin and get on with the story.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46645. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Should you avoid redundancy?
Yes.
How do you get around this?
Cut the redundant part and show only the new information. Infinitezero has already given a good example on that.
"Here's the chip in question." He pulled it out from his pocket with slow, deliberate gestures. He gave out the impression of an elephant trying to move bohemian crystal around. "It's a very old one, make sure you take care of it".
As you can see, I've omitted "he said", since here it can be implied neatly. If there's nothing new to tell, you don't have to make it up:
"Here's the chip in question." He said. "It's a very old one, make sure you take care of it".
Here the pause is still effective, since it cuts the dialogue lines. The lack of further information leaves the reader imagining the chip being passed.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads