Post History
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 nat...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-01-03T20:41:50Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23845 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:25:53Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23845 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:25:53Z (almost 5 years ago)
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.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2016-07-17T16:33:12Z (over 8 years ago)
Original score: 1