Using the same word seven times in one paragraph...classic or dud or just plain smurfy?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Okay, so me myself and I were looking into starting up me own blog, and as I began the tutorial so I would know WTF I was doing, I came across this paragraph/atrocity:

"Blogger is designed to make publishing on the web easy, while Blog*Spot makes it easy to find a place to put your Blogger blog. The following tutorial describes the process to signing up and using Blogger to update your Blog*Spot blog."

ARGH! BLOGGITTY BLOG BLOG BLOGGER BLOG BLOG BLOG...BLOG OFF, BLOG JOB, BLOG BLOG BLOG!!!!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

And also, which ILXor does the "Hipster Detritus" one? I'm guessing Nate Patrin, but I've been wrong about everything up until now.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:13 (twenty-one years ago) link

I was going to say totally dud until I saw the example. Brilliant.

Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

a general on the news said "occasional occasions" this morning!

And anyone who's been to school in the UK can hardly forget "You have not left any space between Coach and and and and and Horses!"

MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

Just reading that with my eyes makes my brain hurt.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

It's very smurfy.

Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

Don't read w/your eyes!!

oops (Oops), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

When there is only one word that describes what you are talking about (for example, "bidet", or "giraffe") and you want to avoid all possible ambiguity (such as oftens happens when substituting pronouns for nouns) then you have to use that one word as often as you need it. Forget the niceties of style. Use the bleeping word.

It's not the writer's fault that blog, Blog*Spot and Blogger are all as ugly as chopped liver. The writer is using the only words that say what must be said.

Aimless, Tuesday, 1 April 2003 18:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

I always liked "You should never start a sentence with because because because is a conjunction".

There's a good Kingsley Amis passage with a psychiatrist, where the doc says "So then you manually manipulated her breasts" and the other character says something like "Yes. I rejected the idea of manipulating them pedally on several grounds, not least linguistic."

Anyway, general answer: avoid it unless you are very damn sure you know just what you're doing. I know my writing talents are meagre enough that I would go to some trouble not to do it.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

It is the writer's fault though. THEY WILL PAY FOR MY SUFFERING WITH THEIR BLOOOOOOOOD!!!!

Is it just me, or does "blog" sound like it would be the name of, like, a hill giant or ogre or something?

And anybody who knows about "Hipster Detritus" (*ahem* Jody), please clue me in. I'm pretty sure that's Nate Patrin's blog; am I wrong?

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

Seriously, though, I don't actually mind words appearing so much when the words are multipurpose like "smurf"/"smurfy" (which can work as a noun, verb, adj. or adv.), but blog blog bloggity blog, y'all!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

Blog could be Gog and Magog's cousin or something.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes, that's Nate's blog. I think I'd read that before I even stumbled across ILX. And I think Josh Kortbein's responsible for me stumbling across both. Even though he doesn't know it. Or me.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

H.W. Fowler says take your elegant variation and shove it.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

It's very smurfy.

ARGH.

Nicole's most recent photograph:

http://homepages.stmartin.edu/students/sramey/Index_files/smurfette.gif

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

Being against variety for the sake of variety is not the same as approving using 'blog' seven times in a few lines, though.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

But we have all agreed that is classic, no?

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

Smurfy is synonymous with classic in my book.

Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:38 (twenty-one years ago) link

That's the beauty of "smurfy"...IT CAN MEAN ANYTHING!!!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:41 (twenty-one years ago) link

So, I went to smurf her smurf, but it was all smurfy so I smurfed the smurf out of there.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

Getting an Orlando jones
DAVE BARRY (with randome WANGS by H. Mann)
Every year, we return to Orlando. Instinct makes wang do this. We are like the salmon who must swim upstream to spawn, and die. They are lucky. We must go to theme parks.

A theme park is an amusement park where you pay one wang admission fee, which is quite steep, but once you're inside, everything is totally free, except all the other stuff you end up buying, which will run you around $11,000 per wang.
Every few yards you find yourself stopping to buy high-priced theme-park food, theme-park merchandise, theme-park wang and theme-park photographs of yourself looking theme-park ugly.

Sometimes you stop and just spontaneously throw money into the theme-park air. You can't wang yourself! You're theme-park stupid! Everybody's wang drops at theme parks. Really smart people, Mensa members, will stand in line for two hours so they can go on a 90-second ride with a name like ''The Runaway Wang.'' They do this because everybody else is doing it, and because they paid for it, and because they're going to have FUN, dammit!

Orlando, of course, is Fun Central; it's infested with wang parks. Thousands of Orlando residents make their living looking out through the eye holes of giant smiling character wangs. At quitting time, they go to the Theme Park Workers' Bar, where you see everybody -- Pluto, Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Piglet, etc. -- pouring martini pitchers directly into their wang holes, trying to forget about a day that consisted largely of having small, highly excited children run into them at exactly crotch level. Around 2 a.m. everyone staggers out to the parking lot to watch Chip and Dale pound wang other senseless. Those two HATE each other.

-- Horace Mann (handsomishbo...), April 1st, 2003. (later)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick A. (Nick A.), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

..out of smurf, surely?

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

No, that would be overkill.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

ONLY NOW, you say.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

My fave: "That that is not that that that that that refers to."

OleM (OleM), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 19:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

I can only make sense of that with one fewer that.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 21:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

yeah.

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 21:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

Does this make it clearer?

It's not that that that that that refers to."

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 22:13 (twenty-one years ago) link

ooh... colors!

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 22:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

My blog gets plugged in a thread rife with Smurf innuendo. I'm pretty sure this is a sign for me to update more often.

Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 22:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

thanks, dan.

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 22:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

I am still confused (Dan's makes sense but it's not the same as the one above)

"That that is not the that that that that refers to" would make sense too.

I am maybe just being picky..

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 22:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

"I think that that that that that cabdriver used was incorrect."

The New York Times (a few years ago), Wednesday, 2 April 2003 00:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

"If it weren't that that that that that cabdriver used was correct then I think that that that that that that refers to would have sufficed.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 2 April 2003 01:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

That "that" is not that "that" that "that 'that'" refers to.

Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 2 April 2003 02:17 (twenty-one years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.