This has been coming up a little bit recently, so I thought I'd create a thread to address the -ing suffix used on a myriad of English words and how this relates to the spec screenwriting format. The -ing suffix is used to change the usage of a variety of words and there is not rhyme or reason to what it changes what from and what to.

When we write action in a screenplay, we use an active voice, which means active verbs. This does NOT automatically translate to removing every word that contains the -ing suffix.

For instance, screenwrite is a verb. Screenwriting is usually an adjective (screenwriting class).

Surround is a verb. Surrounding is either a progressive verb (as in a group surrounding an area) or a noun (He surveys his surroundings).

Here's an example.

"Bob looks around the room. A sound permeates the darkness. A ringing phone. Moving through the darkness, he trips over a large teddy bear, its stuffing pouring out of deep wounds in its fabric. Bob cries over the wouded teddy bear, his tears drenching the bear's body."

I made this up as I went along, and while it's kind of silly, it's not passive. A run down of every "ing" in it are as follows:

"ringing" - a description of the state of the phone; it's not a verb in this usage.
"Moving" - the active verb of a dependant phrase, I believe it is a gerund phrase.
"stuffing" - this is a noun indicating what is coming out of the bear
"pouring" - a gerund verb of a dependant clause describing what the noun "stuffing" is doing. Arguably, this one could be worded "its stuffing pours our of deep wounds...", but its current usage is not passive either since it is part of a dependant clause.
"drenching" - also the gerund verb of a dependant clause

So what is passive? How can we figure out which -ings are passive usage? Well, the -ings to avoid are the ones that are linked to the "to be" helping verbs.

NOT: Bob is swimming with the fishes.
DO: Bob swims with the fishes.

NOT: Bob is walking across the room.
DO: Bob walks across the room. OR BETTER: Bob saunters across the room.

Believe it or not, passive phrases do not always use -ing words. Wiki gives a good definition of active and passive as this: When the subject is the agent or actor of the verb, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, it is said to be in the passive voice.

PASSIVE: The mouse was eaten by the cat.
ACTIVE: The cat eats the mouse.

PASSIVE: The door is opened.
ACTIVE: Bob opens the door.

PASSIVE: The cake is stolen.
ACTIVE: Bob eats the cake.

There is no blanket rule for this sort of thing, and just removing all the -ings out of a script will yield something just as unreadable.

Sorry, I am definitely open to questions about this topic, since I know it can be confusing. I aced English all the way through 12th grade, so have no problem dissecting a sentence. If I can simplify this somehow, I certainly will. Perhaps, the best solution is to cut the explanation about what other -ing words are and address only those troublemakers.

We have established that not all -ing words are bad. And really, the issue beyond the passive voice is the progressive tense. The progressive tense uses a form of "to be" along with an -ing verb to indicate that an action is currently happening. In a screenplay, we know this.

To simplify this, here is a present progressive sentence. "He is walking to school." Is walking is the present progressive verb. In a screenplay, we can see he is walking and need to be more active and happening now. Therefore, he say "He walks to school."

Better?

Quoted from tomson 5th grade is about where my grammar stops

Lucky you  

Here's an article about the subject, brought up by Martin long ago. Enjoy.

http://www.mythmakerjohn.com/article_1.htm

I was going to post this on the Farm thread, but it's more appropriate here, since it was J.D.'s Farm comments as well as on his own script thread that sparked this thread.

J.D., what is your source for the anti-"ing" mantra? I've never heard of it before. I know all about not using a passive voice, which is obvious, but outlawing every word ending in -ing seems a rather illogical way to write since English is overwrought with words ending in -ing that do not create a passive voice.

Quoted from George Willson I was going to post this on the Farm thread, but it's more appropriate here, since it was J.D.'s Farm comments as well as on his own script thread that sparked this thread. J.D., what is your source for the anti-"ing" mantra? I've never heard of it before. I know all about not using a passive voice, which is obvious, but outlawing every word ending in -ing seems a rather illogical way to write since English is overwrought with words ending in -ing that do not create a passive voice.

This is a good thread for everyone!

I can agree I might have taken this the wrong way. But if I hadnt, people would still  have these problems and not know it. At least i set a path of concern.
So let me explain where it came from.


Some months ago, I came in contact with a REAL Screen writing Professional " Kevin MaHoney"

Worked CBS, paramount, and disney. He has sold scripts and a few made.
Anywho. He gave me alot of feedback and one of those was To manke sentences into Active form.

Now being my english sucks. I might have taken it alil to far by not having ANY INGs, but I've only been called out on with sentence ( by you george) where the INGS needed to be to make the grammar correct.

So I've been passing on the info and I do ALSO state, from all INGS WHERE IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD GRAMMAR (my disclaimer) so its up to them to follow this thread on which sentence to have the ing and not.

Mike was right to correct me on the Surrounding. But me I would just change the word that doesnt have the iNg to mean the same. Surrounding/ Enviroment. And "Looking around to survey the area" to "Looks around"


Reading my descriptions in Unholy cry, you will RARELY find any ING word and its good grammar. I form the sentence where the active fits without the use of ING word. ( I hope) lol

Also that article posted by Mr. Z is good. but after reading it. I do have some corrections I need to make to mine.

So all in all. FIRST VERB needs to be ACTIVE. ADVERB can have ING example.

"Jack strolls down the street whistling ‘Zippity Doo Dah.’  strolls is the verb, whistling is adverb

Thought I might resurrect this thread.

I've been trying to strengthen my writing lately by cutting down on ING verbs. There are several instances where this works out fine however I have come across several instances where removing an ING verb involves breaking a sentence in two. Sometimes this works out fine. Others, not so much. George's example would actually be a good example of when this doesn't work.

with ING:

"Moving through the darkness, he trips over a large teddy bear, its stuffing pouring out of deep wounds in its fabric. Bob cries over the wouded teddy bear, his tears drenching the bear's body."

without ING:

"...he trips over a large teddy bear. Its stuffing pours out of deep wounds in its fabric. Bob cries over the wounded teddy bear. His tears drench the bear's body."

In this case, you wind up having double the amount of sentences you would if you included ING verbs. This makes for a lot of bulk. Something that's also frowned upon. If this be the case, is it better to just leave the INGs be or is bulk the greater issue? In this situation, both paragraphs are grammatically correct.

Then there's instances like this one in which it just sounds wrong not to include ING. Pardon the example. It's late and I'm not exactly feeling creative at the moment. Just trying to get this straight before I'm off to bed.

with ING:

"A box, containing an object, sits on the table."

without ING:

"A box, which contains an object, sits on the table" or "A box sits on the table. It contains an object."

What to do?

Personally, I'm a new supporter of avoiding ING as often as possible. For the most part, it just sounds better. In fact, I would have George's paragraph reworded were I using it in one of my own scripts. So I'm basically asking for the advice of JD_OK or others who stick to the same system.

No matter what the system, there's always situations where it downright has to be broken. Here, I'm bringing up situations other than grammar, which, obviously, can't be the only exception to this rule. I'm kind of new to this and trying to the exceptions to the rule. Feedback would be much appreciated.

I understand there are other ways to word the example I gave, and the point was not to create an ideal wording, but to illustrate a way to write an active description using as many "ing" words as possible. I used them on purpose. It can be altered to whittle out the "ing" words, but remember that when you read something, you want it to sound as natural as possible. The more natural it reads, the easier it is to read.

In the end, what you use will be what works best for you. Any descriptive paragraph should be as concise as possible to keep the action within it exciting. Whether this uses the dreaded "ing" or not is beside the point. The point is to keep the action active using whatever means possible.

A more creative way to avoid passive sentences as opposed to creating a stigma against "ing" would be to not use the verb "to be" at all. This means keep words such as am, is, are, was, were, etc out of the script entirely. It is the use of this verb as a linking verb that creates the passive voice.

As a final observation, there have been a lot of deletions in this thread, haven't there? Interesting.

Quoted from George Willson In the end, what you use will be what works best for you. Any descriptive paragraph should be as concise as possible to keep the action within it exciting. Whether this uses the dreaded "ing" or not is beside the point. The point is to keep the action active using whatever means possible.

Hmm. I do suppose this the best advice. Better to use one's judgment than to be a stickler for stickler's sake. With that said, I find bulk to be a greater issue than verbs in a passive voice. You hear more people complaining about the former than the latter. Nevertheless, I find omitting ING verbs often makes for stronger reading but not at the expense of your writing sounding natural.

I guess we all get carried away with rules every once and a while.

Thanks George.

You have remember that a spec script is supposed to be an easy an enjoyable read.  Your descriptions have to flow.  If this means bending the rules, then bend the rules.


Phil

Quoted from James McClung "A box, containing an object, sits on the table." without ING: "A box, which contains an object, sits on the table" or "A box sits on the table. It contains an object." What to do?

read word that sentence.

A box sits on the table containing an object.
An object sits in a box on the table.

You have to really think on the sentences and re- structure it. Does it not say that same?

And I wouldnt sugget bending the rules. Bending the rules gives the reader (PA/comp reader) an excuse to toss yours in the trash. But if you most do it much later in the story, hopefully by then like the story.

Actually, until you look in the box, it doesn't contain anything.

A box sits on the table.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe Actually, until you look in the box, it doesn't contain anything. A box sits on the table. Phil

not necessarily. It can be some weird thing and we can see it outside of a box....alot of varibles here tho. a small box.... middle box with large object inside...so you could go alot of ways here. So lets not go too  that deep in the sentence  

The varibles was to form his sentence into smaller. Making his points in a shorter sentence.

Quoted from JD_OK The varibles was to form his sentence into smaller. Making his points in a shorter sentence.

The script doctor that I used told me that smaller sentences aren't necessarily the way to go.  You have that mental beat in your head, between sentences, that slows you down.

A box sits on the table.  It contains an object.

A box sits on the table, containing an object.

The second sentence, IMHO, flows a little smoother.

Either way, I'm not even sure if the second sentence is even passive.  Visit http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_actpass.html to learn more.

The word containing is a progressive verb.



Phil

Somehow, I don't think the point of omitting ING is so much to avoid passive writing as it is to make your writing less passive.

"A box sits on the table, containing an object."

...is basically the same thing as saying...

"A box is containing an object."

The word containing isn't passive, exactly, but it's much stronger to say...

"A box contains an object."

Here, you're not changing from passive to active, merely making your sentence more active. The result just sounds better.

Nevertheless, I feel a producer is more likely to throw out a script because of bulk rather than active writing that is less active than it could be. In such cases, I think it's better to bend the rules. A relatively passive voice is the lesser of two evils.

Just for fun, I've come up with another exception in which it's better to use ING than not.

"A man sits in a chair reading."

...reads much stronger as...

"A man sits in a chair and reads."

On the other hand...

"A man stands in front of a machine pushing buttons."

...reads less strong as...

"A man stands in front of a machine and pushes buttons."

The first man can read if he's not sitting in a chair but the second man can't push the machine's buttons if he's not standing in front of it. The subjects in the second example just work better with ING. It actually ends up sounding stronger.

Food for thought.

I'm trying to find a balance here. For the most part, I've found this new system to do wonders for my writing but from time to time, I find myself pulling my hair out. With that said, I'm trying to find another system for making exceptions to the latter.

James

You are gettin yourself mixed up.

The VERB needs to be active, not the adverb
"A man sits in a chair reading." This is active. sits is your verb. Reading is your adverb

Removing ING from verbs only.. not adverbs. Noun INGS are okay