Some time ago, on a seminar carried out in English, I took part in an activity where we had to remember as much of a recited text as possible. One part of the text described how a boy accidentally started burning. In a follow-up, I wrote "...was set on fire", to which the lecturer said it sounded clumsy and not naturally. So, I was like, ok? How else do you describe someone who is up in flames? He's set ablaze? Or again, does "up in flames" go only for houses and structures? ...was being devoured by lascivious licks of fiery tongues...I guess?
Is it possible that the issue wasn't the phrasing for setting something on fire, but instead the passive voice construction? (I can't believe I'm the one objecting to passive voice, instead of my usual 'that's not passive voice' assertion.) Do you have the full sentence? If we start with the passive voice The bundle of newspapers was set on fire. it could be changed to the active voice The bundle of newspapers caught fire. The bundle of newspapers went up in flames. The bundle of newspapers was ablaze. The bundle of newspapers was burning.
Oh...right. No, I can't remember the full sentence. The odds are the lecturer had active voice in mind. "cought fire" sounds better. Thanks.
It was something like just his sleeve started burning or something. Not like he was literally burning all over.
The boy accidentally caught fire. (Active - although he should have taken more care. - The subject of the sentence - the boy - did something, although without much intent.) The boy was set on fire by person or persons unkown. (Passive. The subject of the sentence - the boy - had something happen to him) The inconsiderate smoker set the boy on fire....(Active - even if it wasn't intentional! The subject of the sentence - the smoker - did something to the object of the sentence.)
I'm wondering if this is not one of those distant verbs. I'm not sure what they're called. They're very indirect. I see them sometimes and they have an ill effect. (Though this one seems okay to me? I'm just guessing.) I was just reading an abysmal book that did these constantly. My own example: It caused her to scream. She managed to get away. It drew tears from her. Which you'll notice are all active. BUT, it's as if the interesting actions are shifted into other parts of speech--infinitives, noun phrases, etc. When you get a lot of these together, or even read a few per page, they really, truly suck. Does anyone know what these are? I want to say weak verbs. . . not sure. There's a "tellness" to it, but it's something more . . . It has to do with the blandness of the verb (caused, managed, drew). I wonder if "set" is in the same class? If that were the case, you could be more direct with something like: "The boy was burned alive." Which is super-passive, but at least has bite. In fact, I like this type of passive because the most powerful phrase, "burned alive," comes at the end, so it carries. That's the best of all worlds--a passive that breaks up the actives in your paragraph while bringing its own strengths to the table.
One Thursday after class, Winston was boiling some tea and found himself quite immolated by the burner. "Oh bother," he thought to himself.
Thank you for your insight. I know the type of verbs you are talking about. They are rather abstract. "Burned alive", however, pushes the meaning even further. It's ultimate. I was focusing on the act of "starting burning".
Yes, I like this one. Seems now all too obvious, but for some reason it didn't spring to mind immediately. I made up something like, "The boy set himself on fire.", which would mean he pored petrol on himself and lit the match.
Usually the phrase "set ablaze" is applied to structures and other inanimate things. He set the building ablaze. He set her on fire.
