How much action?

[Incanus]

I often think of fantasy fiction as usually having a significant action/adventure component to it. On the other hand, fantasy potentially has the widest range of possibilities inherent in the genre. You could have non-stop fighting and violence, or gossamer love-stories, or anything in between (and probably more besides). I think I tend to like the ‘adventure’ element more than the ‘action’ element.

My story, in its current state, has a rising threat beginning on page one. However, most of the first half of the story has more of a mystery element to it. There’s really only one fight scene so far (well, one and a half, but that second one may go to the chopping block—that’s a whole other matter). There are several scenes of sneaking/spying/imminent danger. But mostly it is characters working out the mystery of the threat they face, and having to deal with other drama as well. The characters don’t all agree about the nature of the threat.

This might be like so many other issues—it could be fine if done well. But still, I wonder—is one fight scene during the first 60K words enough action? On the other hand, there is the threat of violence throughout, and the threat is increasing. That should be compelling, but I’m always second-guessing myself.

Is there something more to this than the usual—just do it well, and it could work?

 

[Finchbearer]

I think there are two types of readers; those who expect action or rising action right from the get go and that’s where the story ‘begins’ for them and then there are those who do not place importance on action right from the get go, and where there is a story being built and characters that the reader gets to know, any rising action or full on action scenes later on in the book are met with bated breath because there’s more of an investment made.

 

[Mad Swede]

OK. If you're writing a story with a steadily rising threat then at some point one or more of your characters must get badly hurt or even killed, otherwise the rising threat lacks credibility for the reader. This then leaves the question of how you as the author build up to that event, and how the surviving characters deal with things after the event. In a story like that the build-up is about how the plot and story build the tension coupled to the increasing depth of the characterisation. The charactersiation matters, because the way the characters deal with the event is all about how they react and if that is to work well their characters must have been establsihed and developed earlier in the story.

Long answer cut short. Yes, one fight scene in the first 60k words can work. But it's the way you build up to it and what happens afterwards that determine if it works.

 

[Penpilot]

Part of this is about setting up reader expectations. If you promise the reader non-stop fighting, and give them no fighting, then they're going to feel tricked. The same will happen if you promise a mystery and deliver an orgy of face smashing.

Correct me if I"m wrong here, but I'm getting the impression you're using action and fighting interchangeably. To me, that's a very narrow view of what action is. Action in terms of story can have a broader definition. To me, characters actively pursuing story goals counts as action. The key is making sure there's actual stakes and tension in the scene.

 

[Incanus]

Correct me if I"m wrong here, but I'm getting the impression you're using action and fighting interchangeably.

Ah, no, I didn't intend that. I mentioned a few scenes of sneaking/spying, and I do consider those as action sequences.

So, there is only the one fight (and perhaps that other one) in the first half of the story, but there are several physical action scenes in addition to that.

I can see that setting up expectations would go a long way here----

 

[skip.knox]

Your concern is that you've not got enough action scenes, by which I believe you mean physical action. How would you go about increasing it? Does it seem like there's room, or does that feel artificial and contrived?

I agree about setting expectations, but the first set of expectations to satisfy are your own. Of course you will doubt yourself, we all do that. Of course you will think oh dear, I've gone so far in this direction, it's either keep going or throw it all over (my current nightmare). I encourage you to think of yourself as the reader and see if the story as constructed is satisfactory--not in every detail of course! But is the pacing, the placement of action, feel about right?

If so, then press on. If not, get out the kerosene and matches. And if, as is most likely, you think it satisfies but you still fret, then give yourself a few opportunities as you press forward to try out other possibilities. Write scenes, or just outline, whatever is your approach. They're branches. Possibilities. Divergent realities. And, if at some point it comes down to kerosene and matches, you will have these alternate possibilities already partially explored. Equally, if you hand your newborn off to alpha readers and *they* blow it up, then you have done some recovery work already.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I often think of fantasy fiction as usually having a significant action/adventure component to it. On the other hand, fantasy potentially has the widest range of possibilities inherent in the genre. You could have non-stop fighting and violence, or gossamer love-stories, or anything in between (and probably more besides). I think I tend to like the ‘adventure’ element more than the ‘action’ element.

My story, in its current state, has a rising threat beginning on page one. However, most of the first half of the story has more of a mystery element to it. There’s really only one fight scene so far (well, one and a half, but that second one may go to the chopping block—that’s a whole other matter). There are several scenes of sneaking/spying/imminent danger. But mostly it is characters working out the mystery of the threat they face, and having to deal with other drama as well. The characters don’t all agree about the nature of the threat.

This might be like so many other issues—it could be fine if done well. But still, I wonder—is one fight scene during the first 60K words enough action? On the other hand, there is the threat of violence throughout, and the threat is increasing. That should be compelling, but I’m always second-guessing myself.

Is there something more to this than the usual—just do it well, and it could work?

Yeah, you don't have to put a fight in your book at all, but I would recommend a pretty steady rhythm of action/reaction scenes. Even hallmark movies follow that general scheme (meaning stories with no actual "action" at all. People are pretty easy to please on that count). It isn't a fine science, I never mind long talking scenes if I'm properly invested, but yeah, characters doing something (action) pretty regularly in between characters talking or thinking about something (reaction) isn't a bad rule of thumb.
If you do have a cool fight scene, escalating those action sequences up to it is a good idea.

 

[Finchbearer]

I don’t think rising action = an actual eventual physical fight wherein the MC gets literally physically hurt. As an example Susanna Clarke wrote Norrell and Strange (which is set during the Napoleonic wars) set up rising action at multiple points throughout the plot, but this did not always equal to the main characters always getting into scraps…

Action can be literally anything, but has to relevant to the plot or else why are we following it.

 

[Prince of Spires]

If you're writing a story with a steadily rising threat then at some point one or more of your characters must get badly hurt or even killed, otherwise the rising threat lacks credibility for the reader.

This is only the case if the rising threat is actually violence / war related. You can easily have a rising threat with little to no violence or killing. Anything with a ticking clock would do it. The characters need to achieve X before moment Y. You show them trying to do that and suffering set-backs. That's already rising tension. Then they find out moment Y is actually a lot closer than they thought and they're running out of time, and you suddenly have a threat exploding off the page, without killing or injuring a single person.

As the others said, there is a difference between violence, fight scenes, and action.

Action is simply a very generic term for "stuff is happening". Most novels are made up of dialogue (characters talking to each other), and action. It's very hard to write a novel without those 2. There's usually also transition scenes and bits. But that's about it. You either have characters talking, or characters doing stuff.

Yes, I realize both combine, where people do stuff when they talk, and talk when they do stuff. But generally, either one or the other has the upper hand. In a fight scene there might be some words, but it's about the action, while in a planning scene, the characters will be moving, but it will be about the talking.

From that point of view, it's very hard to have too much action. The only way you can have too much action, is if you don't have enough dialogue to make the reader understand what's happening.

Now, if you mean "action scene" like you'd get in a movie, then realize that most of those tend to be on the boring end when written down. It's very hard to write an exiting car chase, but it's fairly easy to do in a movie. The action in a novel almost always has to be about something. It's more about the inner journey of the character than about the actual moves.

So in answer to the question, 1 fight scene may be the right amount in 60k words. It may also be too much or too little, depending on the story you're telling. From the type of story you say you're writing, I think you're fine. As long as plenty of other stuff is happening, then you don't need people fighting, and you may even get a lot of tension from people trying to avoid fights. And even in novels where the fighting actually matters, you'll often only find a handful of big fight scenes at most. Having more tends to lessen their impact.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

How much 'action' you need in your story really depends on your subgenre. Each comes into the world primed with reader expectations. Violate those at your peril, but also remember that fortune favors the brave.

Let's talk about what you mean by 'action,' 'fighting,' and 'violence.' The main takeaway from my reply is Conflict = Story. Conflict can include pretty much anything, but at its most basic it's about two or more characters coming into conflict over something one wants and the other doesn't want them to get it. Simple, often stupidly complicated, but the story does not go without it.

My team writes Urban Fantasy, so our version of violence tends to be more traditional, if you count furry people (not furries, zip it) flipping cars with their bare hands as traditional. We have car chases with magic being slung across the highway while avoiding human vehicles. Humans who can't see them, but can see the impact they're having on the highway around them. In the next two books we're going to have dragons running loose in Seahaven. We're probably going to extensively relandscape Seattle. All the fun!

 

[Incanus]

Thanks everyone!

I think we're all mostly in agreement here. I'm pretty sure I don't have anything too major to fix. The story has conflict, drama, action, and mystery (and some occasional humor).

There will be a tad more 'action' (and not just fights) in the second half of the story. Also, I'm building towards an epic fantasy equivalent of a 'blow up the Deathstar' kind of ending. That should be sufficiently epic, I think, not to mention full of action.