A question about "gerunds"

[Urizen]

I have been looking all over for more information about how and why "gerunds" (words with 'ing' endings) are potentially detrimental to a poem. I checked "Blurbs" but didn't find anything. Question one: are gerunds a bad choice only at the end of a line, or internally as well? Are gerunds a bad idea only if too many are used in a poem, regardless of their position?
I will admit that I am at a loss. I decided to look at a few books of both classical and modern poets (up to 1998's Best_American_Poetry), and found gerunds running amok, as line endings and internally (not taking into account gerunds used as rhymes or very common words like 'morning').
How do gerunds detract from the sound or tone of a poem? Or is it primarily a grammatical issue?

This isn't a gripe at all. I am only interested in gaining a better understanding on the subject of gerunds. So, since this is the place for suggestions, perhaps we can have a Blurb about them? If not, an answer here would be most appreciated! http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

Thanks for listening.

[This message has been edited by Urizen (edited 08-20-2001).]

[Scavella]

Hey. Maybe this would be more appropriate in Voyage - if it disappears, it's probably been moved there.

Regarding gerunds (those pesky 'ings'). I think, as with abstractions and a whole lot of other no-nos, the problem isn't the gerunds themselves but a lack of skill in using them. There's a difference between

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead ground, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

and the general run-of-the-mill employment of gerunds. A close look at how Eliot put his gerunds to work might answer your question more fully than I ever could.

How about looking at it another way? "Ing" words are parts of verbs. They don't become verbs till they're activated by an auxiliary, which means that they are rather helpless, emasculated things on their own. On their own, just like the past participles ("ed" words), they function like adjectives, modifying whatever they are close to. And too much modification (unless it's in the hands of an expert) is not generally a boon to a poem. What's more, an adjective that was once a verb is a particularly pathetic modifier, verbs being vital, muscular things.

That's why beginning poets are generally advised to avoid gerunds. They are modifiers, and weaker-than-the-average modifiers at that; however, because they came from verbs, some people mistakenly believe that they are verbs. The result is generally muddle.

Scavella

[This message has been edited by Scavella1 (edited 08-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Scavella1 (edited 08-20-2001).]

[Howard Miller]

Actually, gerunds function as nouns; it's the participle which functions as an adjective, and the examples from Eliot are all participles. However, exactly the same point applies: a gerund is a nominalized verb which serves to abstract the core concept from the verb ("Running is good exercise"), thereby reducing what is an active process to a passive thing, almost always an abstract thing.

Participles do exactly the same thing to verbs, with the additional problem that, as adjectives derived from verbs, they describe actions which are taking place ("running") or have already taken place ("ran") and can modify only one kind of noun--the noun which identifies the performer of the action described: "Running ahead of the pack, he won the race." To omit the identifying noun, or to misplace the participle, creates the well-known "dangling participle": "Running downstairs, my shoelaces came untied," a sentence which means that your shoelaces have taken themselves out of your shoes and by themselves are running down the stairs, coming untied as they go.

When posters are warned against the gerund, what is being referred to is equally often the participle. Both serve to remove the action from the verb and, if not used carefully, create a passivity that works contrary to the effect a good poem should achive.

Howard, dangling

[Dunc]

Cripes! Talk about synchronicity! I've just been fatting on about this in another part of the village.

Gerunds are 'verbal nouns'. You can pick 'em by their -ing endings plus their noun qualities, like having a 'the / a' in front of them, or a 'my / his / her / its' eg 'The rising of the sun, the running of the deer' or 'my leaning is for the Urquhart translation'. Nonetheless, our position with gerunds in English isn't really comfortable / unambiguous eg which is 'correct' - 'I saw him cheating' or 'I saw his cheating'?

Which brings us directly to present participles, which also end in -ing. First, they're the basis of the continuous verb form in English - I am / will be / could be / was / [&c] running. (But Howard has said the rest already.)

As I was saying [participle] in my earlier posting [gerund], if you're worrying [participle] about too many '-ing'ings [gerund and neologism], then trust your poetic ear rather than any rule that anyone wants to sell you. Regards / Dunc

[Howard Miller]

Maybe what's needed in a grammar forum, and possibly a companion syntactical forum, with resident grammarians and syntacticians on 24-hour call.

Bela?

(Standing by in case the Heimlich is needed. Again.)

Howard



[This message has been edited by Howard Miller (edited 08-20-2001).]

[Urizen]

Thanks, guys, for answering.
Dunc, I read your post about gerunds in the other forum after I posted this here, and I want to say I appreciate what you said immensely. I only became curious about this after I had been called on a couple gerunds in a poem of mine, and since it was from JB naturally I took it very seriously. The man obviously knows what he's talking about.
I think I've been enlightened somewhat, but to be painfully honest, I think I am still going to have to rely on the old ear.

Howard, I would be a very frequent visitor to your proposed forum on grammar. I think it's a great idea. I suppose you were only joking, but those of us who are grammatically-challenged could really use something like that. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

[FireFlower]

Thank you for this, I have a bit of a problem myself getting around the 'ing' sound in my poems. This helps a lot to understand more about why they should be avoided. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif I have been improving in it but I still stumble about a bit at times in finding alternate wordings.

Liz

[Bela]

Originally posted by Howard Miller:
Maybe what's needed in a grammar forum, and possibly a companion syntactical forum, with resident grammarians and syntacticians on 24-hour call.

Bela?

** Urp! *thud*

(Standing by in case the Heimlich is needed. Again.)

** Thanks. - Bela

[This message has been edited by Bela (edited 08-21-2001).]

[d i harrison]

Getting past all of the 'gerund' or 'participle' stuff (which I must admit I found absolutely fascinating - there is so much sheer knowledge on this site it can take me hours to get off it).

I have found it helpful to remember that adding '-ing' to a word does one of three things (that doesn't count as 'th' is not a word):
1. Acts as a type of noun - i.e. running is good exercise.
2. Acts as a type of adjective - i.e. the running man ...
3. Acts as a verb (in a continuous form) - i.e. ... is getting good exercise.

You need to know what you're using but there's no real reason why any of the forms can't be used.

regards,
dih.

[Kemmer]

Um... this isn't really about verbs or modifying clauses.

It's about the passive voice. The passive voice is a wonderful thing, but it slooows down the narrative. Sometimes you want to do it, but most of the time you don't.

There's nothing inherently wrong with gerunds, participles, whatever, but they should be used intentionally. Most of the complaints come when they slow the narrative for no good reason.

Kemmer