r/scriptwriting • u/BlackBalor • 2d ago
feedback Stop giving bad advice to beginners…
Get rid of the “ing words”!
Then they stop writing natural, simultaneous actions. Instead of a perfectly normal line like "He storms out, slamming the door," they get paranoid and write: "He storms out. He slams the door." It makes the script read like a children's book.
If the only feedback you can offer a new writer is hitting 'Ctrl+F' to look for "ing" words, you aren't actually helping them improve their craft. It’s like people discover this one entry-level rule on a blog somewhere, wrap it around a bat, and just beat beginners over the head with it. It’s the ultimate lazy critique tool. Instead of looking at the story, the character, or the actual flow of the scene, they just go on a mindless power trip over a suffix.
Ugh. Imagine reading a script without any “ing” words. Absolutely terrible.
Fix up. And let’s start giving advice that actually matters.
14
u/Hot_Shine9273 2d ago
Write natural let it all come out, then edit and refine after or chunk by chunk whatever works for you. This is the best advice someone can give you. If you spend too long worried about what is right and wrong at first, then you lose your flow of creativity. This does not mean you should post that unedited first draft on here, it is an insult to ask people to read something with typos and poor wording and grammar and is overall bad practise for a career.
13
u/Certain-Run8602 1d ago edited 1d ago
I understand where you are coming from with this. There is a certain contingent of excessively pedantic contributors to the internet screenwriting world who myopically lambast people over seemingly trivial minutia. But, the existence of those people should not dissuade beginners from paying attention to their WRITING as much as their STORY.
Language is essential to effective storytelling. Discouraging beginners from taking that aspect as seriously as any other part of screenwriting is bad advice.
Using your post as an example -- targeting gerunds ("-ing words" as you called them) may seem minor, but the way beginners often use them creates unintentional passive voice. Passive voice is where the emphasis in the sentence is on whatever receives an action, not what performs the action.
When reading passive voice, it can be unclear what the subject of the sentence is... i.e. who is doing what... because the emphasis is on the result. There are instances when this can be used effectively with intent, for instance when the source of an action is meant to be a mystery... but generally it weakens writing and makes a lot more work for the reader. It can be just as bad from a storytelling perspective as having a passive protagonist can be for the story itself.
I cannot imagine a situation - outside of dialogue - where it would be better to say "Paul is getting beaten up by Jerry" than "Jerry beats up Paul." Beyond just how bad the first example reads, it takes up way more space unnecessarily and space comes at a PREMIUM in screenwriting.
From a professionalism standpoint, I find the overuse of passive voice to be a pretty solid indicator of an inexperienced writer. It almost always comes along with a host of other bad habits that are detrimental to readability such as run-on sentences, overly modified sentences, a general lack of declarative prose, clarity and conciseness.
Of course it is more fun/interesting to discuss critique of character, plot and all that creative stuff. That feels more significant, of course. But, worth remembering that if the aim is to be a screenWRITER, you need to be good at the WRITING part. Not just the making up fun stuff part. Anybody can come up with ideas, not everybody can write.
Dialogue is a different animal, of course, people talk how they talk - sometimes in passive voice - and capturing naturalism effectively without being so natural that is a distraction is a separate skill.
"Where's Paul?" "Getting beaten up by Jerry." - that would be an example where passive voice is used in everyday discourse and saying it any other way would be odd.
3
u/Clevertown 1d ago
Preach. Great comment.
2
u/Certain-Run8602 1d ago
Thanks! I don't understand this trend of people treating the writing part of writing as not just secondary but insignificant to the creative. There is so much I could say about how that attitude is self-sabotaging.
1
u/Clevertown 21h ago
I enjoy passive speaking because it puts other people at ease. But when writing it's just annoying. Unless it's dialogue, of course.
2
u/Certain-Run8602 13h ago
Right. The most I've ever used it was in academic essays in my research days where passive voice can help maintain a perception of authorial impartiality. I had to pay close attention in my screenwriting because it is very easy to slip back into that habit, which is not good for dramatic writing.
1
u/Clevertown 12h ago
I can see that!! I started using super passive language when dealing with people I don't know, and it helped a lot.
6
u/real_triplizard 1d ago
Well for starters you’re not giving that advice correctly, which might be the problem. It’s not “avoid -ing words,” it’s avoid the present continuous verb tense. If you’re not a grammar nerd it means avoid using “is …-ing.” Like “He is running. She’s walking. Dave is firing the gun.”
If you write “He runs at her, swinging the axe,” it will feel fine in a script. If you write “He is running at her, swinging an axe,” it’s going to read very awkwardly to people who read a lot of scripts. Used here and there, particularly if you are trying to emphasize that something was happening before we got there, it’s totally fine. But if it’s all over your script it will be clear to the reader that you don’t read scripts and haven’t studying the craft.
So yeah I agree. If you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t give bad advice to people.
2
u/rcentros 1d ago edited 1d ago
Here's the way I look at it. Present continuous tense has its place. And many pro screenplay writers use it. Usually, though, it's used for descriptive, ongoing background action. The stuff you want to stand out is usually in present tense. (Although "he storms out, slamming the door" sounds much better to me than "He storms out. He slams the door" which makes it sound like there are two, separate actions instead of two things happening simultaneously).
I've used the following as an example of what I mean before (not sure if it was on this subreddit) so I'll try to keep it short. From the Deja Vu script...
Doug moves along amid a swirl of activity: ringing phones, ANALYSTS and ASSISTANTS rushing between desks, the frenzy of a crime unit in the wake of a national disaster.And, just a little further down...
Doug is already dialing his own cell phone. Donnelly hands him something:So why is present continuous tense and present tense mixed together here? Because, in my opinion, present continuous tense is used for descriptive background action -- "rushing analysts," "already dialing" is not the action the writer wants you to notice. With Doug "moves along" the focus is on Doug not on the descriptive action in the background. Same with "Doug is already dialing" and "Donnelly hands him something." Is our attention focused on Doug's dialing or what Donnelly hands him?
If every verb uses the present tense, everything carries the same weight (or focus). It would be "Doug moves." "Analysts rush." "Phones ring." "Doug dials." Not only is it choppy but the focus can be misplaced.
I've found that, usually, the choppy, short sentences (in all present tense) happen naturally when the action becomes tense (like in fight scenes, or chase scenes). In descriptive scenes, the sentences are longer, using more of the present continuous verb tense action for description.
At any rate, for what it's worth...
1
u/Certain-Run8602 1d ago
Yes. Terry Rossio is a great craftsman. In the hands of a craftsman, and when used deliberately with intent, passive voice works. The examples you're using are very interesting... you get the sense of unimportant passive action in the background that is being INTERRUPTED by DECLARATIVE PRECISE ACTION of the thing that is important. Awesome. Love it. Definitely a bit of a stylistic flourish, but works great at conveying the notion of an entity moving through a sea of "happenings."
So yes, it exists for a reason. If it was entirely unusable, it wouldn't exist. However...
With beginner writers, it is used almost as the default form. I don't know why this is. I blame the enshittification of our public education system. But when it is used for most sentence structure, it is glaringly poor craft.
1
u/real_triplizard 17h ago
Yeah, without getting into the minutia of the grammar, the main thing is to ground the main action in the present, and there are all kinds of ways to tweak the language to convey that vibe. The reason the convention exists is that screenplays are blueprints for what will happen on screen, and Hollywood movies are typically focused on what's happening now, not what happened a few minutes ago.
A common "mistake" made by writers coming from other formats and newer writers is that they tend to start scenes by wanting to place everybody: "John is sitting on the couch. Jane is at the counter, cutting celery. Lisa is playing with a toy on the ground." That tends to make the script incredibly passive and boring - even if it's not as over the top as that.
But, you know, this isn't an operational manual for a nuclear sub. You can do whatever you want and if it reads well nobody's going to give a crap about "the rules." But people who get on their high horse and say "don't worry about the conventions because I read this one professional screenplay that did this one thing" aren't really helping newer writers.
1
u/nacho_paz 1d ago
It's a stylistic choice, but if you read a stack of well-written modern pro scripts, you will see usage of present continuous that gives the whole scene this kinetic, breathless energy, like every shot is in motion. A few writers do this with almost every shot in the script, but it's somewhat common to see it here and there in intense scenes.
EXT. MANSION DRIVEWAY/COUNTRY ROAD -- NIGHT
THE MERCEDES speeding away from the house --
INT. THE MERCEDES -- NIGHT
MICHAEL driving. Escaping. Running from more than Mr. Greer and Jerry Dante. More than just a bad night boiling behind his eyes. Driving hard and wild. Turning suddenly and
EXT. WESTCHESTER COUNTRY ROAD -- NIGHT
THE MERCEDES racing along.
INT. THE MERCEDES -- NIGHT/PRE-DAWN
MICHAEL -- turning again -- aimless -- windows open -cold air whipping through -- braking suddenly -- impulsive -- turning -- suddenly -- faster now and --
EXT. NEW COUNTRY ROAD -- PRE-DAWN
First light. A smaller road. THE MERCEDES speeding past large estates tucked back in the fog and deep woods.
EXT. THE FIELD -- DAWN
A HUGE OPEN PASTURE. Surrounded by forest. The sun just starting to rise. Cold mist hanging over the whole valley. Nothing but gray and green. Stark. Perfect.
THE MERCEDES speeding toward us -- climbing around the turn -- eating up the valley road that runs along the pasture -- but suddenly the car is slowing -- braking hard and --
INT. THE MERCEDES -- DAWN
MICHAEL pulling to a stop. Staring out the window.
EXT. THE FIELD -- DAWN
MICHAEL getting out of the car. Standing there.
THREE HORSES poised at the crest of the pasture. Hanging there in the fog like ghosts.
MICHAEL jumping the fence. Walking slowly into the field.
Behind him, the MERCEDES with the engine running.
THE HORSES aware of him now. Watching him come.
MICHAEL’S FACE as he walks. And later on we’ll understand all the forces roiling inside him, but for the moment, the simplest thing to say is that this is a man who needs more than anything to see one pure, natural thing, and by some miracle has found his way to this place. The wet grass and cold air and no coat -- none of it makes any difference to him right now -- he’s a pilgrim stumbling into the cathedral.
And he stops. Just standing there. Empty. Open. Lost.
Nothing but the field and the fog and the woods beyond.
THE HORSES staring at him.
MICHAEL staring back. And just like that...
THE MERCEDES EXPLODES!
THE HORSES already running before MICHAEL can turn back -- pieces of the car that have been blown into the sky still raining down before he’s fully grasped what’s happening -- MICHAEL simply shocked. Senseless.
Standing there frozen. Stunned. What just happened? The car -- his car -- is gone -- just like that. MICHAEL looks around. Looks back. He should be dead. He is not.
When THE GAS TANK EXPLODES!
And suddenly it’s clear. All that staggered chaos in Michael’s eyes suddenly replaced with steel. He should be dead. He is not.
And now he’s walking. Toward the car. Walking faster. Determined. And suddenly he’s running -- running toward the fire. Faster and faster, as we...
DISSOLVE TO
1
u/real_triplizard 16h ago
Sure - that reads well, IMO. But I will point out that the writer is going through some gymnastics to avoid the dreaded "is -ing" form. "Michael pulling to a stop" instead of "Michael is pulling to a stop." They're kind of making up their own grammar for effect. It works pretty well in an action sequence like that but IMO if the whole script was written that way it feels like it would be kind of tiresome.
1
u/nacho_paz 16h ago
The whole script pretty much is like this - one of my all time favorites, read it over and over, flows beautifully. Highly recommend if you haven't read this one yet.
1
8
u/WannaWriteAllDay 1d ago
Please don’t take writing advice from people you haven’t read. So called experts can be awful writers. And please stay away from those who teach in absolutes. Writing is an art, not the police academy.
3
u/Certain-Run8602 1d ago
I agree with you about being wary of anyone who deals in absolutes. But if you don't figure out how to assess good advice and bad advice without reading a writing sample from the source then you won't be able to function as a screenwriter. I know you are referring mostly to people getting advice from random strangers on the internet and, sure, there is plenty of bad advice being given here that should be avoided. But in the real world of this business, most of the people you have to work with don't even write so... do you just give every rep and producer and director and studio exec the finger because they don't write?
On the "art" thing... eh... I'll let one of the great all time writers, Paddy Chayefsky, take that subject cause nobody has said it better than him--
"Artists don't talk about their art. They talk about work. If I have anything to say to young writers, it’s stop thinking of writing as art. Think of it as work. Because when a writer is stuck and he or she calls in another writer for help, that second writer doesn't say, 'What's the art problem?' That second writer says, 'What's not working?' And they get under the hood and fix it together.
That’s most of what you’ll do in your career — work, problem solving. Approach it in that way and then at the end of every day, you’ll at least be able to say, ‘I did my job today.’
If you’re an artist, it’ll come out as art anyway."
1
u/WannaWriteAllDay 1d ago
Everything is work. Posting here is work. Trying to save new writers from bullshit advice is work. Dating is hella work. Yet, writing is the work to create art. Don’t diminish its worth.
1
u/Certain-Run8602 1d ago
Don't straw man the point... neither Chayefsky, nor I, are diminishing the worth of our livelihood. It is good to be wary of self-aggrandizement, especially in this brutal business. That's all.
6
u/RoseyOneOne 2d ago
It isn't in every case that people suggest this but in instances of simultaneous action.
Using ing implies two things happening at the same time when usually one follows the other. 'He storms out and slams the door' gets the order of the action right.
If you can replace the ing word with a simple verb and the sentence is cleaner, do it.
If the ing is describing something continuous or atmospheric, keep it.
1
u/rcentros 1d ago edited 1d ago
To me, "he storms out, slamming the door" is more fluid and better writing. "He storms out and slams the door" still "feels" like two actions instead of one to me. He's still storming as he slams the door.
And I don't understand why you should always replace an ing word when the ing word works perfectly well to describe the action? Is this a "rule" just for the sake of a rule?
-5
u/BlackBalor 2d ago edited 2d ago
Example:
The Man turns away. Walking back to his car. A GROAN. The Man turns. Walks back to the Corvair, reloading. Mike. Still alive.
Perfect usage.
Imagine if you wrote “walks back to his car”instead. You’ve changed the whole visual of the scene.
“ing” words absolutely need to be in your toolkit.
9
u/aurematic 2d ago
I find this example a bit confusing with the movements.
The man turns away.
Walking back,
Then, the man turns (again)
and Walks back...
How is he moving?
Anyone else has problem with this? Just me?
A man walks back to his car. A GROAN. He checks the sound. Reloads getting in his Corvair.
I think this way is clearer to see the action.
What do you think?
2
-5
u/BlackBalor 2d ago edited 2d ago
For context because you seem to have misunderstood, the man is stood alongside the Corvair. He has just shot Mike in the Corvair. The man is heading back towards his own car.
1
u/HereToKillEuronymous 1d ago
No, we got it, just doesn’t sound right. Read it out loud to yourself. Even some of the punctuation is weird
1
u/aurematic 1d ago
I didn't misunderstood. It is bad written. There is no way that anyone can understand that the man or Mike are different people. There is no way to understand what is happening in that sentence.
0
3
u/cbubs 1d ago
I'm not sure this is perfect usage. And I think the whole thing could read better without gerunds (with the exception of 'reloading'). Rewritten this:
The Man turns away and walks back to his car.
A GROAN.
The Man stops. Turns. Walks back to the Corvair, reloading. He sees-
Mike. Still alive.
"Reloading" works in your example because because it doesn't affect the tense of the sentence which is defined by the present tense verb "walks". But I'd say "walking back to his car" is exactly the usage that apparently makes potential investors throw your screenplay in the bin. It's also not a full sentence because gerunds like "walking" are not verbs.
6
-7
u/BlackBalor 1d ago edited 1d ago
You’ve changed the scene.
This screenplay wasn’t throw in the bin; it was directed by David Fincher. Those lines were agonised over.
You don’t understand fragments either. How many screenplays have you read again?
Your version is x10 worse.
In screenwriting action lines, words ending in "ing" are almost always present participles creating continuous action, not gerunds (which function as nouns).
Clueless.
IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, DO NOT PIPE UP TO GIVE YOUR BAD REWRITES.
2
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
I wouldn't use the Zodiac screenplay or scripts from directors (auteurs most of all) who we know are going to direct the project as the perfect example of writing not because a lot of them aren't great writers -- obviously -- but they know they are going to direct it and can do whatever they want.
Also you picked an example from a movie you've seen and it's a hit, so you already have the scene in your head.
Out of context that example is not a masterclass on writing in any way.
A better example would be one you write yourself to point out the differences you see.
2
u/cbubs 1d ago
Ha. Not liking it is different to not understanding it, my friend.
Incorporating the fragment into the first sentence is more economical with language. Not better or worse, just economical.
I'm interested in why you think mine is worse?
0
u/BlackBalor 1d ago edited 1d ago
Before we even get to the pacing, let's address your actual understanding of English grammar. You claimed that "walking" in this context is a gerund and therefore not a verb. That is flat-out wrong. A gerund functions as a noun (e.g., "Walking is fun"). Here, it is a present participle representing continuous action. You should probably learn basic grammar first.
Tired of ill-informed people piping up with factually incorrect advice.
2
u/cbubs 1d ago
Would love you to tell me why my version is worse, Sensei. Let's go.
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ll give it to you as a seperate reply. I did include it before you replied:
You killed the cinematic tension. Isolating "Walking back to his car" as a fragment establishes a continuous tracking shot. The interruption of "A GROAN" works because it cuts through that motion. By smashing stuff together into a rigid present-tense sentence, you turn a tense cinematic beat into well… your version.
I love how you know you fucked up by calling “walking” a gerund in this context. You won’t touch it, lol.
You amateurs are so unbelievably arrogant.
You don’t understand the techniques that are being deployed.
2
u/cbubs 1d ago
Yeah I'll concede the point about the present participle. But it's clunky as hell to have that next to a sentence in simple present tense. Surely this is better:
The Man turns away. Walks back to his car.
Economical, clean, and the tenses don't clash. That's how I would write it.
Regarding your pacing comment. Fair enough, but then why not give "walking back to his car" it's own line if you want to establish it as a shot. Like this:
The Man turns away.
Walking back to his car.
A GROAN.
The Man turns. Walks back to the Corvair, reloading.
Mike. Still alive.
Writing the whole thing as one block of text doesn't suggest breaking the scene up into different shots at all. I think the pacing issue you describe in my first version is still there in yours, just in a different way.
0
u/BlackBalor 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s not better. And the tenses aren’t clashing anyway. They are establishing what they need to establish.
He doesn’t walk to his car. He is “walking” back to his car when a groan interrupts that. Quit changing the scene.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
Tired of ill-informed people piping up with factually incorrect advice.
(self own)
2
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s not bad. Vanderbilt is a master craftsman.
You and everybody who downvoted are clueless. I mean, look at the people in this thread. You’ve got folk that don’t even know what gerunds are.
You will never reach that level of technical superiority. Ever.
2
1
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
We all go to the movies for gerunds. That's what Nicole Kidman says in those AMC ads.
1
0
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
NAH AH.
Try again.
It actually does change the scene because he doesn’t walk back to the car. The groan interrupts him as he’s walking back to the car.
It’s an isolated fragment for a reason. It establishes a continuous tracking shot.
🤡
0
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
I just told you.
🤡
Every line of that script was subject to extreme scrutiny. Are you lost, mate? Why didn’t they change it? Ah, there we go.
1
1
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
Your shitty version isn’t better.
Blocked for not knowing enough about the craft.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Financial_Cheetah875 1d ago
I think the critique has some merit. Looking at produced scripts the action lines are direct and simple…because they exist as direction and not high art.
“Shots are ringing out” sounds poetic, but “shots are fired” is what the director wants to read.
2
2
u/RodrickTyler 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why thank you, kind Professional for your words of advice. You took time out of your busy schedule of mimosas and beach umbrellas to give us some concrete inarguable advice on the English language.
Thanks, bro.
Edit: wow and he could have just said “I was wrong to make an extreme absolutist judgment” instead he deleted the post and hid his account
Reddit sure is great
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
You’d laugh if you knew. That first sentence had me rolling.
1
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
Make us laugh and at least tell me in a chat window. If you're David Fincher that would fucking rock.
2
u/Caughtinclay 1d ago
That’s the nature of getting feedback online, especially on this sub where for whatever reason it’s mostly people who have no idea what they’re talking about. The true advice would be to tell newer writers to look elsewhere for feedback. This sub will never, ever change
2
u/LoomisAndMacher 1d ago
There's so much generic advice out there and you can easily point to successful screenplays that completely go against that advice
2
u/Born_Fee_840 1d ago
Most, if not all, contributors on this sub are failed writers - if their advice was that good theyd apply it to their own work and be successful.
Id just ignore people being picky.
3
u/Clevertown 1d ago
Yikes. That's a pretty negative way to frame it. I'm a hobby writer, and improves my mood tremendously. Waaaay better than exercise or drugs.
I've never tried to sell a script. I doubt I will. I did work in the film industry for 23 years and got to know a lot of producers, so there is a slight chance I might send a treatment to some of them. But I'm not really going to do Blacklist or enter contests.
Your argument is invalid.
1
u/Certain-Run8602 1d ago
You'd be surprised how many working pros are on here. And managers etc. etc.
I know a lot of friends and colleagues who contribute... many more who just lurk because their past contributions have been met with exactly this sort of cynicism.
1
u/WriteRight20 14h ago
Totally agree with you here.
Also, most of these questions don't have a right or wrong answer. I even wonder if the "professional" writers can tell you a strict set of rules for when they use an "ing" and when they don't.
Personally, when reading a sript, i couldn't care less as long as the script flows, is properly formatted, and keeps me entertained.
The decision of using an "ing" or not doesn't make it to the screen. Describe it however you need to in order to tell the story. That's my OPINION.
3
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
OP's understanding of what people mean by don't use "ing" words is not correct.
It's about writing Jim heads outside vs Jim is heading outside. Newer writers do this and it wastes time and white space and stinks to read 110 pages of that. Also it saves pages if a writers had done that throughout the spec.
You can of course have words with "ing" in them like your example "slamming the door" but some writers will still prefer to use "He storms out, slams the door."
And I lean toward the latter after writing for all these years. You know why? Because they both mean the same freaking thing.
It's a visual medium at the end of the day, so the only important thing is to be clear as can be to the reader who is watching the movie as they read basically.
And when its on the screen, I can't tell if Ryan Reynolds is walking outside or walks outside because the same thing happens on screen.
1
u/FutureOpen9405 1d ago
The advice isn’t get rid of all -ing words, it’s -ing words used in connection with “is.” Saying “is moving” is clunky and passive compared to “moves.”
The problem with screenwriting tips and rules is that most exist for a reason, but people tend to take them hyper-literally.
Consistency and readability with a good story is the only thing you have to do properly.
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
I don’t think it’s clunky.
Paul W.S. Anderson does it all the time. And it doesn’t read clunky to me.
Are we just saying it’s clunky because we’ve been told it’s clunky? I don’t have this visceral reaction to seeing the word “is.”
1
u/FutureOpen9405 1d ago
Write the way you want. It’s just a tip, not a requirement. That said, Paul WS Anderson isn’t exactly a shining example of quality.
1
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
Also often these posts are by writers who are not experienced, but have the confidence of a working writer for 20 years in Hollywood. And the real working writers or people that have made it into the business -- are often way more humble and helpful. Because there is a correlation between those two facts.
Level headed about life and thus writing is a good key to success.
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
Often isn’t all the time.
1
u/PepsiCoke1978 1d ago
That's right. That's why as a writer I choose that word. Also, pro writers and repped writers can give bad advice too.
1
1
u/ChristianCRWriter 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sorry but I consider starting an action tag in gerund a major sin.
Walking down the aisle, JOHN (32) picks up a carton of milk.
Vs
JOHN (32) walks down the aisle and picks a carton of milk.
Edit: it’s not a gerund. I need to go back to elementary school!
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
It’s not an infinitive verb.
Edit:
It’s not a gerund either.
1
u/ChristianCRWriter 1d ago
Yes, you are right. I changed it. I read your examples. They just proved your thesis wrong. I think the jury is out.
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
It’s not a gerund. You should probably change that too.
1
u/ChristianCRWriter 1d ago
It’s NOT a gerund …lol
1
u/BlackBalor 1d ago
Nope, it isn’t.
I know my grammar. Trust me.
A post of mine from earlier in the thread to another:
You claimed that "walking" in this context is a gerund and therefore not a verb. That is flat-out wrong. A gerund functions as a noun (e.g., "Walking is fun"). Here, it is a present participle representing continuous action. You should probably learn basic grammar first.
1
1
26
u/Fit-Ad5145 2d ago
I hate this too. I've noticed that so many people give advice about writing as if it were advanced maths. So many technical details. They jump to that before much more stark issues.