VS. Often in writing, I use the past tense with present participles. It seems a tiny bit closer to the action i.e. the direct feelings of the character, and also relieves the unvarying past tense. Either or both acceptable? Cheers
I prefer the first version in this instance, but both are acceptable. Your first example (probably) means that the actions happened one after the other. The second version means that the shaking and cursing happened while he read.
I also prefer the first version, maybe without the comma in "God, he was cold." The omittion of the comma might give a good snap to the sentence.
He's shivering and shaking all the time - borderline hypothermia. Been on a stakeout in falling sleet for hours! The action is clearly in the past, but relating ongoing action in the past. That's the only differentiation I can make. Cheers
I think the repeated -ing words don't mesh well given the context. It could work but compared to the first version it sounds a tad off. I think because the first allows each action to have its moment - shook and cursed. Where as shaking and cursing kinda blur together. Or maybe it's just me. I read a lot into each specific word - perhaps too much.
Fascinating, for me, because I 'hands down' like the second choice WAY more. I'm just gramatically ignorant that way, I guess.
Exactly what I was going to recommend. I like the second one because the sentences flow better but I like the first one better because you don't have multiple actions in the present tense. That fix is the best of both. Well, I would do "Shaking, he inwardly cursed as he read the..." but the order doesn't matter much.
I like the first one better than the second, but to me it communicates three events in a sequence--first he shook, then he cursed inwardly, then he read. And that's iffy, because he's presumably shaking all the while. So I agree with:
