Is it really that bad to use "ing" verbs?

I don't take out every single one, but I do test every -ing word. I run a search on -ing and -ly and scrutinize them. I'm getting (oh no!) much better at leaving (there's another!) them out in the first draft. But, editing (another one!) them out usually makes tighter writing. (Had to end on one, just for fun.)

I'll have to read that draft.

In itself it isn't such a sin. The problem is that sentences that use 'ing' words tend to be more passive than others.

compare:
* "He is walking to the car." -v- "He walks to the car."
* "She is shouting at him" -v- "She shouts at him."

Its just a 'something to avoid' rather than a mortal sin...

Mac
(Just my 2 cents worth, etc)

Ing

The ImagiNation said:

I ask this question because it seems that everyone is ready to jump on the next person who uses "ing" verbs in their discriptions, claiming that its a big no-no. But is it really that bad? If you read David Goyer's Batman Begins draft, he uses those types of verbs everywhere.

Click to expand...

The problem with "ing" verbs is that they usually lead to passive writing, and passive writing is seldom good writing. This doesn't mean there's never a time to use "ing," it just means you need to avoid overdoing it, and you need to avoid passive writing as much as possible.

No matter what you're writing, it shuld be written as well as you can possibly write.

I ask this question because it seems that everyone is ready to jump on the next person who uses "ing" verbs in their discriptions, claiming that its a big no-no. But is it really that bad?

No, it's not really that bad, but if you use direct verbs instead then your scripts will appear stronger and more dynamic. An unsold writer with no professional credits must do all they can to help make their scripts fly higher. If you see this as a problem then maybe it's an indication of a bigger, deeper problem, e.g. poor language skills, increasing feelings of self-doubt, writer's isolation syndrome, paranoia that "they" are making up rules to ruin your chances of success, etc.

If you read David Goyer's Batman Begins draft, he uses those types of verbs everywhere.

He's a pro writer, he can write sentences any way he damn well wants. If it makes you feel any better, write to his agent and ask that Mr. Goyer be made aware of his bad influence on wannabe writers. Is technical proficiency and attention to detail too much to ask? I think not!

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity.

i think that's a good point that that guy is a professional. you wouldn't bust a guy's chops who's about to make you two hundred million bucks over technicalities, would you? prove to these guys you can make 'em lots of money and you might be able to send your script through smoke signals. until then....

like JR said, avoiding passive words is just better writing. that's really not debatable, being one of the few hard writing rules everyone should adopt. there are certain words that lead to passive voice, like 'was.' i believe this because i'm saying it, if you remove one word with passionate aggression, make that one word 'was.' sure, professionals use it, but it's not because they can't get rid of it. there are only a few times when i can't get around it. i think some professionals are just lazy sometimes, like the guy who wrote batman begins. he *knows* how to write, he just doesn't have to go to the same lengths because he's 'arrived.' as a newbie, i bet he'd have a lot harder of a time passing that off, no? i see this as one of those examples of focusing on different writing skillz as a novelist than a screenwriter in terms of what you're trying to be the best at, if that makes any sense.

seriously, as an excercise, go through an old story and eliminate every single 'was'. don't half-asss it, kill 'em without mercy. reread the story. i guarantee it'll be better or your money back.

Technically, "ing" usage is the present progressive verb form. That's different than passive vs. active voice.

However, everyone has a great point. Reading present progressive verbs in a script does make the writing seem *passive* in the sense that there's no sense of immediacy or urgency to the actions being described. Active voice *feels* more viceral and involved.

preyer said:

seriously, as an excercise, go through an old story and eliminate every single 'was'. don't half-asss it, kill 'em without mercy. reread the story. i guarantee it'll be better or your money back.

Click to expand...

As a somewhat humorous sidenote, I recently read a research publication article where the author had purposely not used any form of the verb "to be." No "is, are, were, was," etc.

Apparently, avoiding the verb "to be" leads to a more favorable and better overall perception by the reader of what is being read. There's actually been research on it.

Weird.

I'd honestly never heard of the "ing" verb no-no guideline until I came here. I always used a mixture of "ing" and present-tense verbs.

But y'know, I just read the script for Constantine yesterday and it's filthy with "ing" verbs, but it's still a good read. Go figure.

It may be that this thing against ing verbs isn't a film school/industry rule, instead it might be something that people learned in their English classes.

However, what your English lit professor or teacher would say doesn't always have revelance to what should or shouldn't go in a screenplay.

Pro's and anything.

There is no reason for a pro to change their writing just because they have made it. I don't know, don't really know all that many. Perhaps after making it they may become a little lax on things that don't really matter. They know that story is king and they focus on that. They are PRO writers because they write kick a$$ stories.
They write the way they write.
They've more then likely been writing that way all the time and the story content is so good that it rises above all else.

When you are totally involved in a read you don't notice the little things so much.

Removing the ing will make the script feel more urgent as Opti has said. It is a method of keeping things happening in the present. And that is what a script is, a story taking place NOW, in the very moment.

A wonderful side benifit of taking out the ing is that you can often regain a great deal of line space, lowering the page count and thus making room for story development.

Years ago when I was first advised to remove the ing from my very first draft I regained almost three pages. The ing will often be the cause of widows orphans, hanging chads. When you remove these you reclaim lines that can add up significantly.

It isn't by any means the first step in polishing a script but it is one little thing that can really help tighten things up.

Avoiding the usage of ing is NOT an industry standard. It's probably something that a few years ago some writer took a look at and said "You know what, removing these present progressive verbs seems to make my script better."
The advice got passed along, others saw the difference and it's kind of just become an unoffical screenwriting rule.

Ahh, it's that "ing" thing again, and that nagging rule. Hmmm.

Here's my take on it. "ing" verbs are sometimes necessary in order for a script to flow. Without out them, a script becomes stiff, robotic, full of random actions.

For EX:

Sandy heads for the elevator and digs in her purse. She stops, sifting through the mess and pulls out her keys.

My opinion is that this is okay. But, this way...

Sandy heads for the elevator and digs in her purse. She stops, sifts through the mess and pulls out her keys.

...is also okay. It just depends on the writer's style.

One of my pet peeves is when someone writes like this...

Sandy heads for the elevator. She digs in her purse. She stops and sifts through the mess. She pulls out her keys.

This is stiff and robotic.

What should not be done is this....

Sandy is heading for the elevator and digging in her purse. Stopping, she starts sifting through the mess, pulling out her keys.

This is passive.

The point is not to overdo it. A few "ing" words here or there will most likely go unnoticed, but if your script is full of them, your script will no doubt be unreadable.

Steph

'As a somewhat humorous sidenote, I recently read a research publication article where the author had purposely not used any form of the verb "to be." No "is, are, were, was," etc.' yep, those are words i search out, too. 'was' is a word writers rely on too much. i say that and can pick up just about any book around me and find ten 'was's every page. in dialogue, it's not an issue as much. do 'is' and 'are' ever appear outside dialogue in third person stories? i don't see most writers over-using 'were', it's just not a word that fits into a sentence without special reason in most cases.

wasn't there a writer who wrote an entire novel without the letter 'e'? as a challenge, i was recently doing a first person space farce without using 'I', and that was hard enough. (oddly, it was better for not using it. seeing 'I' too much gets to be a little much for me.)

actually, the imagination, i think that's a good example. you can clearly see how much space you've just freed up and maybe made it a better read to boot.

were it my job to read scripts, i know i'd appreciate the writer taking the time to make the thing as smooth and pleasurable a read as possible. knowing which way is a more effective method of writing, why create such a nonsensical barrier for yourself by writing poorly even in a script? makes me wonder how good of a novelist some of these guys would make.

I meant readers in general (and, specifically, those of research publications), not Hollywood "readers," supposedly perceive what they're reading as being more cogent and have a more favorable opinion of it when "to be" isn't used. Supposedly, using the verb "to be" in any form leads to cognitive distortions.

Or...something like that.

preyer said:

wasn't there a writer who wrote an entire novel without the letter 'e'? as a challenge, i was recently doing a first person space farce without using 'I', and that was hard enough. (oddly, it was better for not using it. seeing 'I' too much gets to be a little much for me.)

Click to expand...

Author of L.A. Confidential James Ellroy turned in his manuscript for LAC's follow up, White Jazz, which ran over the word limit his publisher had given him. Ellroy went back and removed all the verbs. It read faster, leaner and tougher, which fit the characters in the book.

I'm not saying it's a very good idea to use in a screenplay, but it worked wonderfully in the novel.

Boo_Radley said:

Author of L.A. Confidential James Ellroy turned in his manuscript for LAC's follow up, White Jazz, which ran over the word limit his publisher had given him. Ellroy went back and removed all the verbs. It read faster, leaner and tougher, which fit the characters in the book.

Click to expand...

Just asking, no hassle intended, is it possible you mean the adverbs as opposed to the verbs? He slowly opened the door... cautiously went downstairs... warily peeked through the window, etc.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity.

preyer said:

'As a somewhat humorous sidenote, I recently read a research publication article where the author had purposely not used any form of the verb "to be." No "is, are, were, was," etc.' yep, those are words i search out, too. 'was' is a word writers rely on too much. i say that and can pick up just about any book around me and find ten 'was's every page. in dialogue, it's not an issue as much. do 'is' and 'are' ever appear outside dialogue in third person stories? i don't see most writers over-using 'were', it's just not a word that fits into a sentence without special reason in most cases.

wasn't there a writer who wrote an entire novel without the letter 'e'? as a challenge, i was recently doing a first person space farce without using 'I', and that was hard enough. (oddly, it was better for not using it. seeing 'I' too much gets to be a little much for me.)

actually, the imagination, i think that's a good example. you can clearly see how much space you've just freed up and maybe made it a better read to boot.

were it my job to read scripts, i know i'd appreciate the writer taking the time to make the thing as smooth and pleasurable a read as possible. knowing which way is a more effective method of writing, why create such a nonsensical barrier for yourself by writing poorly even in a script? makes me wonder how good of a novelist some of these guys would make.

Click to expand...

Wow. did a search on "Farce" and this was one of the three farce usages I got. I was looking to see if there were any general feelings about "sex farce" as a sort of a genre...but if there is a "first person space farce"
...I'm more hopeful.

Meanwhile: -ing words. Apparently (note the -ly word) as adjectives they are okay (eg. the singing frogs....might be better than the frogs that go on singing)or as okay as adjectives ever are...but the progressive tenses are to be avoided (outside of the dialog of characters we are supposed to dislike...after all in a screenplay no character is more represensible than one that would obviously not have written the screenplay in which he appears...)

So one would not say (even in a wryly?):

Hank
(slyly bathing his injured hand)
That was nasty.

One would definitely not say:

Hank
(sadly pouring water on his injured hand)
That was nasty.

Hank
(sadly as he pours water on his injured hand)
That was nasty.

This isn't even a strictly screenwriting thing. You'll find the same advice in prose writing books as well. David Gerrold even wrote a whole chapter on E Prime in his book: Worlds of Wonders

dpaterso said:

Just asking, no hassle intended, is it possible you mean the adverbs as opposed to the verbs? He slowly opened the door... cautiously went downstairs... warily peeked through the window, etc.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity.

Click to expand...

No verbs. Man what a harsh thing.