: "...and the fire from the stove engulfed him" or "jumped on him" or "covered him" or "devoured him" or what? Which verb should I use here? He opened the stove and the fire from the stove

Vote Up Vote Down

Flames are commonly said to leap out in this context. You don't need a word to specify exactly how the flames actually interacted with the person because your narrative continues with him saying (in no uncertain terms) that he has also been set ablaze.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

How big is this stove?

I'm not asking idly. "Engulfed" means (as noted by others) "completely surrounded." If a fire engulfs someone, he is surrounded, head to foot, in flames. How can he be yelling that he's on fire if he's burning everywhere? And how can he be swallowed by fire if it's just a cooking fire from something burning in an oven? (I assume "oven," as you don't open a stove. A stove is a rangetop of freestanding burners.)

Maybe your problem is that it's not that he is on fire. It's one or a few body parts which are burning.

so howzabout this:

He opened the oven to check on the [food/dish]. Flames roared out, catching him full in the face. He shrieked and batted at his burning hair and skin with the oven mitts. Hot grease ran down the gloves to his thin sleeves, where it started to smoke. "Help! I'm on fire!" he shouted.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

It depends on what you want to say/imply.

"Engulfed" implies the fire completely surrounded him.

"Jumped on" is an odd one, because it implies that it only affected a particular part of his body. It doesn't sound severe, either.

"Covered" is similar to engulfed, but isn't as strong.

"Devoured" also has a similar connotation to engulfed, but is probably stronger, and it also implies that he was "eaten" by the flames (which raises questions as to how he is still able to shout for help).

Therefore, I'd use "engulfed".

(0)