Redundancy As Clarification

While I was writing about redundancy yesterday, I realized that it serves even more purposes.  Redundancy can be used for clarification.

I like to use big words.  I also like obscure words.  But I hate not being understood.  So when I use a word I don't think people will understand, I repeat what I said in simpler words.

"She was seething when she found out, just furious beyond comprehension."  I don't need the second half of that sentence.  All I did was define 'seething'.  But do you know what 'seething' meant?  How many people do you think do?  It's not a very obscure word, but it is hardly common.

Now, the editor in me is making an argument.  If you are just going to define the word you wanted to use, why not just drop the word and use the definition in its place?  I have to admit that this is a valid point.  I could easily argue that words that people don't understand should simply be avoided to save time, energy, and confusion.  However, I do have an equally valid counterargument: screw them!

I like the words I choose.  If people don't understand them, they can look them up.  I am saving them that trouble by giving them a definition in the text.  And on top of that, I use words that sound good.  If you don't know what 'seething' meant, you will know it in the sentences where I use the word.

This is another exception to the redundancy rule. By repeating yourself for clarity, you are making your prose stronger, not weaker, by having more people follow you without needing to stop.  This can also be combined with Redundancy As Exclamation to reinforce how important that one large word is (which is probably why you used it in the first place).