I've always found it challenging to write effective scenes of combat. It takes a certain level of skill to describe the action in just enough detail, without going overboard.
How do you approach this?
How do you approach this?
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Writing combat
- Thread starter Black Dragon
- Start date
Kelise
Scribal Lord
With a whooole lot of rewrites.
Basically I'm awful (I think). I usually script it out to get the actions right, then I change it to dialogue.
Basically I'm awful (I think). I usually script it out to get the actions right, then I change it to dialogue.
Fnord
Lore Master
I always thought this was something RA Salvatore got somewhat right. I'm not really a big fan of "fight scenes" in stories in general because my eyes start to glaze over, but I managed to power through his clashes (at least in the earlier books, never read any of the more recent ones) without getting impatient.
Amanita
Scribal Lord
I haven't written any fight scenes yet, but I'm quite sure it will have to happen at some time. 
Mine will have to look unlike the ones usually found in fantasy, so I'll have to figure it out on my own.
Generally, I think it's very important to know really well how the weapons you've chosen work. What it feels like to use them, what can or cannot be done with them, what kind of injuries they cause and so on.
Besides that you have to decide if you only want "heroic" descriptions or if you want terrible injuries and painful deaths maybe even of enemies.
It's also interesting to know, what the character feels like about the fight. Does he have a strong desire to protect his home, get his country further, get rid of completely evil enemies? Does he enjoy the fighting and maybe even killing? These can be important aspects of characterisation.
Another question, a writer could ask themselves when writing war. Does the "good side" have some strict moral principles? Or do both sides use dirty methods?
According to our lecturer it's been really common during medieval times to through dead bodies of people or animals into besieged cities with catapults to cause fear and disease. And in real wars, both sides tended to do this kind of thing.
Does your good side allow itself to be less effective for moral reasons? Why are these so important to them? Do they already know that the disease might spread to them if they finally conquer the city? Can and would readers sympathise with people who cause innocent civilians to get dangerous and painful diseases?
Mine will have to look unlike the ones usually found in fantasy, so I'll have to figure it out on my own.Generally, I think it's very important to know really well how the weapons you've chosen work. What it feels like to use them, what can or cannot be done with them, what kind of injuries they cause and so on.
Besides that you have to decide if you only want "heroic" descriptions or if you want terrible injuries and painful deaths maybe even of enemies.
It's also interesting to know, what the character feels like about the fight. Does he have a strong desire to protect his home, get his country further, get rid of completely evil enemies? Does he enjoy the fighting and maybe even killing? These can be important aspects of characterisation.
Another question, a writer could ask themselves when writing war. Does the "good side" have some strict moral principles? Or do both sides use dirty methods?
According to our lecturer it's been really common during medieval times to through dead bodies of people or animals into besieged cities with catapults to cause fear and disease. And in real wars, both sides tended to do this kind of thing.
Does your good side allow itself to be less effective for moral reasons? Why are these so important to them? Do they already know that the disease might spread to them if they finally conquer the city? Can and would readers sympathise with people who cause innocent civilians to get dangerous and painful diseases?
Last edited:
I think I've managed to avoid fight scenes in what I'm writing at the moment. I can't think of a single one I have planned. Mostly my characters rely on stealth, guerella tactics, arguments, name calling, political manouvering and seduction. I guess there will be some fighting at the start of the climax I have planned, but neither of my main characters will be there (one character finds a way to keep the other well out of it, as he's the greatest threat to the plan.) I guess I'll have a few skirmishes during the execution of this plan; but in general it goes smoothly. It's the bit that follows that doesn't go smoothly, when my main characters arrive back on the scene. But again, no real fight scenes. The main conflicts are emotional and moral rather than physical.
You ask good questions, Amanita. Finding the answer to them could really help demonstrate a character's beliefs and personal development within a fight scene. After all, a fight scene doesn't just have to be to force the plot to move on; it can be part of character development too, it can be used to demonstrate the ideals of the cultures involved in terms of honour, mercy, surrender, whether they take prisoners and how they treat them, and a lot more.
You ask good questions, Amanita. Finding the answer to them could really help demonstrate a character's beliefs and personal development within a fight scene. After all, a fight scene doesn't just have to be to force the plot to move on; it can be part of character development too, it can be used to demonstrate the ideals of the cultures involved in terms of honour, mercy, surrender, whether they take prisoners and how they treat them, and a lot more.
Last edited:
Combat can be difficult when it comes to balancing pace with detail.
I always ask myself, what does the viewpoint character see? What does the viewpoint character think is important enough to notice on a battlefield? If they're a general, talking about troop formations and such would presumably match the tone of your piece; if they're a footsoldier or unlucky civilian, random chaos and noting when they get stabbed might be all that's needed. Some might have to wait for discussion with other characters after the battle.
I always ask myself, what does the viewpoint character see? What does the viewpoint character think is important enough to notice on a battlefield? If they're a general, talking about troop formations and such would presumably match the tone of your piece; if they're a footsoldier or unlucky civilian, random chaos and noting when they get stabbed might be all that's needed. Some might have to wait for discussion with other characters after the battle.
I enjoy writing combat scenes in all forms. I feel the need to qualify the following post - I'm a martial arts instructor. I know a great deal about the realities of physical violence.
Amanita and Derin make two good points. Amanita's I'll boil down to "How far do you abstract the action?"
Real violence is just that - violent. The event itself is usually messy, barbaric, and inglorious even in the best of circumstances. Thanks to the miracle of 24-hour news, most of the world knows this even if most people haven't really internalized it.
When writing combat of any kind, you need to take into account the tone of your world. The tone of your combat should match it. A couple of handy archetypes here are Tolkien and Goodkind.
Tolkien's Middle-Earth had a lofty feel, and the descriptions of battle followed suit. The darkest moment I can think of in the Lord of the Rings is when the orcs launch the severed heads of fallen soldiers over the walls of Minas Tirith. Tolkien describes this horrible deed bloodlessly. He mentions that some of them were crushed, or hewn, but there is no actual mention of blood or the decay of flesh. This is as horrible a scene as is ever depicted in LOTR. Most other violence is even more abstractly painted. The world's tone matches the action.
On the other hand, Goodkind's Sword of Truth reveled in gory, even macabre depictions of slaughter. He describes heads exploding in clouds of blood and skull splinters, seas of hacked corpses, etc etc. Likewise his entire world is much earthier, much dirtier than Middle-Earth.
The tone will hopefully come naturally to you - it is your world, after all. The other thing to take into account is how knowledgeable you are. I myself use a fair bit of detail, because I know how fights can go. I know the boundary between 'unlikely' and 'just plain ridiculous.' The less you know (or think you can reliably imagine) about the sort of combat you describe, the more abstract you should be.
Derin mentioned balancing pace with detail, which is another big issue. Easily the one I have to watch out for the most.
When describing combat, I myself try to keep words and sentences short and choppy, to give them a violence of their own. You can pack more detail into less space this way, as well. Combat is generally exciting. Try not to let your reader get bored in the middle of a fight scene.
When in the middle of a fight, a person has very little time to think. Action, reaction, and repeat. Deep thinking, lessons learned, startling revelations - those come AFTER you're done keeping yourself alive (or unhurt, depending on the specifics of the combat).
Amanita and Derin make two good points. Amanita's I'll boil down to "How far do you abstract the action?"
Real violence is just that - violent. The event itself is usually messy, barbaric, and inglorious even in the best of circumstances. Thanks to the miracle of 24-hour news, most of the world knows this even if most people haven't really internalized it.
When writing combat of any kind, you need to take into account the tone of your world. The tone of your combat should match it. A couple of handy archetypes here are Tolkien and Goodkind.
Tolkien's Middle-Earth had a lofty feel, and the descriptions of battle followed suit. The darkest moment I can think of in the Lord of the Rings is when the orcs launch the severed heads of fallen soldiers over the walls of Minas Tirith. Tolkien describes this horrible deed bloodlessly. He mentions that some of them were crushed, or hewn, but there is no actual mention of blood or the decay of flesh. This is as horrible a scene as is ever depicted in LOTR. Most other violence is even more abstractly painted. The world's tone matches the action.
On the other hand, Goodkind's Sword of Truth reveled in gory, even macabre depictions of slaughter. He describes heads exploding in clouds of blood and skull splinters, seas of hacked corpses, etc etc. Likewise his entire world is much earthier, much dirtier than Middle-Earth.
The tone will hopefully come naturally to you - it is your world, after all. The other thing to take into account is how knowledgeable you are. I myself use a fair bit of detail, because I know how fights can go. I know the boundary between 'unlikely' and 'just plain ridiculous.' The less you know (or think you can reliably imagine) about the sort of combat you describe, the more abstract you should be.
Derin mentioned balancing pace with detail, which is another big issue. Easily the one I have to watch out for the most.
When describing combat, I myself try to keep words and sentences short and choppy, to give them a violence of their own. You can pack more detail into less space this way, as well. Combat is generally exciting. Try not to let your reader get bored in the middle of a fight scene.
When in the middle of a fight, a person has very little time to think. Action, reaction, and repeat. Deep thinking, lessons learned, startling revelations - those come AFTER you're done keeping yourself alive (or unhurt, depending on the specifics of the combat).
Telcontar brings up some good points. I've been in my fair share of violent confrontations and there is very little time for internal dialogue during the act itself. So in my writing I try to convey that, although my fight scenes in my fanfic have been rather bland compared to what I know truly happens in a real fight. I wrote several chapters dealing with a "Gladiator" type situation with my main char and had several battle scenes I had to write for that. I kept them tamed down for the most part and dealt in generalizations.
I have special training in combat situations and have many friends that are trained in the martial arts and even a couple I rely on for historical accuracy in my weapon choices for scenes. A good fight scene doesn't have to be blood and guts. I think most writers have enough imagination, and have seen enough fake fight scenes on TV and movies to envision the scene without every drop of blood described for them.
I'm also one of those that if I have a scene I want to get just right, to make sure it is feasible, I actually do a live walk through of the fight scene.
You can chose to have fight scenes like Xena/Hercules TV, or scenes like Braveheart or Gladiatior. In the end the choice goes to the writer, as it should be.
I have special training in combat situations and have many friends that are trained in the martial arts and even a couple I rely on for historical accuracy in my weapon choices for scenes. A good fight scene doesn't have to be blood and guts. I think most writers have enough imagination, and have seen enough fake fight scenes on TV and movies to envision the scene without every drop of blood described for them.
I'm also one of those that if I have a scene I want to get just right, to make sure it is feasible, I actually do a live walk through of the fight scene.
You can chose to have fight scenes like Xena/Hercules TV, or scenes like Braveheart or Gladiatior. In the end the choice goes to the writer, as it should be.
Ophiucha
Dark Lord
The thing I focus on most when writing a fight scene is the sentence structure and word choice. There's no definitive way to say how much to write; it depends on many things: the weapon, the situation, the POV. But I find that the best way to convey a fight scene, near invariably, is how it is written. In moments of quick gun shots or parrying swords, it is near invariably best conveyed with short sentences, even fragments and sound effects. Then, in moments of a hit, slow it down, longer sentences, bigger words. If it's in first person, you could have them become more incoherent as they begin to lose blood or get tired.
James Chandler
Master
There is no formula that always works because violence, especially in fantasy, requires considering SO MANY parameters. Ultimately, though, you must stick to the basics of storytelling: story, plot, setting, character. Before you decide how to write a combat scene, you have to determine why. Not just why is the fight occurring, but why are you telling the reader about it. What element or elements of the story does the fight advance? Once you know why, that should dictate the how.
Readers are more apt to forgive a description of a fight that may be unlikely, though hopefully not 'just plain ridiculous,' than they are to forgive a fight that is irrelevant. If the details of a combat do not reveal anything about story, plot, setting, or character, then don't bother telling us about it because we will be bored. If a character knees another character in the groin, you must have a reason for it. It does not have to be a "big" reason. You may just want the reader to consider whether such a move is underhanded or practical, but you must have a reason. Maybe you're telling the reader something about the character in his/her willingness to use such a tactic or maybe you're using it comically. Remember, the reader is constantly subconsciously asking, "Why are you telling me this?" Having the answer is how you keep them reading.
Readers are more apt to forgive a description of a fight that may be unlikely, though hopefully not 'just plain ridiculous,' than they are to forgive a fight that is irrelevant. If the details of a combat do not reveal anything about story, plot, setting, or character, then don't bother telling us about it because we will be bored. If a character knees another character in the groin, you must have a reason for it. It does not have to be a "big" reason. You may just want the reader to consider whether such a move is underhanded or practical, but you must have a reason. Maybe you're telling the reader something about the character in his/her willingness to use such a tactic or maybe you're using it comically. Remember, the reader is constantly subconsciously asking, "Why are you telling me this?" Having the answer is how you keep them reading.
Last edited:
sashamerideth
Scribal Lord
I don't know if my fight scenes have been written well, but so far it has been going on around my people, so they aren't directly involved. There, I can capture the fear of a non combatant as death flies in the air. Still not sure how I would write a confrontation, I am third person limited, present tense so how I write a fight scene is different from how someone writing in first person would write it.
M.A.N.
Journeyman
I too have done my share of martial arts training. When on seminars I've tried to write down the different techniques being shown. But when Dan Inosanto is about to demonstrate a Kali single stick technique it usually turns out to be dozens of different versions and my notes suffer.
When I go back later on I can't make head or tails of what I meant ... "block Op. swing w. hit to hand, grab wrist, snake stick under arm then over from behind across neck, apply pressure > takedown"
I mean ... WOT?
And the point I'm trying to make is that in writing I've come across those authors that are too detailed and you get lost. Keep it simple seems like a good plan.
Of course not always easy to do, but perhaps something to strive for.
Take care,
Magnus
When I go back later on I can't make head or tails of what I meant ... "block Op. swing w. hit to hand, grab wrist, snake stick under arm then over from behind across neck, apply pressure > takedown"
I mean ... WOT?
And the point I'm trying to make is that in writing I've come across those authors that are too detailed and you get lost. Keep it simple seems like a good plan.
Of course not always easy to do, but perhaps something to strive for.
Take care,
Magnus
Chase Simba
Apprentice
If in first person:
Imagine yourself in that situation and show what the character would feel. Tell what the character would tell. Focus on what happens to the character, and show what s/he is doing and feeling.
If in third person:
Talk about what each combatant looks like, and how heavy each blow is. Don't say anything about emotion, unless it's like '...the rage in his eyes flickered ever brighter as his weight bore down on his lighter opponent, whose despair and exhaustion were palpable in his defeated look.
If you need more detail from me, just ask.
Imagine yourself in that situation and show what the character would feel. Tell what the character would tell. Focus on what happens to the character, and show what s/he is doing and feeling.
If in third person:
Talk about what each combatant looks like, and how heavy each blow is. Don't say anything about emotion, unless it's like '...the rage in his eyes flickered ever brighter as his weight bore down on his lighter opponent, whose despair and exhaustion were palpable in his defeated look.
If you need more detail from me, just ask.
TWErvin2
Dark Lord
There is no formula or trick to what works that I've ever been able to determine with respect to writing fight/combat scenes. What has worked best for me is reading and studying how some of my favorite authors accomplished writing fight scenes.
I focused mainly on Stephen R. Donadson, Roger Zelazny, Steven Brust and Laurell K. Hamilton. Then, what I did was apply how they went about it...pacing, word choice, how they described it (and 1st person differs from 3rd person) with my own writing style. Even now, when I'm a bit unsure after writing the first draft, I go back and review for a bit of guidance and inspiration.
It's a delicate balance to provide of enough detail and information so that the reader can engage their imagination and fill in what's going on. A writer can never equal the reader taking hold of a novel's contents and creating the images of characters, places and action in their own mind.
I focused mainly on Stephen R. Donadson, Roger Zelazny, Steven Brust and Laurell K. Hamilton. Then, what I did was apply how they went about it...pacing, word choice, how they described it (and 1st person differs from 3rd person) with my own writing style. Even now, when I'm a bit unsure after writing the first draft, I go back and review for a bit of guidance and inspiration.
It's a delicate balance to provide of enough detail and information so that the reader can engage their imagination and fill in what's going on. A writer can never equal the reader taking hold of a novel's contents and creating the images of characters, places and action in their own mind.
As with most such things—and as Amanita has already pointed out—the first key is knowing what you're talking about. Don't try to give details about a fight if you aren't familiar with how combat actually works. If you aren't, then pass rapidly over the action and move on: not everybody will want to read blow-by-blow accounts anyway. If you do know a bit about fighting, then details will definitely punch up your story, same as with any other use of concrete description. (You're in the SCA, right, Black Dragon? How often have you read a description of a fight and thought to yourself "That would never work" or "No one fighting for his life would really do that"—or even "You can't do that with a [insert weapon here]!" ?)
As for when it becomes too much, I think that depends mostly on what you want for your story. For some people, anything beyond terse accounts is going to seem excessive; for those who are genuinely interested in combat sports or the military, no amount of detail will ever be "too much." I fall somewhere in the middle: I like detail as long as it doesn't interfere with the overall flow of the story. Sometimes, especially in a first person POV story, that will involve a lot of detail—fighting for one's life tends to be fairly important to the one doing it—but the only detail will be what the character himself experiences: there might be thousands of people around him, all with the same concerns, but what happens to them will only matter to the narrator in retrospect. But a fifty-page fight scene in the middle of a 300-page story, no matter how "in the moment" the narrator might be, is definitely not proportionate to the overall narration… and I have seen that.
In stories with third person narration—say, LoTR—description might be considerable in sweep and scope, and occupy entire chapters, yet still end up seeming inadequate to someone who really wants to know "everything" that happened in the battle. Consider the differences in that trilogy between the battles at Helm's Deep and in front of Minas Tirith: I'm always left wanting more in the latter of these whenever I re-read it. Even there, what the reader sees all comes through the eyes of one or another of the characters… and Tolkien rarely gets down to the level of blow-by-blow description: Eowyn and Merry killing the Nazgul is the only case I recall offhand where every single blow is detailed; the fights at Weathertop and in Moria come close. The rest of the time, you're getting summaries, sometimes of greater detail, sometimes less.
As for when it becomes too much, I think that depends mostly on what you want for your story. For some people, anything beyond terse accounts is going to seem excessive; for those who are genuinely interested in combat sports or the military, no amount of detail will ever be "too much." I fall somewhere in the middle: I like detail as long as it doesn't interfere with the overall flow of the story. Sometimes, especially in a first person POV story, that will involve a lot of detail—fighting for one's life tends to be fairly important to the one doing it—but the only detail will be what the character himself experiences: there might be thousands of people around him, all with the same concerns, but what happens to them will only matter to the narrator in retrospect. But a fifty-page fight scene in the middle of a 300-page story, no matter how "in the moment" the narrator might be, is definitely not proportionate to the overall narration… and I have seen that.
In stories with third person narration—say, LoTR—description might be considerable in sweep and scope, and occupy entire chapters, yet still end up seeming inadequate to someone who really wants to know "everything" that happened in the battle. Consider the differences in that trilogy between the battles at Helm's Deep and in front of Minas Tirith: I'm always left wanting more in the latter of these whenever I re-read it. Even there, what the reader sees all comes through the eyes of one or another of the characters… and Tolkien rarely gets down to the level of blow-by-blow description: Eowyn and Merry killing the Nazgul is the only case I recall offhand where every single blow is detailed; the fights at Weathertop and in Moria come close. The rest of the time, you're getting summaries, sometimes of greater detail, sometimes less.
meylaran
Acolyte
In the scenes I've written, I've tried to stay out of too much detail. I don't know a great deal about combat, only what I've read and studied of other authors. I think if you're not very familiar with what you are writing, find out as much as you can, but avoid going too far into it. Your reader is smart and will realize fairly quickly if you don't know what you're talking about. I agree about word choice and sentence structure. That can lend a great deal to the tone you're trying to set.
SeverinR
Valar Lord
The different forms of combat are different in how to write them.
for me:
Firearms; shooting at over arms length away. Depending on the style of shooter; spray and pray will make for a short firefight, at least between reloading. (spray bullets in general direction and pray they hit)
cliche: always hitting, always missing, endless bullets in a firearm, bullets won't penetrate anything the person hides behind, or penetrates everything hidden behind.
Melee: fist fights and up close and personal weapons tend to be a blow by blow account of the battle.
Cliche:1 professional wrestling style, one person will rule the match until the underdog finally has enough and comes back to win. 2.hours and hours of fighting. Fatigue ends fights quickly. When one faces to many opponents, they are killed becasue of fatigue. Long battles means thousands of dead, the individual fights are seconds to minutes.
traditional Sieges: prolonged conflicts, starving out your opponents. Few fights(mostly bored or starving men with nothing to lose trying to be a hero.) If your world has flying mounts, sieges are a different story. (Berlin airlift vs siege troops being harrassed by air attacks at random times. or sending a flying message for assistance.)
Fight scenes are tough to write. I couldn't imagine trying to describe a fight without experience to draw on.(at least melee)
Bullets flying can be described just by watching realistic scenes. I would encourage some research into bullet wounds and why the person might not survive a bullet wound even without hitting organs. (trauma channel, hitting a main artery,etc)
for me:
Firearms; shooting at over arms length away. Depending on the style of shooter; spray and pray will make for a short firefight, at least between reloading. (spray bullets in general direction and pray they hit)
cliche: always hitting, always missing, endless bullets in a firearm, bullets won't penetrate anything the person hides behind, or penetrates everything hidden behind.
Melee: fist fights and up close and personal weapons tend to be a blow by blow account of the battle.
Cliche:1 professional wrestling style, one person will rule the match until the underdog finally has enough and comes back to win. 2.hours and hours of fighting. Fatigue ends fights quickly. When one faces to many opponents, they are killed becasue of fatigue. Long battles means thousands of dead, the individual fights are seconds to minutes.
traditional Sieges: prolonged conflicts, starving out your opponents. Few fights(mostly bored or starving men with nothing to lose trying to be a hero.) If your world has flying mounts, sieges are a different story. (Berlin airlift vs siege troops being harrassed by air attacks at random times. or sending a flying message for assistance.)
Fight scenes are tough to write. I couldn't imagine trying to describe a fight without experience to draw on.(at least melee)
Bullets flying can be described just by watching realistic scenes. I would encourage some research into bullet wounds and why the person might not survive a bullet wound even without hitting organs. (trauma channel, hitting a main artery,etc)
Vita Numinous
Journeyman
I love everyone's advice on this difficult question! I normally sit back and do some detailed daydreaming (ain't being a writer great?) about exactly what is happening, in technical detail, in both emotional content and plot. Then, if it's a third person story, I choose which character's viewpoint shows the most of the things I need this scene to show. After that, even if it's a third person book I let the power of a combat scene draw me closer to the character I chose to focus on. Combat is horrifying, and your characters are almost always in some state of fight or flight, even if it is a contained one. I might know technical detail, but I only get into what I feel that particular character would take note of, for the most part. If I need to show someone's particularly dramatic demise, it will be at least tinged with how that character percieves it and reacts to it. In short, I always feel that a fight scene is woefully lacking if it is just a record of who hit who and how much blood splattered. The human (elven, vampiric, dwarven, alien, whatever) experience of that scene is what I feel brings it alive.