Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/49103
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/49103
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Usually "and" is indeed dispensable and the fact that you wrote it is a clue to check if it is. Using that sentence as an example, I can eliminate "and" with a semicolon, or a period.

> Usually "and" is indeed dispensable; the fact that you wrote it is a clue to check if it is.
> 
> Usually "and" is indeed dispensable. The fact that you wrote it is a clue to check if it is.

Another example:

> He picked up the ball and threw it across the field. The dog chased after it at full gallop.

Can be transformed.

> He picked up the ball. Waving it to get the dog's rapt attention, he threw it across the field. The dog chased after it at full gallop.

Sentence proximity links sentences, you don't have to do it grammatically. Readers understand that one thing follows another; so "and" is very seldom necessary. (Similarly, "then" is very seldom necessary.)

Sometimes "and" IS necessary to express simultaneity, but if you aren't talking about simultaneous properties or events, it can probably be eliminated by rewording, punctuation, or breaking sentences and adding material.

When you feel it IS absolutely the right word, then don't worry about it. Readers understand **necessary** words. It won't seem "excessive" if you only use it when you must.

"And" can also be a symptom of over-emphasis in description, too frequently trying to use two adjectives for emphasis when one would do.

Original score: 2