Hi everyone! I'm currently working on the fifth draft of a short story I've written. I took a few years off writing for personal reasons and I'm happy to be back at it and taking it more seriously. I'm also happy to have found this forum. I'm looking for advice on certain grammar/structuring. I'll post a sentence from my story to illustrate my issue; Original write - A thin frost crept in that night and dusted the vermilion and gold leaves that lined the gutters of Grossman street. Edited write - A thin frost crept in that night dusting the vermilion and gold leaves that lined the gutters of Grossman street. Both appear to be grammatically correct to me. In the edit, I removed the first 'and' to eliminate using it twice in the sentence as it's more necessary in the second use. In doing so I had to change the tense of 'dusted' -past - to 'dusting' - present -. Looking back over my work I've noticed myself doing this to sentences to try and create better flow. Another example; Original write - He stepped back and stood there smiling a moment and enjoyed the sight of his naked wife as much as her comic flailing. Edited write - He stepped back and stood there smiling a moment, enjoying the sight of his naked wife as much as her comic flailing. I drop the second 'and' to avoid a clunky sentence, opting instead for a comma and changing the tense. Are both of these sentences grammatically correct and useable even though I've changed the tense of those words? Thank you all for your feedback.
Yes, there is no change in meaning (pragmatics) with the change of wording (syntax). They are the same. In this syntax, the present progressive form of dusting and enjoying is temporalized within the past tense of the prior verb. A thin frost crept in (A) that night dusting (B) the vermilion and gold leaves that lined the gutters of Grossman street. B was concurrently true during (continuous) the past act of A.
Ah, thank you! So because I used a past tense before it whatever comes after is implied to be in the past?
Implied is a sticky word. It's not really implied. From a linguistics POV, the syntax is a clear formula for the pragmatic understanding of events. This is one of those things that tends to plague writers as they get a little too close to the words and start trying to manually handle the function of subatomic particles. We're not very good at it manually. I personally think it makes more sense to think of -ing verbs as continuous, rather than present perfect because - like in the examples you give - there are plenty of times when that continuity of action is attached to a timeline that's not literally present tense.
That makes sense to me. Thank you for that info! I have one more example, just to be sure I'm on the right track. Original - A tear ran down her cheek and fell from her chin. Edited - A tear ran down her cheek, falling from her chin. Like my previous example, are both of these sentences correct? Would one be preferential over the other? I thought the edited sentence sounded a little smoother, but in reality, they're one word apart. If both are grammatically correct is it simply up to me as the writer to go with the one I prefer the sound and look of? Sorry for all the basic questions. It's been a while.
This exact question is in a neighboring thread. Well, their -ing phrase comes at the front, but it's the same issue. You'll find paragraphs explaining it there. What's the subtle difference? Basically, the first line stresses movement (the action) and the second stresses the actor (the subject, tear). The first happens sequentially and the second happens simultaneously. Because a tear can't run down a cheek and simultaneously fall from her chin, the second line has issues. Aside from the change in focus and how time is perceived, there's also a change in pace and rhythm that allows tension. You're very right about your choices being more than what's grammatical, and most revisions aren't about grammar at all. There isn't one perfect sentence that fills every space. You always have stylistic choices that carry emphasis in different ways, but in this example, avoid the second line. Well, unless it is allowed to be simultaneous: A tear ran down her cheek, trailing rouge like blood.
I was going to weigh in, but @Wreybies and @Seven Crowns covered more than I was going to say, so instead, welcome to the forum, L.A.! Please do stick around. It's loads of helpful fun, a good little community of lunatics writers.
This was incredibly helpful! Thank you so much. Looks like I'll be working on draft 6 tonight to fix these things. Thank you for the welcome! I can tell already from posting here and looking around that it's a great place and will really help me along with my writing.
