How to not write bad - Ben Yagoda 2013

What the meaning of “Is is” is
How to not write bad

Redundant is almost always hurled as a negative epithet indicating repetitiveness or tautology, but it can be an effective rhetorical device. Shorn of all redundancy, Shakespeare’s “most unkindest cut of all” would be pretty vanilla and the ad slogan “Raid Kills Bugs Dead” would become the ho-hum “Raid Kills Bugs.” Meanwhile, Gertrude Stein’s “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” would have to be completely erased because the quotation is nothing but redundancy. (Completely erased is redundant as well—something is either erased or it isn’t. But I felt like I needed the emphasis provided by completely.)

Most of the time, however, redundancy is mindless and bad, an instance of a writer reflexively putting down multiple words all denoting the same thing. It’s tough to prove, but I have little doubt that redundancy is on the upswing, a manifestation of the wordiness and clunkiness that characterizes much writing these days. An example—in spoken English, certainly—is the phrase is is. A second is is usually (though not always—see the fourth word of this sentence) both redundant and superfluous. I just searched the phrase is is on National Public Radio’s Web site and was presented with 1,810 hits. The most recent are:

And the media loves those hundred-million-dollar numbers. The reality is is that it’s worth a lot less—35.5 million guaranteed. (Sports correspondent Stefan Fatsis, on All Things Considered.)

But the truth is, is it’s no longer insurance if the government says they’re always going to bail you out. (Representative Ron Paul, on Talk of the Nation.)

The big difference is, is that right now farmers—and other employees, actually, too—are not required to verify the information. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Georgia Pabst, on Tell Me More.)

And, to go to the other side of the political spectrum, here’s a question from Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren that’s not only redundant, it’s not a question:

The second question is, is that the Wall Street Journal is a very sort of elite big corporate-type newspaper, lots of money.

Maybe that extra word seems like a hedge against misunderstanding, or maybe it just comes along with the prolixity of the age. In any case, it should go.

I have started to note, in my students’ work and in all sorts of published work, the blooming of a lot of other phrases that are equally redundant, though not as obviously so.

[My mouth continued to remain open.]

My mouth remained open.

[We’re celebrating our two-year anniversary next week.]

We’re celebrating our second anniversary next week. (Anniversary has the same root as annual and implies a commemoration of a certain number of years. That said, it’s okay to use phrases like two-month anniversary, if you really must.)

[I really appreciate the effort put in by my fellow classmates.]

I really appreciate the effort put in by my classmates. (Fellow countrymen, fellow colleagues, and fellow teammates are similar redundancies that need to lose the fellow.)

[The rules apply to both men and women alike.]

The rules apply to men and women alike.

[The play is well written, but yet it contains far too many clichés.]

The play is well written, but it contains too many clichés.

Even still to start a sentence (Even still, the wedding was a success) is kind of a redundancy in that it welds together two synonymous expressions—even so and still. They are both fine; pick one.