posted
Because of the fact that I enjoy writing fantasy and crime stories I have to deal with combat. Especially close combat (spears, swords, fists, etc.)
I also grew up in fencing both olympic and japanese (kendo / kenjutsu) and I have practiced aikido and judo for thirty years.
Trained warriors of any culture are highly efficient and technical in their combat. They boil down very complicated procedures into simple terms such as: kotegaeshi tenkan- a merging, turning, outside leading outer wrist throw. Or mustachiio- a leaping smash to the face with the hilt and or hand guard of the sword.
When I read novels which involve combat I place close attention to what is happening and over and over the scenes are written either extremely vague (he drew his sword, a moment all the enemy were dead.), completely impossible (the farm boy who had never held a sword before kills the sword master in a duel), or impossibly complicated (Robert Jordon). I also notice that writers tend to avoid technical terms.
How does one balance between reality of combat (which might take 200 or more words to describe six seconds of action with out using technical terms) and readers expectation and ignorance levels.
I would like to see some really great examples or authors who do this well.
posted
This is an excerpt from one of my favourite books. It is a bit cheesy, in some ways, but that is due in part to the translation (I think). These are only two paragraphs, but they are set four pages or so into the action of the chapter, which begins with a build up to the actual sword fights. The chapter continues with another page and half after this snippett, most of which contiues folling the sword play.
Throughout, there is only a mild use of jargon with a stronger focus on the characters themselves.
Overall I like the way this author writes his battle scenes. They last long enough to provide satisfaction and you hardly have to know anything about fencing or swordplay.
quote:The heart of the young Gascon beat as though it would burst its fetters—not from fear, God be thanked (he had not the shade of it), but with emulation. He fought like a mad tiger, turning ten times round his adversary, and changing his ground and his guard twenty times. Jussac was, as they said then, fond of the sword, and had had much practice; nevertheless it required all his skill to defend himself against an adversary who, active and energetic, departed every instant from received rules, attacking him on all sides at once, and yet parrying like a man who had the greatest respect for his own epidermis.
This contest at length exhausted Jussac’s patience. Furious at being held in check by one whom he had considered a boy, he grew angry and began to make mistakes. D’Artagnan, who, though wanting in practice, had a profound theory, redoubled his agility. Jussac, anxious to put an end to this, springing forward, aimed a terrible thrust at his adversary, but the latter parried it; and while Jussac was recovering himself, glided like a serpent beneath his blade, and passed his sword through his body. Jussac fell in a heap.
The Three Musketeers, Chapter 5 ~ Alexandre Dumas
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
Formalized styles of Martial Arts seem to be a little too rooted in the dance of the art. Over the centuries they've become very concerned with katas and forms and less concerned with what the original art was intended to do, which is incapacitate or kill the opponent.
Unquestionably formal training is helpful in actual combat, but dirty fighting is in general more effective.
Krav Maga is a great example of this commando style of fighting, which concentrates explicitly on incapacition of the opponent with little regard for formal styles and katas.
As to why many author's avoid technical terms, it is because most readers have little familiarity beyond "riposte and parry".
Both George RR Martin (A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords) and Greg Keyes (Briar King and Charnel Prince) do admirable jobs of showing the shortfalls and benefits of formal training versus brawling.
There is a fantastic scene in A Game of Thrones between Syrio Florel, a fencing master, and several heavilly armored knights. There is an equally enigmatic scene in Briar King between a fencer and an armored opponent.
Doh I've been typing so much I forgot where I was going :-)
I enjoy a good technical combat, but I also appreciate that actual combat often levels the field a bit.
It is very beleivable that a skilled fencer, underestimating his opponent, could be killed by a far less skilled opponent. This is less an issue of training and more an issue of hubris associated with that level of competence and skill.
posted
I thought Roger Zelazny had some pretty good fight scenes, in particular when it involved fencing. But on the other hand, he could have faked it and I wouldn't have know any better.
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of decisive blows in real melee combats are going to be very basic moves.
This doesn't mean that inexperienced fighters have any kind of meaningful advantage over well-trained fighters. It does mean that training to do a lot of complicated moves doesn't really begin to give you an edge until you reach a certain level.
The reality of combat is that you don't have time to think about what you're doing (well, you don't have much time). You think about overall strategy, sure (if you're a particularly cool-headed fighter) and you notice some things, but you disregard a lot of stuff.
Even if you are thinking ahead (in terms of moves) you're probably only going to be able to consider a couple of branches at most. You have a primary branch and a backup plan if things don't work well. More than that and you're asking to be defeated easily, because you'll never commit to a course of action.
As for the scene above, it left me a little cold. I'll believe that a person could just have a lot of innate talent, but that talent would be even more powerful with experience and training. Implying that the inexperience was helping him at all is really not impressive to me.
posted
The Three Musketeers segment posted above is also one of my favorite fight scenes in literature. It uses Hemingway's "iceberg principle" (putting aside the fact that neither Hemingway nor his iceberg principle existed at the time of authorship) with respect to combat--it effectively captures the essence of what is happening by implication. I think the overall effect is powerful--Dumas gives enough guidance to keep the reader engaged, but enough freedom that the exact movements are left to the reader's imagination.
It seems to me that PoV should have a lot to do with how a fight is described. Using the passage above as an example, the fight is described generically because it is being written in 3rd omni (correct me if I'm wrong on that).
By contrast, if the fight were being described by Athos, the reader would get a different descriptive style; probably a litany of techniques along with detailed commentary on the relative skill of each combatant.
posted
Yeah, I'll admit that it wasn't the way the fight was described so much as the way the fight was imagined that lost my interest. Also, it is probably not the best idea to use the POV of the guy that thinks he's more skilled than he actually is, particuarly if it leads to POV death, as it does here.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy any more, but I particularly enjoyed the sword duel in one of the Honor Harrington novels (Flag in Exile, I think).
I know little about sword fighting, yet the scene conveyed to me what seemed a very realistic technique, giving the POV character's reasons for choosing a particular guard stance, and a glimmer of understanding of what being in that situation might actually be like. It was also quite a short fight, ended in the first stroke if memory serves, yet still managed to portray the tension of the scene. This too seems realistic.
posted
Wow, I thought I would have been deluged with prime examples. The one example seemed ok to me. But it really did not show me the fight, it gave me almost a summary of the fight. I like the principle of concrete description (not necessarily every litle detail) with a very clear account of what happened and how without glossing over critical events.
Do you think something like this works:
this was a bout I watched in 1998, of course here I changed it to live blades and a duel to the death rather than the spirited training bout.
James faced Charles, he held his sword double handed with tip aimed at Charles' throat. James was motionless and relaxed, his face serene. Charles' sword was held twitching in a high double handed position over his head. With nearly six feet between them James doubted he could lunge and pierce either Charles' throat or his heart before Charles could drop a skull splitting cut. James knew Charles was very quick and never where you thought he was. James slowly slid his rear left foot up under him, preparing to leap. Charles mouth broke into a wide grin. Then with the movement like a cat Charles rushed forward cutting downwards with the sword, the tip deflected James' blade a few inches to the left. Charles' blade dropped, leveled against the side of James' blade and thrusted forward as quick as an arrow, seeking James' now vunerable throat. James realized his error and used his hips protect his heart and hop turned to his left. James let his sword follow the downward motion then he rolled the blade back towards Charles and dropped forward to a one knee crouch and cut through Charles' tender belly like butter.
[This message has been edited by JBSkaggs (edited January 14, 2005).]
posted
Your example does a good job of describing the fight--I know pretty much exactly what happened after I read it. It also demonstrates what seems to me to be one of the biggest hurdles to using concrete description with combat--flow.
Everyone here with any martial arts experience, or who's ever been in a playground fight, has a sense of how much goes on in a person's head during a fight and how much you actually do during a fight. Whenever an author tries to conceretly describe all that thought and action, the resulting usually seems to me way too slow.
Fights are fast, fast, fast. (Ridiculously so, as a participant). Concretely descriptive text, because it drags on, seems to me to lose the pacing and flavor of combat
posted
I did some looking into this a while ago (there is another thread on the subject that isn't all that old). Regarding swordplay, one of my favorite examples comes from Heinlein's Glory Road. Heinlein was a fencer himself, and although he interspersed technical terms throughout the fight, he never left me feeling confused. Two paragraphs (only an exerpt -- the fight was a key point in the story, and so occupied a few pages) from the beginning of the fight follow.
"He advanced so fast and smoothly that he seemed to apport and our blades rang as I parried his attack in sixte and riposted, was coutnered -- remise, reprise, beat-and-attack -- the phrase ran so smoothly, so long, and in such variation that a spectator might have thought that we were runing through Grand Salute.
But I knew! That first lunge was meant to kill me, and so was his every move throughout the phrase. At the same time he was feeling me out, trying my wrist, looking for weaknesses, whether I was afraid of low line and always returned to high or perhaps was a sucker for a disarm. I never lunged, never had a chance to; every part of the phrase was forced on me, I simply replied, tried to stay alive."
I share your frustration with most depictions of combat, but I thought this one was excellently done.
posted
Of course in reality both parties were generally injured, sometimes the winner only outlived the loser by mere minutes. On the battlefield vs. the duel there is no interplay of sword it is hack, stab, slash more akin to chopping down underbrush with a machete.
I like the description posted above but he relies heavily on fencing terms. I wonder if the average reader understands what a fencing lunge really is, or even a sixte, quarte, riposte etc. In the sample I posted I could have wrote:
James stood waiting in Chudan no Kamae as Charles boldly held himself in Jodan no Kamae. James shifted slightly towards a neko no kamae, suddenly Charles launched into a kokyu ho shomen no mune-suke. James performed outside tenkan and applied handachi no hara kiri.
Obviously this is much shorter but it means nothing to the reader unless they have trained in this system. And adding definitions during combat seem like anchors to the flow. I wonder if techniques can be introduced earlier in the story like characters are?
posted
To be honest I have to agree with an earlier post, it depends who you think that markets for. The average joe is not going to understand something along the lines of a 3,5,7 block. Whereas a fencer would.
An example of my fighting writing is :
Seeing that trying to talk the youngster out of his course was fruitless Borin drew his sword, bellowed a war cry and charged.
Macdreig barely had time to register the charging Verinas and nearly didn’t draw his falcata before the first blow was whistling towards his face, luck was with him and he managed to parry it on the crossguard of his blade and then feinted a return to the champions legs using his foot as a distraction.
However having been a warrior for over 10 years Borin suspected a deception so early on in the fight and the blow was easily stopped, laughing at what he thought was the ineptitude of his foe. Slowly the two started to circle each other hoping to discover a weakness in their opponents defense so that they could gain the upper hand before more troops arrived, as Macdreig wanted to be away and Borin had no wish to hand the spirited youngster over to the torturers of his Lords friends.
Breaking the stalemate by quickly darting to the left of the Verinas warrior, Macdreig tried to use his strength to wrest the weapon from his opponents grip which didn’t succeed as he was pushed back when he misjudged the distance and overshot the mark leaving neither any better off than when the fight had begun.
“You’re a worthy opponent, boy,” commented Borin during a lull in the battle, “and I’ll look forward to drinking a toast later for your bravery to face me.”
“Good, however I hope that your tribes past heroes will forgive you for mentioning my name in their halls.” Retorted the youngster.
Launching a quick thrusting attack to Borin’s face it nicked the skin above his left eye before the rim of his shield deflected the returning blade to prevent a blow that would have finished the fight then but fortune favoured the champion as the glancing blow stung Macdreig’s hand and caused him to lose the grip of his weapon setting it quivering in the joist of one of the catapults. Sensing the end was nearing Borin advanced upon his challenger weaving his sword in and out of his foes defences adding a number of cuts to the few he had already sustained but he couldn’t land the fatal blow as each time he tried it was blocked by Macdreig’s shield.
Feinting a move to his left, Macdreig darted to his right passing by his opponents own defences as he was nearly blinded by the blood flow from the cut above his left eye, turning to keep him in vision was all Borin could do as he saw the youngster retrieve his sword and turn again to face him.
Slashing his weapon through a series of maneuvers designed to keep his foe at bay, Macdreig was relieved to feel the familiar weight of his sword in his hands as he contemplated what strategy he could use that would gain him the upper hand and enable him to complete his mission with none forthcoming he knew that this opponent was as complete a warrior as any but all men had a weakness all he needed to do was work out where Borin’s lay but what did he know of his opponent that could lead to him making a mistake?
Whilst he was thinking about what he could do Borin swayed to his left to enable Macdreig’s sword to pass harmlessly by and countered with an overhead smash aimed to split his opponent from head to groin, had it connected that is exactly what it would have done but now he was off balance and a laughing tribesman was facing him preparing to attack.
“You’ve all the skill of a fish wife with that sword.” Laughed Macdreig.
Snarling now at the taunt of the younger man, Borin reacted instantly, what did this youngster know about him, he had fought over 30 duels and had always won, sure he had been cut, had suffered wounds that would have killed most men but he was still here to fight. His backhanded blow connected with the jaw of his accuser causing him to stumble, not only dropping his shield but also to fall backwards. Charging in to finish the younger man he noticed a split second before it landed that the angle of the younger mans blade was aimed at his hip and he’d charged onto it. Far from being off balance Macdreig had managed to anger him and caused him to charge in without thinking, now he was to pay the price of overexuberance to finish the duel off.
The sword clove into his hip and smashed the joint causing Borin to lose the grip on his own weapon and collapse, luckily just as the pain registered he blacked out and knew nothing else. Still, he had to admit, the younger man had done well, he would be someone to watch in the future, if only he had one.
Dragging his sword clear of his opponent, Macdreig cleaned it upon his shirt and resheathed the weapon before striking the fateful spark that would end any possible resistance from the town. All he had to do now was make it to his ship and they would all get away with no one knowing who had destroyed the town and the army that was preparing to invade his people’s lands.
Obviously the speech needs working on but Im only showing how I write a bit of combat.
posted
I liked the way the fight ended, a stop cut to the hip. The way Borin thought about it as he impaled himself was very close to thoughts I have had myself in matches. My only question was that it seemed the POV was form both men's perspectives was that intentional?
Posts: 451 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
Using technical language is fine for people that don't understand it. The only real risk is that someone in the audience will catch you getting it wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that asking a person to visualize the fight in detail is a mistake, which is a good reason to avoid technical language, you'll get a certain segment of the population trying to make sense of the actual physical action rather than communicating what can be communicated through writing.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
The example that Minister provided from Heinlein is very good, precisely because it doesn't rely on the technical language. The entire purpose of using those terms is to demonstrate that the POV character is formally trained in fencing (which is--quite frankly--the last martial art I'd take as a skill in a quest situation). All the description of what the fight was like is handled without using any technical language at all.
posted
I didn't want to include the entire fight scene in that post because of its length, but a couple of other points were of interest to me. In this fight, the protagonist defeats an apparently supperior opponent. The only instances in the fight that I noticed Heinlein giving detailed description of the moves (again, without many technical terms) were the couple of determining points in the fight that made it possible for him to win. Without that detailed description, it would have been hard for me to swallow the protagonist defeating this opponent. But if he had used that level of description for the entire fight, it would have been so bulky and unwieldy that I would have skimmed or skipped it entirely. Heinlein also made mention of the minor injuries sustained by both characters in the fight, and how those affected the flow and strategy of the fight. When I first read that book, I knew next to nothing of fencing, yet still enjoyed the scene immensely. I now know far more than I did then, and still enjoy the scene just as much. To me, that is the real beauty of that scene.
Posts: 491 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
JB, yeah it was kind of intentional as I had plans for Borin to be captured by the younger opponent and when his tribal leader turned traitor to the people he was going to give advice about the rulers state of mind as well as tactical information.
The whole plot is quite complex and may be a more than one book sort of job. But the idea's are there, just have to work it out a little better. In order to aid with the fighting I devised a card system where random hands are dealt out with counters as well as finishing moves. Its random but does give quite a good flurry of opportunity, including some where opponents can slip and lie prone to be finished off. THe chances of that coming up are 1-104 currently although for it to be used you have to hope the opponent doesnt have a counter to stop this. So the odds are much higher.
posted
JB and Others, I think its more important to say what happens, without technical terms if at all possible. There aren't really all that many things you can say with jargon borrowed from the french or japanese that you can't say, or at least describe, in english. A sample from my WIP: He launched a punch at my nose that came in like a lighting bolt and I reacted on instinct, parrying his incoming fist and catching his wrist in a move common to a dozen martial arts because of its effectiveness. I sent him flying by me fast enough to crash through the platform, but he just rolled along like a wheel as if it'd been his intention to do so all along. As he came upright, he spun low horizontally with a leg out, but I leapt the sweep easily and fell onto his back behind a pointed elbow that caught him in his kidneys and sprawled him out on his belly.
No terms to throw off the reader, no annoying "Flying mares" to confuse (L. L'Amour used the phrase in his westerns and I wondered what it was, exactly, for years as a kid) just straight forward description.
posted
You do have one more-or-less technical term in "parry" but you could get rid of that quite easily by removing the phrase that uses the word:
quote:I reacted on instinct, catching his wrist in a move common to a dozen martial arts because of its effectiveness.
I'd continue the sentence to say something like
quote:and pulling him past me fast enough to send him crashing through the platform. He just rolled along...
mainly because parrying his fist and catching his wrist and sending him flying don't really tell me what you did (except catch his wrist)--the parry is unclear and the sending is unclear.
posted
In other words, I agree that you can describe what happens without using any technical terms or jargon or words the reader has to look up (if they care enough to do so).
And you can do it economically and elegantly (without too many words, that is).
posted
I still think that by concentrating on what happens rather than why is a mistake, whether or not the audience can visualize the action in detail after your description. The more important issue is whether or not readers understand the meaning of the fight.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Survivor, Ah, that was outside the scope of the discussion, I thought. In my example the fight is actually the narrator having fun, its an exhibition-- which is clear in the text of course. Its still a little verbose, though I occasionally will use a term like parry; most people don't realise they don't know what it means and accept it well enough, whereas I seldom employ a term like _shuto-strike_ unless that term has been adequetly vetted by the text ie I used it in an earlier scene with an explanation build into the narrative. I'm a fairly sloppy writer in first draft and take several to pare down to anything resembling a finished text. My main point is that technical terms should be either avoided or supported by the text so as not to risk derailing the reader from that all important reader trance. In short fiction that usualy means eliminating them outright for me, four or five K is just not enough space to waste any on such things. Longer work supports a more vairied vocabulary, of course. Mike
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
In my example the fight is actually the narrator having fun, its an exhibition-- which is clear in the text of course. Its still a little verbose, though I occasionally will use a term like parry; most people don't realise they don't know what it means and accept it well enough, whereas I seldom employ a term like _shuto-strike_ unless that term has been adequetly vetted by the text ie I used it in an earlier scene with an explanation build into the narrative. I'm a fairly sloppy writer in first draft and take several to pare down to anything resembling a finished text.
