I subscribe to a ton of newsletters. What can I say? I like to read! I like to know things! I like people who write!
Anyway, in a recent issue of Dave Pell's somewhat snarky but highly readable and informative Next Draft, this line smacked me in the face:
"Kevin McCarthy described the DEI attacks as 'stupid and dumb.' (And in this case, the redundancy works.)"
Please put any political agreement or disagreement aside here, because that's not why I'm sharing this sentence. Instead, consider the assertion. Is this a question of redundancy, and if so, does it "work"?
Stupid definitions:
"having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense" (Oxford)
"given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner" (Merriam-Webster)
"lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; slow-witted" (Dictionary dot com)
Dumb definitions:
"temporarily unable or unwilling to speak" (Oxford)
"lacking intelligence" (Merriam-Webster)
"lacking intelligence or good judgment" (Dictionary dot com)
The synonymous quality of "dumb" with "mute" and its somewhat outdated and offensive connotation notwithstanding, you see the differences here, right?
Perhaps the phrase stood out for me because I recently worked with an editor who suggested I cut some "redundant" phrasing of my own in a recent piece. I considered the suggestion, looked at the words I'd chosen (in this case, "really" and "truly" — which are themselves adverbs I normally never use at all) and declined the suggestion.
In that case, the redundancy I chose worked to underscore my statement in an emphatic manner that inclusion of only one, or neither, adverb could have shouldered alone.
But most redundancy, in writing anyway, is merely repetitive.
It's all in the context.
