Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Habitual use of -ing follows -ed -- is this wrong?

+0
−0

I have recently noticed that I consistently follow an -ed clause with further action or elaboration using -ing. I feel like something is wrong here, even though it sounds and reads well enough to me. I'm relatively self-taught where writing is concerned and so I struggle a bit with the jargon, so bear with me if I have to ask for clarification.

Here's a snip; any feedback you have would be great:

The insinuation had the desired effect. Erim's fingers relaxed, showing a golden glint of sweat that had collected in his palms. The deep valleys and crevices of his worn fury relaxed into dry rivers along the landscape of his weathered face, his grim mask slowly melting into a look of consideration.

I see just glancing at it that I could just as easily change it to "and" without changing the meaning, but it doesn't feel any more or less acceptable.

Is this just a question of style?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/23844. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

I don't see anything wrong with the construction per se. It's just how English works for a structure that is action followed by consequence. It is far more important that your prose should seem natural than that it should be varied in structure.

That said, the passage you present as an example strikes me a overwritten. This kind of stuff may be okay in very small quantities, but it gets very tiresome very quickly. Remember that focus is key to storytelling. Where is the reader's focus supposed to be directed? The number of times it is desirable to direct the reader's attention to "deep valleys and crevices of his worn fury relaxed into dry rivers along the landscape of his weathered face" are few. They may not be zero, but they are few. You probably don't want to indulge in this kind of writing unless you are very sure it is essential to the story you are trying to tell.

Your sense that you may be overusing the ed/ing construction may come more from overuse of this kind of description rather than from any fault of the ed/ing construction per se.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »