Came across this discussion on writing. Which wording is considered better?

The prince swings a sword. His eyes bulged with the intensity of madness.

The prince swings a sword, his eyes bulging with the intensity of madness.

Is it different for screenwriting?

If you think so, why?

In case anyone is interested, this is the series of posts on writing, very interesting:

https://incompetentwriter.com/style/

Quoted from leitskev Came across this discussion on writing. Which wording is considered better? The prince swings a sword. His eyes bulged with the intensity of madness. The prince swings a sword, his eyes bulging with the intensity of madness. Is it different for screenwriting? If you think so, why?

Neither are correct.

The first one is written is past tense and the second one should lose the "-ing."

his eyes bulge with the intensity of madness.

Even then, it's written in a more literary fashion rather than something that can portrayed on screen.

I think it's a given that his eyes are intense when looking at the context of the action line.

Ok, let's adjust it.

The prince swings a sword. His eyes bulge with the intensity of madness.

So we lost the 'd'.

Let's lose the intensity of madness. I had copied that sample, I don't like it either.

a) The prince swings the sword. His eyes bulge.

b) The prince swings the sword, his eyes bulging.

c) The fireman runs from the burning building. He coughs from the heavy smoke.

d) The fireman runs from the building, coughing from the heavy smoke.

Do you think a and c are better than b and d?

Yes, A and C are better than B and D.

A and C are better because they sound better?

See, "bulging eyes" is not passive writing. In this case, it's called a modifier. The action is conveyed in the swinging of the sword...The prince swings the sword.

What we should want is the most effective writing that can be used.

What happens, and has happened, is that when people try to teach writing, there is a desire to simplify it. So when creative writing teachers teach their class, they instruct to avoid passive writing and adverbs, for example. But these are just rules of thumb meant for beginning writers.

In screenwriting, the desire to simplify was even more extreme, since most screenwriters were interested in making movies, not learning good writing styles.

So when the teacher says, avoid passive writing, the student says what's passive writing. In screenwriting, the teacher doesn't have the patience to explain, so he says, "just don't use ing words".

And then it becomes, over time, a rule.

In my example above where there was A, B, C and D, I think normally anyone would choose B and D as better writing. A and C are very clumsy. It would be tedious to read a script written like that.

Yet Steven preferred A and C. And I suspect that's only because he has been taught that ing words are bad. I mean no offense to you Steven, I hope none is taken.

Johnny, I'm not sure I follow your example, but I think you are attempting colorful hyperbole? A metaphor?

We have to be careful with those, in prose and even more so in screen. I'm not saying you can't use it. The question is whether the metaphor is too strong here. Can sweat in one's eyes be comparable to snake venom?

But "bites first" could be good. I picture two opponents in a dance, waiting for the other to make the move, and the prince bites first.

I think it's worth having the courage to experiment, as you are. In the long run it leads to better writing. And the goal should be better writing: clarity, strong images, and the rhythm and flow of language. These should be used to create the story you want the reader to see.

Quoted Text a) The prince swings the sword. His eyes bulge. b) The prince swings the sword, his eyes bulging. c) The fireman runs from the burning building. He coughs from the heavy smoke. d) The fireman runs from the building, coughing from the heavy smoke.

Do you think a and c are better than b and d?

I'll cast my vote for A and D.

The problem is not with "ing" words per se as in some cases they are perfect. In this case, IMO - coughing is perfectly fine (in fact better) since it conjures up an image of more than just a single cough. It also depicts an ongoing event.

After I had the discussion with myself for years now: Screenwriting is not writing. The picture must be worth the line, not the text. If the picture can't hold stand in simple present writing, simple presentation, then the problem isn't the text at all, it's the picture, ergo the scene - the story.

You cannot trick every line in case of readability when stuff is not strong on display. If stuff is strong on display, write whatever you want; that won't hurt the story massively. Story succeeds.

However, don't get me wrong, I'd agree with Steven. Because I want to think you got a strong story, so…

how often do you want to trick for readability? Makes no sense. If it's strong, it must hold stand the simple way; that's honesty.

Good writing is good writing. There should not be some strange language for screenwriting, some separate definition of good writing. And there isn't. But the attempt to teach good writing style to people who are more focused on movies has resulted in a divergence, where things that would be normally considered poor writing become the rule in screenwriting.

When I say the rule, I mean the amateur rule. Pros don't adhere to this stuff. And directors and producers seem to prefer actual good writing.

It's only amateurs and their teachers that prefer this strange and distinct thing called screenwriting.
'
In prose, writers are taught that passive writing is not as strong as active writing. But passive writing still has its uses.

Screenwriting is really no different: in situations where passive writing works best, it should be used.

A sensible difference is that screen should be written in present tense.

Anyway, I'm not trying to rekindle an old debate. I just happened to be reading the series I linked to on prose, and I thought it was a good example that could be extended to the screenwriting world. Go with works best for the writing.

Once screenwriters get out of the classroom or start getting feedback on their scripts then they will encounter these type of debates and others on style and format for screenwrtiting, and they will continue to rage as long as we write ;-)

The reaason for this is that there are no rules, just current trends, preferences etc... witness the increasing popularity of bold slugs and the reduced use of CAPS for sounds and objects - go back 5 years and you'd see less of the former and more of the latter.

It is widely acknwoledged that active writing is better screenwriting and prose, but it isn't a rule. To many overly passive writing reads badly and readers may therfore struggle with it, reducing the likelihood that you will see your script picked up for production/development.

But if we were to remove any personal flair/style from our scripts then they'd be bland and overly simplified. Finding the middle ground, and I mean your middle ground, is the trick and what will over time become your voice.

To my mind it's that 'voice' that makes for a good screenwriter, as difficult to define as it is.

Personally I prefer B but would use ; rather than , to convey two separate but related clauses in the sentence. Between C and D... I prefer D but technically we have now lost the fact that the buiilding is on fire and is only now smoking.

Of course, that's all just my opinion as another aspiring writer... here's to figuring out more of this stuff next year!

I've recently gotten away from all fancy word play in action lines. I'll still use interesting words instead of basic ones, but I won't use metaphors because you can't show that on screen.

Here is a scene that covers multiple areas of a house.

INT/EXT. HOUSE - NIGHT

Robert scales a wooden fence and creeps through the backyard.

The back door is locked.

He removes the lock picks and quickly gains access.

LIVING ROOM

Pitch black.

He navigates through the furniture, careful not to bump anything.

UPSTAIRS

Wooden stairs. Soft footsteps.

His shoes tap against the wood with an occasional creak.

BEDROOM

Snoring.

I know now everyone likes the simplistic approach, but it works and is to the point.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Once screenwriters get out of the classroom or start getting feedback on their scripts then they will encounter these type of debates and others on style and format for screenwrtiting, and they will continue to rage as long as we write ;-) The reaason for this is that there are no rules, just current trends, preferences etc... witness the increasing popularity of bold slugs and the reduced use of CAPS for sounds and objects - go back 5 years and you'd see less of the former and more of the latter. It is widely acknwoledged that active writing is better screenwriting and prose, but it isn't a rule. To many overly passive writing reads badly and readers may therfore struggle with it, reducing the likelihood that you will see your script picked up for production/development. But if we were to remove any personal flair/style from our scripts then they'd be bland and overly simplified. Finding the middle ground, and I mean your middle ground, is the trick and what will over time become your voice. To my mind it's that 'voice' that makes for a good screenwriter, as difficult to define as it is. Personally I prefer B but would use ; rather than , to convey two separate but related clauses in the sentence. Between C and D... I prefer D but technically we have now lost the fact that the buiilding is on fire and is only now smoking. Of course, that's all just my opinion as another aspiring writer... here's to figuring out more of this stuff next year!

Agree with this 100%

Yea, gotta agree that the style is very dependent on the damn trends. I have recently fallen into the bold scene headings but personally, that just makes the script easier to read.

I've never been a fan of the use of metaphors in action lines, but I do like the talking to the audience through action lines. See Lethal Weapon for a great example.

Tarantino is another favorite regarding action lines, but the use of direction throws everything off, but he shoots his own stuff so it makes sense that he only writes shooting scripts (I may be wrong on ONLY writing shooting scripts).

I've been reading Alex Garland's Ex Machina and Rian Johnson's Looper, too bad the movies aren't as good as the screenplays, but whatever.

I'd like to read more screenwriters that fit into the simplistic style.