posted
I think I've taken enough English to understand when an -ing verb is appropriate even when used in a past-tense story, but I've been told a couple times that I'm confusing tenses. Here's an example of a similar sentence to the one I had critiqued:
quote:Walking to school that day, I realized that my shoelace had been untied by an evil robot monkey.
I'm fairly sure that this sentence is grammatically correct, but just wanted to make sure. Also, do these secondary verbs lose some of their flair because they're not in the past-tense? This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, don't worry. I'm just curious. Thanks for your help.
[This message has been edited by thecox (edited April 06, 2007).]
posted
Yes, it's grammatically correct as far as I know. The problem only enters the picture, really, when
1) you have too many sentences starting like that. It becomes noticable and pulls the reader out of the story. Any sentence structure used too often can cause this problem.
or
2) you have a person doing two things at the same time that are physically possible. For example, "Opening the door, I dashed up the stars." You can't dash up the stars until the door is open, so this doesn't work. I don't believe this was the problem with your short story.
posted
Yes, it's grammatically acceptable, but it's a construction that numerous sources advise to use sparingly. Some go so far to as to call it (or its overuse) hackneyed.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trap I fall into with -ing verbs is tying them up with be verbs. My characters do a lot of "was running" and "as she began writing." You know, they could just RUN and WRITE and get things done faster!
So right now I'm going off the deep end removing almost all -ings (and adverbs, for that matter) - then the story is going to get the final test...husband! Well, I plan to also read it aloud. I figure I'm going to end up putting some back in, but then it will be purposeful, instead of, well, some call it lazy, I prefer to think of it as accidental.
posted
I concur with the "grammatically acceptable" crowd, but as writing goes, well, it is several tenses removed from the action. Closer to it would be like, oh..."I walked to school. An evil robot monkey untied my shoelace."
[edited to remove something]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited April 07, 2007).]
posted
Sorry to disagree, but I disagree with much of what has been said. There is an official name for this kind of verb in a past-tense supporting role, but you need to ask an English major for the name. Here's the scoop, though, from my experience.
If you avoid the use of these -ing verbs in supporting roles, ie the secondary verb in the sentence, then your writing tends to be flat and monotone. Proper use of these verbs will add a more dynamic feel to your story. The only way to learn to use these verbs properly is to do it. Practice, but also read and pay strict attention to what successful writers are doing with this verb form. It's another tool in your toolbox, and with any tool, there is a right and a wrong way to use it.
posted
I agree with Spaceman. These discussions about adverbs, -ing words, adjectives, etc. always seem to be about whether modifiers are good or bad. They are merely a tool. Whether it makes your sentence better or worse depends on how you wield the tool. Not everything is black/white, and either/or.
It reminds me of the story a friend told me, following a trip to India, where she visited a Buddhist temple. In order to enter the temple, she had to pass through a gate with a pair of those spectacular lion/dog statues on either side. She was told that the dogs represent Paradox and Confusion. The metaphor is that, in order to enter the Temple of Wisdom, you must first pass through the gate of Paradox and Confusion.
Think of these words like spice... used in moderation, they can bring a unique flavor to your manuscript, but used in excess they can overwhelm.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
