posted
I'd appreciate some opinions and thoughts on this subject. In a story involving some kind of combat (be it wrestling, fencing, aerial dogfighting, or outer space fleet engagements), particularly forms of combat unfamiliar to the average reader, what level of description is needed to ensure comprehension without stalling the story with unnecessary detail? Can you get away with just giving the names of moves (I've seen a few writers describe martial arts fighting this way, but I tend to find it unsatisfying since I can't form a picture of what's going on), or do you need to describe the moves as they happen in the fight (like, Luis L'amour in his regularly scheduled bouts, which I find monotonous pretty quickly)? Is there a happy medium between the two that is both enjoyable and accessible, and if so, where is it? Is there a major difference between the way that one would present combat in a short story versus a novel? I'm interested in the subject in general, as it applies to a couple of things I'm working on, but in particular as it applies to competitive wrestling (NOT WWF!). Your thoughts are appreciated.
Posts: 491 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
If you were to describe every single thing then the whole thing would be tedious and lack excitement. Think of the combat from your POV character. Describe how it affects him/her.. .what they see and feel. Everything should be from that perspective.
I too don't really care for the "Billy pulls out his diamond edged sword and does the Swallow breaking wind in the desert maneouvre as taught to him by his master-sage Old Buns Kentucky" form of description.
Training and combat are too different things. If you are talking about Billy learning the form then you can be very descriptive, but combat... let the action flow baby...
posted
Write it how you would like to read it. It's a matter of personal preference, so no matter how you write it, some people will think it's "right" and some people will think it's "wrong."
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
I guess I'd say you have two questions to answer--'what' and 'how.'
For "what" to write, I'd say combat is like anything else--you can't write it convincingly that which you don't yourself understand. If you know a lot about guns, write a gunfight. If boxing, then a fistfight. If martial arts, then kung fu or kanjukenpo. If wrestling, then a wrestling match.
As for 'how,' I'm partial to a method used with some success by Robert Jordan. He describes the combat technique by technique. The trick is this: Jordan invents a title for the technique that suggests the movement being carried out. For example, instead of saying "John swung his sword downward in a vertical arc. Larry brought his sword up perpendicularly to meet it," or "John employed a vertical fronwards slash, which was blocked by Larry's strong high block technique," Jordan might write something like: "John moved into Headsman's Crescent, but Larry countered with the Moon Rises Over Water."
You can be as stylized or pragmatic as is appropriate for the story, but the idea is pretty clever. You get the best of both worlds--you describe the fighting without writing anything that your reader takes as description.
posted
I generally try to portray the general flow of personal combat rather than focus on the exact moves a character makes. (I've basically written only sword combat scenes, so this may not apply as well to other forms of combat.) I do this for a couple of reasons. First, because I'm not an expert at swordfighting, so I try to avoid giving away my ignorance. Second, because when trained people are fighting, so much of it is automatic that they are not thinking about each individual motion. And third, because describing everything in detail would take much longer than the action itself, thus slowing the story.
The main exception I make is when the character is doing something that might sound unbelievable unless you show the reader how it's done. For example:
John drew his sword and quickly slew the bandit. If we know John is good with a sword, we don't really need to know all the moves he made to kill a simple bandit.
John looked at the twenty elite guardsmen who surrounded him. He reached for his sword before remembering he had given it to Molly. So he began to fight, and killed nineteen of the guardsmen before the last one ran off. Nope. We can't believe John could do that without knowing how. You need to walk us through enough of the fight that we can believe it.
posted
People understand basic moves like a grab, a half-nelson, a trip, a push, a flip; they also understand, from the defensive perspective, getting knocked off-balance, having their backs to the mat, trying to get traction but slipping, and sometimes, just downright confusion as to what just happened! You mentioned wrestling, so I'm using these terms. If one were trying to get their arms in position to execute a move, and the opponent was trying to prevent it, that would warrant a "close-up shot" with more detail.
For something like sword-fighting, you've got thrust, block, parry, slash, arc, etc. You don't want the words to get in the way of the action. I really hate all that fancy naming of the moves as well.
Of much more concern to your reader are things like: how much danger is the character in? What are their chances of survival? Is there some overarching objective they're trying to achieve amidst all this chaos? Are they sure about what their orders are, or is there complete battlefield confusion? Everybody wants the hero to win (in fact we all know it ahead of time that they will), but nobody likes it when they can't taste the danger and feel that tension that maybe death is a mere sword thrust away.
posted
Survivor mentioned POV which raises the question. Is your POV character watching or fighting? Because the same combat would be described in different ways. In the first I'd probably talk about form more, the way it looks. In the second I would tend to focus more on the physical effort.
The other question is: How long does it last? If we are talking about a quick scuffle, then you can go into more detail, but a protracted combat scene with multiple participants would get a very different handling.
[This message has been edited by MaryRobinette (edited November 15, 2004).]
posted
Many authors forget that most combat is FAST. You need to portray the anxiety before the start, the initial rush of fear and adrenalin, the desperate or skillful avoidance of near misses, pain and terror of wounds, horror of death (if it occurs) and the incredible relief at survival (in a non-lethal contest, the ecstasy of victory and the empty, dead agony of defeat) - in short, the emotional effect on the participants. Use only enough technical description to give the reader a reasonably clear idea of what is happening. Leave out the technical details unless they add something (or you intend to appeal to those who will appreciate them.) Leave in the blood, the sweat, the stink, and the feel.
As usual, you have to do more research than you will ever show your readers. If you have no experience, talk or write to those who have.
posted
Those are two very good points--first about POV, and second about the speed.
When I boxed at Notre Dame, I would remember only the roughest outline of the details of a fight after leaving the ring. You train yourself until you perform most of the techniques reflexively (like driving is for most people). Some of the fight is your thoughts being translated into action (e.g., 'he drops his strong hand when he jabs, so next time I'll parry and counter instead of slip'), but most of it is trained reflex--no time for thought. There is no clear line between the thoughts and the reflexes. And when you look back after the fact, the time in the ring is often a dreamlike haze.
I guess my point is that there isn't any way to convey the actual experience of combat while at the same time conveying what's going on. The experience of combat is fast, fast, fast, and your body is often operating independently of your mind (to different extents depending on your training). Your knowledge of your own actions is largely sub- or super- volitional.
The observation of combat is an entirely different matter. The observer can see and remember thrust and parry with detail.
I guess the short version of this unintentionally lengthy post is that the fighter knows what's happening, but the observer knows what happened. From the POV of the fighter, you risk confusing the reader as to the actual events. From the POV of the watcher, the events of the combat are clearer, but the essence of the experience is lost. The trick is to find some way to have your cake and eat it too.
[This message has been edited by J (edited November 15, 2004).]
posted
Unless I'm failing at remembering OSC's discussions in his writing books, with POV also comes varying degrees of penetration that we can choose to use. I would think that this would give us a way to have our cake and eat it, too. Or am I looking at this too simplistically?
I care because my WIP (NaNoWriMo) relies much on personal combat (both formal martial and dirty street-fighting), and I'm going to have much to rewrite when I shift out of NaNo mode later on.
posted
I don't think you are looking at it too simplistically at all. I think that depth of POV is a terrific way to approach writing these kinds of scenes.
[This message has been edited by Magic Beans (edited November 15, 2004).]
posted
I've watched some fights that were over so fast neither I nor the guy on the ground were aware of exactly what happened.
All I knew is one minute two guys were squaring off and the next one was on the ground unconsious with the other guy sitting on him. I'm not even sure the winner knew what had happened.
posted
Yeah I remember something like that happening once. there were these two big highschool guys (I was maybe a freshman then) and they were going to fight. It was on the fourth of July so everyone was at the park. They went down into the woods, were out of sight (from my pov there were a ton of people watching) for maybe 15 seconds before they came back out, with one of them all jaunty and the other one holding his head above his temple where his skin split. The fight couldn't have lasted more than like two seconds.
posted
There is one exception to the speed and POV: sometimes, for the combatant, subjective time slows down. To an observer, things are going too fast to follow, but to one, or occasionally both combatants, things are moving slowly enough that everything registers. It is an "altered state of consciousness" if you will. Those who are very experienced, or who have trained intensively, can sometimes enter this state at will. The odd thing is, that sometimes you remember that you saw everything as it happened, but you don't remember what you saw afterward. If your character does this, it is probably the only time you should go into detail—to demonstrate their altered state of awareness.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted
Actually, Triarius, that's exactly what it means to "go deep" into the POV. Like putting the "camera" behind the person's eyes vs. being near them. You move in or go hot on the character. You want this for combat, but not, say, opening a can of cat food.
Posts: 284 | Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted
Donnovan lifted the small tin, feeling its weight and round smooth curves. He slowly lowered the canopener to the lip of the catfood can, touching it gently at first, and then pressing down firmly. As the single tooth on the can opener bit through the top of the can, a fishy aroma crept out and made bile rise in Donnovan's throat. This was the last time he would have to feed kitty.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
While a haven't yet read all of Card's books on writing, I'm not sure that depth of POV really gets to what I am trying to express. My point is that not only does the writer have to put the reader into the character, the writer must also make the reader aware that the character is not in their usual frame of reference. The experience is surreal. When in this state, one does not feel emotions -- one of the reasons for getting the willies and going to pieces afterwards.
posted
Building on EricJamesStone's example with "John" -- John raised his sword over his head, intending to kill the bandit. In a moment of despiration, the bandit drew his sword blocking John's attempt to split his head. Pushing John's sword aside, the bandit sood, "My name is Iago Montoya," he said. "You killed my father, prepare to die."
The two engaged in a fight that would eventualy go down in the annals as the the greatest fight of all times. Each countered the other's attack with a parry or by doging the stroke. Time and time again, the two found themselves arm-locked, fact to face, sweat pouring down their foreheads. On more than one occasion, both came close to drawing first blood, only to have victory snatched away at the last moment. Unwilling to give in to the other, John or Iago fought until they were too tired to persue the matter any further.
I say let the reader's imagination do some of the work. Give the suggestion, and let their minds take it from there. But then, that might be just me.
TG
PS: My sincerest appologies to "The Princes Bride" fans, but it was just too good of an opportunity to pass up.
[This message has been edited by TechGnome (edited November 16, 2004).]
posted
This is all great stuff. Thanks for the input so far. Part of the problem is that I'm working with competitive wrestling. In real hand-to-hand combat, fights are often very brief, and can be described in detail without taking more than a paragraph or two (although when skilled fighters meet, matches often literally last until one or the other drops from exhaustion -- see some of the Ultimate Fighting matches for examples; I saw one go over half an hour). In wrestling, however, the typical match is six minutes long, divided into three two-minute periods. The character I'm working with currently is a dominant wrestler who generally wins his matches by pin within the first or second round. Describing even a minute or two of wrestling in detail could absorb pages. Thus, I'm trying to decide what level of detail to use, and when to "zoom" in and out. I can just toss names of moves out, but very few people have an accurate conception of what real wrestling moves look like, and frankly, in high level competition, the move frequently doesn't really look like it should anyhow, because of the actions of the opponent. I know what's happening in the match (and my wrestling character does too), but I'm not sure how to communicate that without losing the audience.
Posts: 491 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Since, I assume, you are having a number of fights in your story wouldn't you want to do them with varying levels of intensity depending on how much the opponent or fight means to your character. I believe Triarois ( sorry about the spelling) is discribing 'cold' writing which I personally think can be used very successfully in fight scenes. I have a collar and elbow wrestling scene in my WPI. In the beginning of the scene the POV watches his opponent fight someone else and studies his moves, then the style changes to cold writing as he enters the ring to fight.
[This message has been edited by Kickle (edited November 16, 2004).]
posted
Are the wrestling matches from your main character's POV? You could go to a gilrfriend, or some other witness, depending on the effect you want to achieve.
If you want to tell it from the wrestler's POV, I suggest you use just enough technical jargon; whatever suits your character's thought pattern during a match. If he thinks in terms of wrestling holds then use them. If not, use descriptions. This will serve character development, but not help describe the match very well.
To describe the match, you need to establish two things: high stakes and physical sensations. Make your POV character worried about the consequence of the match, thus he/she is always worried about the move your wrestler just made, or about the move his opponent is about to make. If your POV character is the wrestler then describe the pain, fatigue, and other sensations he experiences. If the POV character is a witness then have him/her describe the match in visceral terms.
posted
I think Doc Brown has sumed it up nicely, and I would only add that if you use technical terminology, use the most descriptive, and keep the writing as tight as possible.
Note to TechGnome: I am the dread pirate Roberts…perhaps I will kill you tomorrow…
Just Kidd-ing around, of course! Three points off the larboard beam… OT Did you know that there really was an infamous pirate named Roberts?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
