| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| quajack |
Posted - 13 Nov 2006 : 17:40:52
After reading about 180 FR novels I've come to the conclusion that I vehemently dislike battle sequences. I'm currently engrossed in the Rogue Dragons Trilogy (200 pages into the Ruin) and I find myself cringing any time a battle is about to errupt.
This sentiment holds true especially when it's a foregone conclusion as to who will emerge victorious (ie: any time Drizzt fights).
The most prominent example of a "battle gone long" is Gromph Beneare's spell battle against the lich-drow in ?Annihilation?
Personally, I'd much prefer a single paragraph with a brief explanation of how the battle was won instead of a detailed description of every sword feint and dagger thrust that occurs during every skirmish.
Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| mavericace |
Posted - 02 Dec 2006 : 07:13:48
I prefer long "battle sequences" over long "fight sequences" but that is just me. |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 01 Dec 2006 : 23:14:31
quote:
Originally posted by Mark S.
Do you differentiate between a "battle scene" and a "fight scene?"
When I see the term "battle scene," I picture a clash of armies.
But a "fight scene" is a fight between two or more characters.
In general, I'd say battle scenes, if you are describing the conflict between huge forces, need to be detailed very quickly.
Fight scenes, on the other hand, can have lots of detail, but the focus needs to be on the characters and the emotions in play, not the choreography. "He thrust with his right hand" and "she parried with her left" gets old fast unless emotions are in play.
Well met
Oh certainly. "Battle" has always meant large scale to me and thus is brushed over more briefly than a closely focused fight between individuals. Ye can't focus on much more than a handful of combatants afterall and detail each conflict without it loosing the edge. |
| Mark S. |
Posted - 01 Dec 2006 : 18:48:54
Do you differentiate between a "battle scene" and a "fight scene?"
When I see the term "battle scene," I picture a clash of armies.
But a "fight scene" is a fight between two or more characters.
In general, I'd say battle scenes, if you are describing the conflict between huge forces, need to be detailed very quickly.
Fight scenes, on the other hand, can have lots of detail, but the focus needs to be on the characters and the emotions in play, not the choreography. "He thrust with his right hand" and "she parried with her left" gets old fast unless emotions are in play.
|
| Zimme |
Posted - 25 Nov 2006 : 00:07:06
For me the detailed description of a battle, be it with steel or spells or whatnot)Is a absolute must*! It adds to the story itself, the context and so, without it battle becomes somewhat boring.
*IF the story is well written that is. |
| Gellion |
Posted - 18 Nov 2006 : 01:20:57
I generally like battle scenes, especially spell battles. Shame on all you who skip battle scenes, and you call yourselves FR fans.
I will say that single line descriptions can be very effective though, such as in the short story, "There is another shore you know,upon the other side", in the Dragons of Chaos Anthology for Dragonlance. Here is a description of a battle.
"We fought like rabid dogs. They got us anyway." |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 17 Nov 2006 : 23:51:26
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
If you look at the older Sword and Sorcery writings, such as Leiber, Howard and even Moorcock, and Aston Smith the fighting itself usually didnt take up that much place. The building up of the conflict, environment and the intrigue had a far more important role than the climax. There is a sense of wonder that I find more and more lacking, both in fighting and in the magic, where the long spell battles are even worse for me personally than the sword fights.
But then again tastes differ.
There are some things that are tasteless... "Evita" for example...the one with Madonna. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 10:23:14
If you look at the older Sword and Sorcery writings, such as Leiber, Howard and even Moorcock, and Aston Smith the fighting itself usually didnt take up that much place. The building up of the conflict, environment and the intrigue had a far more important role than the climax. There is a sense of wonder that I find more and more lacking, both in fighting and in the magic, where the long spell battles are even worse for me personally than the sword fights.
But then again tastes differ. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 09:27:25
More than enough indeed... one sentence for a minor battle, if any at all. Frankly said, in a game stuff happens, but a novel is a controlled environment...to a degree.
A minor skirmish bears no importance to the story, neither does the toothache of the smith in a random city. Hence, no sentence is needed at all.
Sword and Sorcery...well, if I look back at Conan, sure there were battles, but not every battle received the same attention. Hell, Howard wrote short stories, had he included every skirmish in the stories, he would've produced novels. Plus, IIRC, even these battles were not very detailed. We didn't know whether Conan pirouted to the left, and then the right to gracefully chop off someone's head, and we didn't care.
The epic end fight is a completely different animal! |
| mavericace |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 07:27:59
i think everyone brings up some good points. IMO the bottom line is that they need to bring something to the book and not just random filler. sometimes i like a long detailed battle scene, like if it is a battle between the main hero and main villian and if it is just the hero vs some random orc or goblin than a few sentances is more than enough. |
| quajack |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 00:49:21
To me, long drawn out battle descriptions are most frustrating when the outcome is obvious. If 50 pages into a book the main character is fighting some orcs, I don't need the details. |
| Aglaranna |
Posted - 15 Nov 2006 : 23:34:25
Hm. When in doubt, skim the next two pages, and if the main character is still alive, you know the fight went well! (Unless he dies of loss of blood in the next chapter...) But, to put forth a semi-serious comment, I'll paraphrase something some author said: "You should not go too deeply into detail when writing. You must give the reader a chance to visualize things for themself. It enhances enjoyment." But I haven't read War of the Spider Queen yet, so I wouldn't know about fantastic, vivid spell battles. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 15 Nov 2006 : 21:23:45
I'm the exact opposite when it comes to spell battles. The battle between Gromph Baenre and the lich drow was my most favorite part of that novel. I could really SEE in my head what was going on, almost like making an action movie for me. It was just wonderful. Its even better when they don't just make up the effects and actually use in-game spells that you'd recognize.
Now, for most melee combats, I find I have this problem because many authors don't describe the combat in a way that you can visualize it (i.e. you have to reread the passage in order to get the idea that the person did a backwards flip and spun on his knee to use his momentum to bury the blade in the guys shoulder... or something similar).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 23:35:58
You know, there's been a couple of times I have tried to visualize a described battle sequence... And with at least one author, I am usually left scratching my head, because the sequence just doesn't seem to work as described.  |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 22:50:46
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
I enjoy descriptive battle scenes as long as the description adds something to the story. I don't want to read the blow-by-blow just for the sake of being able to visualize it. Usually, reading the thoughts that run through the characters' minds during the fight makes it worth the read though. Drizzt and Entreri are good examples of that.
Agreed, it has to be important/relevant for the story. Many times it is not.
Would I like to read every band of uruks Aragorn and his demihuman pals met on the way to Fangorn? Hell no, sometimes, tho, you get the impression that this is the case. |
| Calrond |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 20:57:10
I enjoy descriptive battle scenes as long as the description adds something to the story. I don't want to read the blow-by-blow just for the sake of being able to visualize it. Usually, reading the thoughts that run through the characters' minds during the fight makes it worth the read though. Drizzt and Entreri are good examples of that. |
| Besshalar |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 18:04:45
It's true the battle scenes seem to have gotten longer and longer through the years and I also find myself skimming the text at times. I wonder when it happened that battles started to take up so much space because I don't think it always thus.........
Or then I'm just getting old I have noticed that nowadays I get a rush everytime I get up unexpectedly...
And those who can spot the reference there are to be congratulated on their sense of humour. |
| DragonReader |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 16:53:04
I agree that I don't much care for random encounter-type fight scenes in novels, but again if the fight fits in the sory and is well done, I have no problem with it. I have a feeling people would be up in arms if all battles were reduced to a sentence or two saying there was a fight and the good guys won. That simply isn't good writing IMHO. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 16:07:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Some may disagree with my comparison with pornography...
I actually think that word is fitting, in some cases. |
| Marc |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 11:47:51
I agree if authors want to preserve space to more elaborate a story, battle scenes should be first to cut down |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 10:27:39
I've said it before and I say it again, unless a battle is really plot relevant it shouldn't be mentioned with more than one or two sentences, if it is pivotal, sure, more is to be expected. The problem is that many battles are not plot-relevant, they just happen, as if the random encounter table helped the DM/writer so to speak.
A book solely based on revenge, like Ghostwalker, combat and death are essential. In a book like the Thousand Orcs war is important, individual combat, IMO, is not; Drizzt fights good period. In The Two Swords Drizzt's fight with Obould is important, the showdown, but nothing justifies the g(l)oryfied, almost pornographic, detail to battles that accompany some stories.
Frankly said, I really don't care about Drizzt (still the prime example, unfortunately) pivoting to the left than the right to trick an opponent, then falling down to his knees and ramming his scimitars into the opponent being described on 2 or more pages that could have been filled with plot and character.
Some may disagree with my comparison with pornography, but look at it objectively: we know what is going on in both porn and battle, there is nothing new in either. Sure a pivotal battle cannot be compared to any kind of porn, but that is beside the point. The mostly senseless attention to detail is what makes combat pornographic.
Again this is just my opinion. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 07:23:50
I am not a great fan of extended battle scenes, although a little bit action is OK; the mix from most of the Harper books and Moonshae books fits nicely. But even then I would rather have less than more combat scenes. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 02:31:25
Prose just isn't that good for describing complex movements in four-dimensional space-time, which means that anatomical fight, dance and sex scenes have to be very adeptly done to keep the reader's interest. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 02:17:42
quote:
Originally posted by DragonReader
Battle/fight scenes can be well done or not and I find (for me at least) it has little to do with the length of the scene.
Very true. |
| DragonReader |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 00:44:53
Battle/fight scenes can be well done or not and I find (for me at least) it has little to do with the length of the scene. If I can visualize the fight and it sounds/looks realistic, then for me it is a good scene. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 00:25:59
I'd have to say short as well. It doesn't matter whether it is books or films.
I'm reading FR novels (and watching films) for character development, source material, and a well-crafted plot. I appreciate that action/fighting scenes are sometimes necessary to convey a deeper meaning about the characters than dialogue ever could -- for example, I doubt a viewer or a reader could feel the same emotion and heartbreak that exists between watching (and reading) Anakin's and Obi-Wan's duel in Revenge of the Sith if they had instead engaged in a verbal battle. It's represents the climatic breaking point between the two main characters and is necessary for us to learn more about the armored Vader's origins.
I enjoy fighting scenes that represent some major element of the story, or are manifestations of some major point -- and are thus *necessary* for the story itself. Small skirmishes here and there, and the odd scuffle as the story progresses, often are the parts I'll skim over, unless there's also plenty of dialogue. At which point, the reader or viewer potentially stands to learn something more about the characters themselves, so I'll read over the the dialogue as I skim through the battle scenes.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 00:11:40
Short for me otherwise I skim it so I can get through the scene as quick as possible and move on with the story. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 00:06:16
I prefer "short, sweet, and to the point" battle scenes, myself. I'm not one of those readers who just loves every minute battle move described to me at length *shrug*. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 13 Nov 2006 : 23:51:24
The first book of Starlight and Shadows utterly delighted me when reading about the battle sequences. Normally I find battle scenes fairly standard procedure but Fyodor in his beserker rage was so magnificently described by Elaine it thrilled me every time I read the battles. I even reread one of them as it was so good |
| Marc |
Posted - 13 Nov 2006 : 18:10:10
I agree, I prefer short descriptions of battles not some slow motion |
| quajack |
Posted - 13 Nov 2006 : 17:48:30
Thanks, Kentinal. Just trying to squeeze in an obscure Dennis Miller reference. |
