This is something I see in my LBLs quite often, and so it's something that I soften my writing with on a fairly regular basis, it seems. I'm not sure exactly what the grammatical terminology of the phrasing is, so I'll give an example:
"On the street, a woman was screaming."
Is often corrected to:
"On the street, a woman screamed."
I understand the goal is to make the prose more powerful. Does this change accomplish that? If it does, why?
My bet is that there is a passive-voice answer. In that case, what is the operating definition of passive voice that you are using for your answer?
I seriously thought I was going to get Rick rolled for opening this.
Edit: they're both past tense, I think the bottom just has more punch...it sort of rolls along where as the other seems bulky.
If you want it powerful I would say...
"A banshee scream shattered the peace of the street." or something like that...ya know, just not as dumb.
Passive voice vs active voice is what you're talking about.
I'm bad about it.
In the active voice, the subject and verb relationship is straightforward. In the passive voice, the subject of the sentence is neither a do-er or a be-er, but is acted upon by some other agent or by something unnamed.
Passive voice wants to avoid taking responsibility for actions taken.
The active voice is usually more direct than the passive.
In any case, I would say:
A woman screamed in the street.
But, with those two choices, I think it depends on what you want to highlight.
Both of them make the street very important and give the woman and the screaming a secondary importance. It makes me think that the narrator is inside (not outside on the street with the woman).
I like the action of 'screaming', but the verb 'was' really takes the power away from the woman. It makes us focus more on screaming. She is a screaming woman.
The second has screamed, which means that it happens once. You scream for your child to come home. Screaming implies that it keeps going on, like a siren, and doesn't end.
So, if I had more context, I would try to take the word 'screaming' and put it into an active sentence.
In the street, a woman curled up in the fetal position, screaming for her child.
In a passive sentence, the object of the action will be in the subject position at the front of the sentence.
In the examples you've shown, the verb "scream" is intransitive. Intransitive verbs cannot be changed into passive voice. There is no object to move to the front of the sentence. In my opinion, both examples are fine because they each add their own clarity.
"On the street, a woman was screaming." - I read this as a woman screaming over and over again.
"On the street, a woman screamed." - I read this as a woman screamed once from the street.
I've received no formal education in writing, but I'd love to hear Mark Vanderpool's opinion on this topic. I'm sure you could IM him, if he's not too busy.
Howie has it nailed. I couldnt say it better. He has my vote.
'a woman screamed in the street.'
There is the question of POV focus. That can change things
Actually if you want to make it more urgent let it rush through to the end and use the first version but take out the comma.
All of the above?
I don't think any of them are wrong, depending on the rest of the work's cadence and rhythm, your intent.
What do you want the reader to hear?
The first one is a lullaby with the comma:
On the street, a woman was screaming. You are taking things slow. Curiosity. Fear. Doubt. Uncertainty.
The comma somniferizes the sentence, tranquilizes it. Maybe the speaker just did a shot of heroin and even though a murder is going down in the street, he or she is in the clouds. He or she doesn't even realize their spouse is in trouble.
But lose the comma, as Nikki suggested, and
On the street a woman was screaming.
Et puis... voilà! Urgency. Amphetamized. More direct. More certain.
Bryan's suggestion is a crisp version of that. Matter of fact. Direct. But no one is doing heroin or meth. Or maybe they are.
A woman screamed in the street.
Fritz brought up one of the most important points of all. POV. Whose mindmouth is this coming out of? And what is their state of mind? Heroin, Meth, jumblies?
How urgent, with what precedes and follows, is this information? Tone?
You mentioned powerful prose. I think what you might mean is crisp prose. Because, at least in my opinion, some of the most powerful prose is very delicate. Poetry can be extremely powerful. A feather toppling a regime.
Context? That is the problem with snippets.
Anyway I am just writing this to procrastinate. Good luck with that Utah.
Chesters right. Put simply - everythings right and everythings wrong. What matters is the beholder like ur song. (tm). Know what you want to say and say it the right way.
Good advice and use of somniferizes.
@ Matt you should see this. I think it might help.
The term you're looking for is Past Progressive/Past Continuous (example 1) vs Simple Past (example 2).
Yay for bots!
That one has a picture. They are evolving.
If you're not careful, they'll evolve their way right on to your friends list. Right, Avery?
Honest, this is the second time I've accepted a friend request from a bot. That I am aware of.
The lesson is, if I accept your request, it doesn't mean I like you, know you, or are even aware of you.
The bots have pictures. Skynet is online.
As MattF points out, the issue at hand is what sort of past tense you're using.
I agree with much of what others have said here but I'd like to add that I think both sentences are weak. As Howie pointed out, they both start with the street which isn't as important as the woman.
"A woman standing in the street screamed."
"A collapsed ball of a woman in the middle of the street wailed, screaming for her baby."
"A screaming woman fell to her knees in the street."
Okay, kind of crappy examples that are probably way off from your context, but I think they get the point across.
"On the street, a woman was screaming" doesn't give us any visual flair. It's stated as a fact and so the mind will treat it as abstract. When an action is occurring state of being verbs distance the reader from the action making the prose less (I hate this word) engaging. Sometimes the situation warrants it, like if you want it stated matter-of-factly or if the incident is really minor. But if it's important or you want to draw attention to it, this structure doesn't do the screaming woman in the street much justice. If she's important then start your sentence with her, not the street. And give her some description.
Personally, I try and avoid using state of being verbs for up-close action-oriented sentences. I save them for sentences that state abstract ideas (usually passive voice) or ones that are just summarizing action (as opposed to bringing the reader up close and personal). I don't want to say this is right because it's a matter of style rather than correct/incorrect grammar, but it's a recommendation I do make in LBLs.
They mean two different things. I agree with what the person with the username that's annoying to refer to (since it's a period) said above. But as far as other sentences of its kind, take out the "was" if possible. Remove extraneous words. It reads much better that way.
Even though this thread is now about robot lovers, this was too good of an example to pass up. So without further doo (and with a nod, a wink, and a jig) to Howie, which of these sounds more immediate:
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed
Or
The man in black was fleeing across the desert, and the gunslinger was following.
You could say: the man in black fled across the desert, the gunslinger following. That's how I would write it. Removes extraneous words.
I'd write it: The gunslinger chased the man in black across the desert, like a goddamn idiot.
Actually, that would have tied it all together a little better.
And that still makes me laugh.
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed
This gives importance to both 'man' and 'gunslinger', and to both of their actions. And while it implies a causal relationship between the 'fled' and the 'folow' it is not explicit.
The man in black was fleeing across the desert, and the gunslinger was following.
Now a lot of people would say that this line is less immediate (but since both sentences are in the past-tense, neither are immediate) but what is actually happening is you're keeping the verbs going with the participles. 'Fled' began in the past, and ended in the past. 'Was Fleeing' began in the past, and continued. What this does is create space for temporal effect; it allows you to say "the man in black was fleeing accross the desert" while something else was going on that I'm going to tell you about now. It could also be used to give a sense of timelessness, these two guys were going accross the desert for who knows how long, and that's when we catch up with them to tell this story. But again, as with above, the relationships are the same.
The gunslinger chased the man in black across the desert, like a goddamn idiot.
This makes 'the man' unimportant. This is a line about the gunslinger and not a line about the man. Which is fine, if the gunslinger is the focus of the story then he probably should get top billing. But if the man is important (even if only a little bit) this line really relegates him to the outskirts. He is not an actor in this line, but an object, the passive: man was chased.
I think it's the "like a goddamn idiot" that's important. Ask Matt.
Knowing the whole story, I agree with "like a goddamned idiot". The gunslinger just doesn't get it.
Passive voice is wishy-washy and informative. It allows the writer to throw around responsibility.
Active voice is more direct, firm, and personal. Responsibility has to be given.
Example Passive: The ball was rolled.
Example Active: Jim rolled the ball.
