Are long and detailed battles a rare or unusual thing in a story?

[Vilkas The Mighty Wolf]

As a writer, the thing I think I succeed in the most is writing battles, attacks, counter-attacks and such.

So if I make some really detailed battles (one on one fights), will it be harmful to my story or will it add to it?

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

In general, it will probably harm the story.

To start with an example: Compare the Luke/Vader lightsaber duel in The Empire Strikes Back versus the final Anakin/Obi-Wan duel in Revenge of the Sith. In Empire, they swing their sabers a few times but mostly it's about them communicating with each other. Vader's toying with Luke, trying to make him give in to his rage and join the Dark Side. The bursts of actual fighting are short and intense and surprising. The whole thing lasts about five minutes.

In Revenge, once the fight begins, A and O are just trying to murder each other, and the damn thing goes on for twenty minutes. It just becomes wearying and uninteresting–I mean, it's kinda cool to see all the gymnastics and effects (or it would be, if we hadn't seen exactly that 30 other times already during the movie), but as story goes, it's basically a long, uninteresting scene.

Long, detailed battle scenes are only interesting if the story is advanced or we learn something about the characters–and not how good they are with a sword, but something about their character. Some people dig long scenes of tactical combat–you find this a lot in military SF–but it's got to be really, really well-done. If you're not David Weber, beware doing this as a substitute for actual character and plot development.

 

[Devor]

Long, detailed battle scenes are only interesting if the story is advanced or we learn something about the characters—and not how good they are with a sword, but something about their character.

Almost exactly this. The question should be, how can I use a fight scene to advance the story. Advancing the story doesn't have to mean battling temptations and learning that your villain is your father. It can be about getting inside the character's head, seeing more about who they are, feeling their pain or their excitement with them - making the whole thing more real. A good fight scene can do that. But you can also get bogged down with choreography that is little more than a boring effort at special effects.

Making action compelling in and of itself is about momentum and timing in your language, so that the reader will feel the action as it happens. In all my reading to date, I have yet to see what I would consider an excellent fight scene, one that effectively intertwines both action and character. Maybe my standards are too high, but I think it's more likely that most successful authors know it's safer to blur the action and favor the characters.

 

[Penpilot]

Can't say it much better than Benjamin did. Echoing a bit, fights are about the internal battle not the external one. The external stuff is just a shell. It's what's inside that matters.

 

[morfiction]

I noticed a lot of fantasy stories I've read have had a war in it somewhere. Is there ever not a war going on?

 

[ThinkerX]

Old line rule of thumb - which, long ago was called the 'three second rule' - because that was about as long as a typcial, serious fight to death or maiming actually lasted. (at least on an individual basis - battles between large groups could go on a bit, but a lot of that would be seeking momentary tactical advantage)

 

[Mindfire]

Almost exactly this. The question should be, how can I use a fight scene to advance the story. Advancing the story doesn't have to mean battling temptations and learning that your villain is your father. It can be about getting inside the character's head, seeing more about who they are, feeling their pain or their excitement with them - making the whole thing more real. A good fight scene can do that. But you can also get bogged down with choreography that is little more than a boring effort at special effects.

Making action compelling in and of itself is about momentum and timing in your language, so that the reader will feel the action as it happens. In all my reading to date, I have yet to see what I would consider an excellent fight scene, one that effectively intertwines both action and character. Maybe my standards are too high, but I think it's more likely that most successful authors know it's safer to blur the action and favor the characters.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Surely fantasy wouldn't be the same if they didn't have battles and magic and swordplay, etc.? Lord of the Rings wouldn't be the same without Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields. Narnia wouldn't be the same without the climax at the Battle of Beruna. What would Avatar be without the spectacle of the bending fights, or the other Avatar without the dragons and jungle fighting?

 

[Devor]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Surely fantasy wouldn't be the same if they didn't have battles and magic and swordplay, etc.? Lord of the Rings wouldn't be the same without Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields. Narnia wouldn't be the same without the climax at the Battle of Beruna. What would Avatar be without the spectacle of the bending fights, or the other Avatar without the dragons and jungle fighting?

I didn't think I said anything that would discount any of those scenes. I love fight scenes, and I want stories to do them better.

 

[Mindfire]

I didn't think I said anything that would discount any of those scenes. I love fight scenes, and I want stories to do them better.

I didn't mean to suggest that you said they were poor. What I mean is that it seems you are saying that it is better to do without them, good or not.

 

[Hans]

To say something different, there are whole genres that live from various fighting scenes. Hong Kong action, or action in general for example. Action movies sometimes replace character development with body count and are successful with that.

Now, you are a writer, not a movie maker. Maybe you want to write a screen-play then you can take the movie approach. A Novel needs something different to keep the reader reading. A short story might suffice with that.
That means in a novel you need more than just the action tool. That does by no means mean you can't use the action tool. You say you are good with that, so try it. Mix it in with the other writers tools you have and find out how much you can use this without becoming too one sided.

 

[The Din]

Don't listen to these squares, battles are awesome (no offense intended btw). There's nothing wrong with a good fight scene, be it one on one or something more epic. Course it has to be handled right, but doesn't everything in writing? Sure it should further the story, but shouldn't every scene?

In my writing, I'd much rather grow my characters in blood and bone than cow manure (yes, that is a metaphor for angsty, boring scenes.). Better to have an in depth battle than an in depth stroll through some flowers (though better still to have a fast paced epic battle.).

Devor, (and anyone looking for intertwining action and characterization) I recommend Joe Abercrombie, he's a master at it.

 

[Devor]

What I mean is that it seems you are saying that it is better to do without them, good or not.

Is that what I said? I love action, so that can't be what I said. Noooo. If I said anything like that I completely screwed up.

I thought I was only saying . . . . well, Walt Disney had this thing about the songs in old movies like Snow White and Pinocchio: The songs have to develop the story. I thought I was saying that about action. You wouldn't say Walt Disney thinks his movies would've been better without singing, would you?

Devor, (and anyone looking for intertwining action and characterization) I recommend Joe Abercrombie, he's a master at it.

It looks like the Mythic Scribes Book Club will be doing Abercrombie, so I'll be reading him soon.

I'm not kidding, at all, when I say I love action, and my stuff is so action heavy that I'm genuinely shocked to see everyone taking my comments this way.

 

[Mindfire]

Is that what I said? I love action, so that can't be what I said. Noooo. If I said anything like that I completely screwed up.

I thought I was only saying . . . . well, Walt Disney had this thing about the songs in old movies like Snow White and Pinocchio: The songs have to develop the story. I thought I was saying that about action. You wouldn't say Walt Disney thinks his movies would've been better without singing, would you?




It looks like the Mythic Scribes Book Club will be doing Abercrombie, so I'll be reading him soon.

I'm not kidding, at all, when I say I love action, and my stuff is so action heavy that I'm genuinely shocked to see everyone taking my comments this way.

Thanks, Devor. A little clarification was all I was looking for.

 

[Devor]

Making action compelling in and of itself is about momentum and timing in your language, so that the reader will feel the action as it happens. In all my reading to date, I have yet to see what I would consider an excellent fight scene, one that effectively intertwines both action and character. Maybe my standards are too high, but I think it's more likely that most successful authors know it's safer to blur the action and favor the characters.

@Mindfire - To show you why I was so surprised, I thought the above paragraph was me complaining (as I have elsewhere) that action scenes are so often blurred in favor of characterization. I really hate how often the action is "with two quick strokes of the blade the man fell dead," when it should be much more vivid to be effective.

 

[Mindfire]

@Mindfire - To show you why I was so surprised, I thought the above paragraph was me complaining (as I have elsewhere) that action scenes are so often blurred in favor of characterization. I really hate how often the action is "with two quick strokes of the blade the man fell dead," when it should be much more vivid to be effective.

Yeah, that kind of thing feels like a cheat to me. My method is better, but still not perfect. I prefer to describe the action more fully, but keep the sentences brief. Short sentences coupled with "power-words", words that have intrinsic emotional impact and connotations, can help to convey intensity. It's not perfect, but I think it will be a reasonably good strategy once I've had more practice.

 

[Matty Lee]

I'm not sure an action scene would have much character. How a battle is written is going to be dependent on a wide variety of factors, including the scale of the battle, the weapons employed, who is fighting, why the are fighting, who is important, and where they are. Intricate details of combat involving technique are not uncalled for, so long as the technical style is not exaggerated, and is kept consistent across the scene. Suddenly describing feints and counters in detail, and then going back to a less detailed style, would seem like a bad idea.

 

[gavintonks]

Ultimately it is the story if it is a good story does not matter what it is about

 

[BWFoster78]

Long, detailed battle scenes are only interesting if the story is advanced or we learn something about the characters–and not how good they are with a sword, but something about their character.

I know this, but I sometimes forget it. I wrote an action scene yesterday that seemed a bit flat to me. It's because I didn't focus enough on character development.

Got to add "What does this scene tell me about my character?" to the list of questions I ask myself for all action sequences.

Thanks for the reminder!

 

[TWErvin2]

As a writer, the thing I think I succeed in the most is writing battles, attacks, counter-attacks and such.

So if I make some really detailed battles (one on one fights), will it be harmful to my story or will it add to it?

What published novels do you enjoy reading? What kind of battles did they include? If they had major battles, with a lot of details, why were they effective? Would such reasons be relevant in the novel you're writing? If so, include them. If they would detract or not effectively convey what you desire or advance the plot, then cut them back or don't include them.

A lot will also depend on the POV used to tell the story. First Person POV will reveal a much different angle on the story/battle, than third person limited (from several POVs) or omniscient.