Writing those battles

[skip.knox]

There are more rules than just physics. There's biology, economics, sociology, politics, and so on. A thousand thousand things, any one of which might take a particular reader out of the story.

For example. I managed to read the first volume of the Hunger Games, but refused to go further. My problem? The premise was wrong. I simply could not buy the proposition that generation after generation would show up for almost certain death in a game. It was just too silly. The orchestration of those deaths was equally silly, which didn't help, but the premise! I couldn't make that work, and it didn't feel like Collins felt like she had to work very hard to sell it.

Obviously I am not in the majority on this. So, you want to write a novel where the sociology and politics make no sense? Have a it! Someone is going to object, but maybe a million others will love it.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

*raises hand* I've got to say I'm on Team Skip. My team does a huge amount of research for each book, because each one brings new challenges and new details to screw up. That's my job. Drafter. But! I also come from academia so hefting about a ton of research is just a Tuesday in this house. And I'm old enough that there are real books involved, or at least a good e-book with a university press on the title page.

For our next series we're going full bore epic fantasy, and the world building and research is rapidly piling up. Does anyone think that fantasy is a research-light genre? Oh, my sweet summer child. Do I have homework for you.

 

[Karlin]

*raises hand* I've got to say I'm on Team Skip. My team does a huge amount of research for each book, because each one brings new challenges and new details to screw up. That's my job. Drafter. But! I also come from academia so hefting about a ton of research is just a Tuesday in this house. And I'm old enough that there are real books involved, or at least a good e-book with a university press on the title page.

For our next series we're going full bore epic fantasy, and the world building and research is rapidly piling up. Does anyone think that fantasy is a research-light genre? Oh, my sweet summer child. Do I have homework for you.

I totally agree. Fantasy isn't made up out of whole cloth. You're basing it, one way or another, on existing worlds and legends. So you want to know what you are writing. This doesn't mean you have to exactly follow the old legends- but if you don't, it should be a deliberate choice. "I am going to put this in even though it's "incorrect".

If you want an example, try Terry Pratchett. Wild fantasy- but nearly everything has a basis in known legends.

 

[Finchbearer]

Well don’t worry Skip, I was never enamoured by the Hunger Games.

I’ve read many fantasy books where there is a battle, and the main chanters are technically on a ‘battlefield’ but they’re fighting in their own little bubble against a greater force than what the rest of the battlefield are fighting against, which feels a little trite sometimes. That’s one of my bug bears. Or when there’s just too much stuff going on and everything feels too messy, from a prose POV, where really you have no idea what’s actually going on.

 

[Finchbearer]

You should be doing the research, talking to those who've been through it all. But once you've done that you as the author have to decide how much detail you put in, and in my view that depends on where your focus is. If you're the sort of author who likes to describe the gory details (all those hacked off limbs on the ground, the pools of blood etc) then that's the aspect you'll be describing, but if you're focussed on the impact it has on your protagonists then you'll be looking to describe their emotins during and after the battle.

the only caveat to this is when you’re trying to depict a battle scene from (or inspired by) a time in history to where we can only look at the historical evidence and produce our ‘best guess’. For example we know that Valhalla is a hall for warriors killed during battle, and so they had a very specific culture that venerated warriorhood, so you have to assume that the motivations for going willingly into battle were all and one part of their fundamental belief system. That’s very different to how modern warfare is carried out, just read written accounts from World War I veterans. You have to try and get into the mindset of someone from the distant past and that is very tricky. At least for me it is, but it’s also fun doing the research.

 

[Jackarandajam]

For example. I managed to read the first volume of the Hunger Games, but refused to go further. My problem? The premise was wrong. I simply could not buy the proposition that generation after generation would show up for almost certain death in a game. It was just too silly. The orchestration of those deaths was equally silly, which didn't help, but the premise! I couldn't make that work, and it didn't feel like Collins felt like she had to work very hard to sell it.

I think I mentally categorize different books different ways. Hunger games was kind of like going to see a marvel movie. I decide at the outset "okay, I can turn off some of my higher brain function and let myself be enamored by the big explosions OR I can not enjoy this movie. My choice."
I had to make that switch mid-stride in the Hobbit movies; I expected to be safe thinking, and then realized at some point during part two that those versions were supposed to be fun to watch, not fun to think about, and shut it down, and then they were tolerable (although I've never rewatched them).

Same with YA, or when I randomly grab one of those pulp sci-fi paperbacks at the used bookstore that has a half-dressed woman and a dog-crocodile-alien in spandex holding a hair dryer with his head stuck in a fishtank on the cover. I'm not cranking up my "I like Shakespeare and Joyce" functions for that.

I will say though, if the work doesn't fall into one of those two categories, I'm out: either bring the cool or make me think, or preferably both, but never neither.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

the only caveat to this is when you’re trying to depict a battle scene from (or inspired by) a time in history to where we can only look at the historical evidence and produce our ‘best guess’. For example we know that Valhalla is a hall for warriors killed during battle, and so they had a very specific culture that venerated warriorhood, so you have to assume that the motivations for going willingly into battle were all and one part of their fundamental belief system. That’s very different to how modern warfare is carried out, just read written accounts from World War I veterans. You have to try and get into the mindset of someone from the distant past and that is very tricky. At least for me it is, but it’s also fun doing the research.

Fortunately, as creatives and as scholars our best guesses are pretty good. And we do have experts we can turn to, either through approaching them directly, which I heartily recommend, or by the glory that is the U-Toobs and what amounts to a modern Dial-A-Specialist. I love this guy, and so does half of the internet. Total scholar, very pro. This is what academia looks like and he knows his stuff.

I also try very hard to get into a character's head and to see the world and the violence we recreate through their eyes. It is indeed tricky, but it's eminently doable. There are certain experiences and emotions that are common to all of us as humans. That's what I tap when I write. And research is always a blast. If it wasn't, I'd be in the wrong profession.

 

[Finchbearer]

Fortunately, as creatives and as scholars our best guesses are pretty good. And we do have experts we can turn to, either through approaching them directly, which I heartily recommend, or by the glory that is the U-Toobs and what amounts to a modern Dial-A-Specialist. I love this guy, and so does half of the internet. Total scholar, very pro. This is what academia looks like and he knows his stuff.

I also try very hard to get into a character's head and to see the world and the violence we recreate through their eyes. It is indeed tricky, but it's eminently doable. There are certain experiences and emotions that are common to all of us as humans. That's what I tap when I write. And research is always a blast. If it wasn't, I'd be in the wrong profession.

I am definitely not a scholar, but I do as much research as I think is necessary. I’ve had a few goes at writing battle scenes, but none that have been finalised or published.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I think I mentally categorize different books different ways. Hunger games was kind of like going to see a marvel movie. I decide at the outset "okay, I can turn off some of my higher brain function and let myself be enamored by the big explosions OR I can not enjoy this movie. My choice."
I had to make that switch mid-stride in the Hobbit movies; I expected to be safe thinking, and then realized at some point during part two that those versions were supposed to be fun to watch, not fun to think about, and shut it down, and then they were tolerable (although I've never rewatched them).

Same with YA, or when I randomly grab one of those pulp sci-fi paperbacks at the used bookstore that has a half-dressed woman and a dog-crocodile-alien in spandex holding a hair dryer with his head stuck in a fishtank on the cover. I'm not cranking up my "I like Shakespeare and Joyce" functions for that.

I will say though, if the work doesn't fall into one of those two categories, I'm out: either bring the cool or make me think, or preferably both, but never neither.

We lean so hard on the Rule of Cool it isn't... Okay, it is funny. It can be very funny and also awesome and then you slip in a little relevance on the reader while their heads are turned to watch the explosion.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I am definitely not a scholar, but I do as much research as I think is necessary. I’ve had a few goes at writing battle scenes, but none that have been finalised or published.

And that's okay. That's why we form communities; to help each other when we need it. I do it all the time. I couldn't rhyme my way out of a paper sack, but some of the guys here are great at it, so I go begging and they give me gold and all is happy and right with the world.

That being said, the more you write, the more you'll need to know. And the more research you do to fill in those gaps the better you'll get at it. You're still learning - and so are we all, really - still filling your toolbox. Trust me, you'll join us all in the funny farm soon enough.

 

[Mad Swede]

the only caveat to this is when you’re trying to depict a battle scene from (or inspired by) a time in history to where we can only look at the historical evidence and produce our ‘best guess’. For example we know that Valhalla is a hall for warriors killed during battle, and so they had a very specific culture that venerated warriorhood, so you have to assume that the motivations for going willingly into battle were all and one part of their fundamental belief system. That’s very different to how modern warfare is carried out, just read written accounts from World War I veterans. You have to try and get into the mindset of someone from the distant past and that is very tricky. At least for me it is, but it’s also fun doing the research.

Well, this is when you see the results of your research. And yes, I am going to caveat that. You need to do some fairly specific research if you're to get it right. That means getting help from the specialists.

The impact wars and battles have on people haven't really changed at all. Those who are not involved in the fighting get displaced or even killed as a result of battles in their immediate area (there's a reason my family farm got burnt to the ground four times in less than 150 years). There are also a lot of historical documents which show quite clearly that even in the medieval period there were veterans who suffered from what we would now call PTSD. This was probably also true even during the Viking period. The fact that the surviving sagas promote the idea of Valhall and a warrior's glory in the afterlife doesn't match what we know about Viking society as a whole, a society which was more focused on trade and farming than most people think.

 

[The Dark One]

Well, this is when you see the results of your research. And yes, I am going to caveat that. You need to do some fairly specific research if you're to get it right. That means getting help from the specialists.

The impact wars and battles have on people haven't really changed at all. Those who are not involved in the fighting get displaced or even killed as a result of battles in their immediate area (there's a reason my family farm got burnt to the ground four times in less than 150 years). There are also a lot of historical documents which show quite clearly that even in the medieval period there were veterans who suffered from what we would now call PTSD. This was probably also true even during the Viking period. The fact that the surviving sagas promote the idea of Valhall and a warrior's glory in the afterlife doesn't match what we know about Viking society as a whole, a society which was more focused on trade and farming than most people think.

I deeply respect your experience and opinion MS but I do have a theory about this. It's quite complicated but in a nutshell...

I suspect that war was less scary / traumatic years ago than it is now. Obviously, people will always be scared of death even if they did have things such as glorious martyrdom, Valhalla etc to look forward to, but the fighting unit back in the medieval (and prior - with a few exceptions) was much more of a family / village affair. Seasonal - to be done before the harvest - with all your family and friends around you. It was a shared experience.

The weapons available meant you had more control over your mortality. Sure, you could be hit by a stray arrow but there weren't any mines, ballistic missiles or smart bombs that could take out great swathes in one fell swoop. If you were fit and skilful you had a good chance of survival. Horror weapons changed that from the Gatling Gun onwards.

Finally - media and community scrutiny on the antics of combatants has led to an anxiety about war that never existed for most of human history. We expect soldiers to go to war and do horrific and lethal things in horrific and lethal conditions, but we also expect them to play by the rules and judge them very harshly when they don't. The rate of veteran suicide in my country (Australia) is outrageous and I'll bet it has a bit to do with all of the above, but not least the media scrutiny and judgment.

And if we want to fix it... radical idea... let's not have any more fucking wars!!!

 

[Jackarandajam]

The fact that the surviving sagas promote the idea of Valhall and a warrior's glory in the afterlife doesn't match what we know about Viking society as a whole, a society which was more focused on trade and farming than most people think.

Yeah, I'm 50%+ swedish/Norwegian and very proud of my heritage, but Valhalla sounds suspiciously like expansionist/loot propaganda to me.
A slightly different twist on "wait, lemme check.... okay, god says he'll be happy if you kill everybody and bring me their monies. The lighting up there was weird but pretty sure jesus gave me a thumbs-up too."

 

[Karlin]

I deeply respect your experience and opinion MS but I do have a theory about this. It's quite complicated but in a nutshell...

I suspect that war was less scary / traumatic years ago than it is now. Obviously, people will always be scared of death even if they did have things such as glorious martyrdom, Valhalla etc to look forward to, but the fighting unit back in the medieval (and prior - with a few exceptions) was much more of a family / village affair. Seasonal - to be done before the harvest - with all your family and friends around you. It was a shared experience.

The weapons available meant you had more control over your mortality. Sure, you could be hit by a stray arrow but there weren't any mines, ballistic missiles or smart bombs that could take out great swathes in one fell swoop. If you were fit and skilful you had a good chance of survival. Horror weapons changed that from the Gatling Gun onwards.

Finally - media and community scrutiny on the antics of combatants has led to an anxiety about war that never existed for most of human history. We expect soldiers to go to war and do horrific and lethal things in horrific and lethal conditions, but we also expect them to play by the rules and judge them very harshly when they don't. The rate of veteran suicide in my country (Australia) is outrageous and I'll bet it has a bit to do with all of the above, but not least the media scrutiny and judgment.

And if we want to fix it... radical idea... let's not have any more fucking wars!!!

I am not an expert on Medieval Europe, but there were a lot of people, including civilians, killed throughout history. You did not want to be anywhere near a Greek, Roman or Persian army. Certainly not the Assyrians. If the Mongols were in the neighborhood- you were out of luck. Did I mention the Muslim conquests? Chinese rebellions and civil wars? Post battle slaughter was common.

 

[Finchbearer]

Well, this is when you see the results of your research. And yes, I am going to caveat that. You need to do some fairly specific research if you're to get it right. That means getting help from the specialists.

The impact wars and battles have on people haven't really changed at all. Those who are not involved in the fighting get displaced or even killed as a result of battles in their immediate area (there's a reason my family farm got burnt to the ground four times in less than 150 years). There are also a lot of historical documents which show quite clearly that even in the medieval period there were veterans who suffered from what we would now call PTSD. This was probably also true even during the Viking period. The fact that the surviving sagas promote the idea of Valhall and a warrior's glory in the afterlife doesn't match what we know about Viking society as a whole, a society which was more focused on trade and farming than most people think.

This is something I give a lot of thought to, given that I’m writing a story inspired by early medieval times (loosely speaking) and I often feel like I’m chasing shadows. I can read translations from the Exeter book for example to try get into the mindset of persons from a different time, but as we’ve discussed (as a forum) elsewhere on old texts, they are really fragmentary and up for interpretation. If we include the archeological finds from this time period, again they are so fragmentary, even though it can give us a bigger picture in some ways, like prove that there were many farming communities found, in the very area where I live now.

I consider the fact that there was a huge amount of upheaval at this time, and daily violence was more commonplace, along with a general culture and belief system surrounding warriorhood and battle readiness, I have to assume that this amount of violence was more normalised than it is now (at least here in the western world). In tribal communities in some parts of the world you can still observe this battle readiness, or readiness to fight. Would PTSD have existed? I absolutely think so, but the coping methods would have been far different and the condition itself far less understood.

There’s a tonne more I don’t know because I’ve only scratched the surface, but I think about the documentary ‘The Violence Paradox’ that puts forward the theory that we’re living in the least violent times in human history.

 

[The Dark One]

I am not an expert on Medieval Europe, but there were a lot of people, including civilians, killed throughout history. You did not want to be anywhere near a Greek, Roman or Persian army. Certainly not the Assyrians. If the Mongols were in the neighborhood- you were out of luck. Did I mention the Muslim conquests? Chinese rebellions and civil wars? Post battle slaughter was common.

We weren't talking about non-combatants - they've always been screwed.

As are just about all of us the way the world is currently headed.

 

[Gurkhal]

To me it depends, as it should be. In historical fiction and realistic-ish fantasy realism is a must. In more fantastical stories it isn't.

And then it comes down to POV and story as well.

If I'm reading about a warrior who is supposed to know his craft or a military focused story, then damn well, things of a military nature should be researched and given correct descriptions when needed or desired. If I'm reading pretty much the same scene from the eyes of a courtier then it makes perfect sense to me if details from battle or exact technical terms of equipment are missing from the description.

While the warrior may know the exact terms and instantly recognize various things and pick out details, it makes sense to me that the courtier would gloss it over and focus on details and stuff that the courtier would find important in the scene.

 

[skip.knox]

Historical battles are one thing, but before leaving that to one side, I'll add this to the mix: they can be found in every size, shape, and scope. Whatever general statement you want to make about how, where, and by whom battles were fought can be supported by some examples and disputed by others. So, think of the historical precedents as inspiration rather than a rule set.

Anyway, all that can be no more than a starting point for those who write speculative fiction. There's little in the books that's going to tell us how trolls fight or how transporters will affect space combat. At some point--and the point will vary depending on genre--the author must take the leap in the unknown and bring the reader along with them. To me, the speculative part is what makes the writing most fun and interesting.

 

[Gurkhal]

I would also add that for myself one solution to writing battles that I'm unsure about the details in how to portray them, is simply to let them happen off screen. Nothing says you MUST have graphic battles in your story. Changing the POV away from the actual fighting and then deal with characters and effects from the battle can work perfectly well in my experience as a reader.

Or possibly use the chaos, to my understanding, of battle to ensure that you only need ot describe the part that a certain POV can witness and comprehend as things happen around that character.

I'm sure there are other ways to deal with this as well.

 

[Mad Swede]

I deeply respect your experience and opinion MS but I do have a theory about this. It's quite complicated but in a nutshell...

I suspect that war was less scary / traumatic years ago than it is now. Obviously, people will always be scared of death even if they did have things such as glorious martyrdom, Valhalla etc to look forward to, but the fighting unit back in the medieval (and prior - with a few exceptions) was much more of a family / village affair. Seasonal - to be done before the harvest - with all your family and friends around you. It was a shared experience.

The weapons available meant you had more control over your mortality. Sure, you could be hit by a stray arrow but there weren't any mines, ballistic missiles or smart bombs that could take out great swathes in one fell swoop. If you were fit and skilful you had a good chance of survival. Horror weapons changed that from the Gatling Gun onwards.

Finally - media and community scrutiny on the antics of combatants has led to an anxiety about war that never existed for most of human history. We expect soldiers to go to war and do horrific and lethal things in horrific and lethal conditions, but we also expect them to play by the rules and judge them very harshly when they don't. The rate of veteran suicide in my country (Australia) is outrageous and I'll bet it has a bit to do with all of the above, but not least the media scrutiny and judgment.

And if we want to fix it... radical idea... let's not have any more fucking wars!!!

To start with, I agree with that last sentence!

I'm not sure that war was less scary or less traumatic. What is relatively new is the widespread modern recognition of the impact that wars have on people. It was only really during the Second World War that people began to more widely acknowledge that shell shock (what we now know as PTSD) was a legitimate condition, and PTSD is something which has become much more accepted in the last 50 years or so.

But, as Herodotus' description of the Battle of Marathon (440BC) the condition has been known about for several hundred years (the description of the effects of the battle on a soldier are in Book 6 of Herodotus' book History). Hippocrates himself mentions the impact of frightenieng battles dreams on former soldiers.

Later descriptions include Jean Froissart's 1388 account of the effects that fighting in the Hundred Years War had on one Pierre de Beam, brother of the Comte de Foix. De Beam is recorded as being unable to sleep near his wife and children because he so often woke at night from a nightmare and siezed a sword before strting to fight (imagined) oncoming enemies.

This sort of reaction to battle experience was well-known enough that Shakespeare could mention it in Romeo and Juliet (see Mercutio's account of Queen Mab in Act 1, scene 4). Goethe mentions similar reactions in his autobiographical account of the Battle of Valmy in 1792. What is interesting is that it then seems to have got forgotten or ignored, to be re-discovered during the Second World War.

One other other modern difference which is worth mentioning is how much faster we can now get people out of the theatre of war. Previously (and even as late as the Korean War) the journey home took weeks, which meant there was time to work through and somehow share those experiences with your mates. This probably elped many people cope with what they had seen and experienced. That isn't as true now (the trips home from Afghanistan and Africa took me less than 24 hours) and so there isn't time to work things through. This is most clearly seen in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, where many soldiers came home on a long flight and were effectively dumped at home with no support.