Motivation-Response Unit in Scene vs. Sequel

[azbikergirl]

According to the link Denis posted (click me (http://www.rsingermanson.com/html/perfect_scene.html)) in the He thought thread, a scene and a sequel are made up by a series of MRUs. Dwight Swain defines scene as "Goal, Conflict, Disaster" and Sequel as "Reaction, Dilemma, Decision."

I'm getting the impression that the sequel is mostly internal processing, following the Scene. Mr. Ingermanson describes well how to use MRUs with Scene, but doesn't go into detail on how to use MRUs with Sequel. If Sequel is the internal processing, what would be the Motivation unit? Using his example:


The tiger dropped out of the tree and sprang toward Jack.

A bolt of raw adrenaline shot through Jack's veins. He jerked his rifle to his shoulder, sighted on the tiger's heart, and squeezed the trigger. "Die, you bastard!"

The bullet grazed the tiger's left shoulder. Blood squirted out of the jagged wound. The tiger roared and staggered, then leaped in the air straight at Jack's throat.


Let's say Jack fires another shot and it kills the tiger. How would a Sequel look using MRUs?

[maestrowork]

I'm getting the impression that the sequel is mostly internal processing...

I don't think that's it. Reaction, dilemma, decision can be revealed in action -- can be shown.

If Jack fires and kills the tiger in this scene, the sequel could be (there are many options, here's just one):

He examines the tiger, makes sure it's dead (reaction). Now how can he get the tiger back to the village -- should he leave the tiger there, risking it being salvaged by another animal, or should he hide it, or should he build a contraption to carry it back (dilemma)? He decides to hide it in a nearby cave (decision.)

Motivation -- he needs to take it back to the village
Response -- he hides the body for the time being so he can return with help


Everything can be shown, and if you're very good, you don't even have to tell us what Jack is thinking... just show us through his action.


I would, however, say that this approach is VERY broad, and you have asked a good question -- what if the scene is more internal than that? I don't think every scene and sequel must present all of these elements, and not always in so overt, "exciting" ways. But yeah, motivation-response is the basics. Goals/desires for the character should be present in every scene -- whether that goal/desire is being met is not the point. Now, must there be a decision at the end? Probably. Even if the character remains ambivalent, that's still at choice, at that point.

[Diviner]

"Everything can be shown, and if you're very good, you don't even have to tell us what Jack is thinking... just show us through his action."

This is a little off-topic, but I would like to know how you can show what a person is thinking/feeling when they are all alone, don't speak the language of those around them, or hiding their thoughts/feelings from those around them.

I can see it with the tiger in the above posts, but supposing there is nothing present and physical to react to or that the person is afraid for their his but acting brave or that he is about to betray a friend. I have been using interior monologue, but I am not happy with the passivity of that.

Thanks for any suggestions.

[azbikergirl]

See, I would have started with the M-unit being "without the character," as in

The tiger's body lay still, its blood dampening the forest floor.

but then I'd get stuck. If what Ingermanson says is true, the M would be followed with a reaction of feeling, reflex, action and/or speech, like what you have:

A wave of relief shuddered through Jack's body. He poked the tiger with the barrel of his gun. Nothing happened. [another m-unit] How would he get it back to the village? Should he leave the tiger here, risking it being salvaged by another animal, or should he hide it? Or should he build a contraption to carry it back?

Don't we need another M-unit in order to reach a decision?



The screech of a Tiger Corpse Devourer echoed through the trees. "Crap," he muttered. Looking around, he spotted a cave nearby. He slung the strap of his rifle over his shoulder and dragged the tiger by the tail.



Is this even close? Or am I missing something?

[maestrowork]

Don't we need another M-unit in order to reach a decision?

The screech of a Tiger Corpse Devourer echoed through the trees. "Crap," he muttered. Looking around, he spotted a cave nearby. He slung the strap of his rifle over his shoulder and dragged the tiger by the tail.


That could work. A motivation to make him make a decision. It's not necessary, but it makes it more vivid. Not everything has to be triggered by something, it could be internal, but they most certainly would manifest into some sort of choice -- in this case, he decides to hid the tiger's body.

As for "everything can be shown" -- in novels, sometimes you just can't avoid going into the mind of the characters. And that's a good device for novels -- just don't overdo it, so that you're telling too much and not enough showing. On the flip side, if you watch movies, almost everything is shown visually -- unless you count VO monologues -- and through dialogue. I think screenwriters, by the nature of their job, has mastered the "show not tell" much better than novelist, because they're usually not allowed to go inside the character's head (they can, of course, through VO again -- like what they do with the show SCRUBS, to great effects). But mostly, emotions, thoughts, etc. are shown by action and dialogue in scripts -- and can be achieved similarly in novels... it's just a matter of how you write it.

[zornhau]

Gosh. Blink and put your sprog to bed, and a thread grows! Back up for me a moment: You can't have a Swainesque sequel unless the scene ended on a disaster, reversal or complication.

So, azbikergirl: what was the point of the scene?

[azbikergirl]

Heh. Darned if I know! I'm using the examples from the link Denis posted. :)

If a scene always ends with a disaster, reversal or complication, do you put a scene break (#) between scene and sequel? Or do they blend together? So if the tiger leaping at his face would be the end of the scene, where does the sequel start?

[maestrowork]

If a scene always ends with a disaster, reversal or complication, do you put a scene break (#) between scene and sequel? Or do they blend together? So if the tiger leaping at his face would be the end of the scene, where does the sequel start?

Right after. The "scene" here is different than a "scene" in a novel. It's more like a "setup" -- the first half of the scene. Then the sequel --the second half, the resolve -- follows, then a new "scene" begins...

In a novel, you put a # between "actual" scene.

[azbikergirl]

I think the lightbulb is getting brighter. So the sequel in our tiger example would start with Jack pulling the trigger, killing the tiger -- as the Reaction to the Scene's disaster?

[zornhau]

Heh. Darned if I know! I'm using the examples from the link Denis posted. :)

If a scene always ends with a disaster, reversal or complication, do you put a scene break (#) between scene and sequel? Or do they blend together? So if the tiger leaping at his face would be the end of the scene, where does the sequel start?

As I understand it, for Swainesque scene-sequel pairs:

The scene must show a struggle and end in a twisty complication
The sequel is optional and must summarise, concentrating on problem solving and feelings.
The sequel is a great place to throw in local colour - Robin Hobb does this brilliantly with her Fitz books: tight confrontation in Chade's chamber, then Fitz loafs around the castle working out what to do.
So, back to the tiger.

If the scene showed the hero trying to find water and succeeding, only to be attacked by a tiger, then the leaping tiger is the reversal. However, unless the hero legs it very, very fast, there isn't space for a sequel. You just go onto the next scene. In this sense, the tiger scene directly sets up the next scene.

If the scene shows hero fighting the tiger and killing it, then it still needs a reversal, e.g. hero breaks spear, uses last bullet, belatedly remembers he's a conservationist, or that tigers are sacred in these parts, or notices that it's wearing a collar. Now what's he going to do?



A Swainesque sequel would then show him slogging through the jungle, day upon day, wrestling his emotions or fears. Then at last he arrives at the Temple of the Three Quargs, and everything becomes clear. He must make himself garrot out of vine leaves and try to fight his way free.



You could build a long Sequel using M-R units, as long as they were narrative summary. Here's a gobbet from the 15th volume of my Thog Chronicles:[R] Desparate, I went West, [m]but found no love. [r] Then I went East, to the very tip of the Isles. [m] here a wise woman told me that I had a cold heart, [r] so I ate her heart to prove her wrong and continued my quest. [m] But the years rolled by and the world changed, until I, [r] Thog the Mighty, grew to accept that perhaps I might be [m] unlovable. [r] And that made me angry. Now all that remained was to destroy the hateful world which so mocked me. [m] To do this, I needed the Sword of Fthang. [r] And thus it was I found muself at the foot of the Steps of Doom on a cold winter's night.


As for the scene break #: it depends. Some writers use them. Some flow smoothly from scene to sequel, others use clearcut Sequel-Scene pairs or visa versa.

There are other techniques. David Weber often puts the transition in flashback or reported reminiscence, right at the start of the scene. A lot of writers don't bother with sequels at all, especially where the novel has multiple viewpoints.

[Vomaxx]

I did not know what an MRU was before I read this, and now I will do my best to forget it. This discussion makes me very glad I did not major in English. It reduces writing to something that sounds like a mechanical description, perhaps of how an engine works. Ugh.

[maestrowork]

I think this is useful to some extent and also good for analysis.

I think the concept of goal-conflict-decision, motivation-response is something very useful in constructing your scenes. Obviously, not every scene must follows the same structure. Like Vomaxx said, the would make it mechanical. But keep all this in mind, especially when you feel like your scenes are flat...

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm afraid all of this is way above my head. Too analytical. I just write down what happens.

[James D. Macdonald]

Heck, I did major in English in college and this is the first time I'd heard of MRU myself.

[Mistook]

Well you see fellahs, if you conduct a basic cost/benefit analysis, and filter that through the stimlulus/reaction unit (taking into account of course, the personality vector), and feed that through the POV Knowledge Base (PKB) you can easily solve for the X of the plot coordinate.

Now to get the Y coordinate for the plot point (PY), simply average the theme vectors and subtract N on the intersecting story curve (SCN). Correct for inspiriation (I) and there you are! :)


NOTE: (I) is always a radical number.

[Zane Curtis]

The trouble I have here is that I'm largely self-taught. So the way I break a novel down into its component parts is entirely different. For example, I think of the scene as a single unit of storytelling, which, ideally, should be stripped right back to it's essentials to preserve its unity of purpose. In other words, it occurs in one setting and features one group of characters. It addresses one significant point of plot, and describes one significant image to impress upon the readers mind. When I write scenes of this sort, they generally weigh in at somewhere between 5 and 15 hundred words.

Given this, I'm not sure I see how MRUs would be useful. Sure, I would want to show the motivation of my POV character, and his responses, but I would also want a lot of other stuff besides. I would want some description, and some interraction between the characters and the setting (to keep the sense of a dynamic and vivid fictional world in front of the reader -- and also because its occasionally good for revealing a character through body language). I would want a smooth transition into the next scene, and -- if its an important scene -- I would want some sort of powerful and visceral image to imprint upon the reader's mind.

The points of the scene and sequel are fine as they go -- even if, to me, they would represent an entire chapter of several scenes (but I'll set that aside for the moment). The entire pattern would run: goal, conflict, disaster, reaction, dilemma, decision. In fact, the sequence I use myself runs along somewhat similar lines: problem, initial response, reversal, regrouping, and climax. They're similar ideas, but with different labels. The only substantive difference is that I fold reaction and dilemma into one, and, of course, the fact that I treat each of these as a separate scene (I also apply that same sequence to groups of chapters).

But I part company with the author when he describes this as the "perfect scene". For me, this is just one possible pattern of events out of many. Sometimes I like to throw in a pattern that runs: character lays big plans, big plans fail, character attempts to recover and gets smacked down again. I half-inched that from one of my favourite movies, L'armata Brancaleone (http://www.cinemedioevo.net/Film/cine_armata_brancaleone.htm). They way I see it, you can't just go through an entire novel and repeat the same arrangement over and over again. That would be tedious. On occasion, where the story calls for something dramatic, you should break a regular pattern. Not only does that confound expectations (in a good way), it also gives a story a sense of movement. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a perfect sequence.

Basically, I'm just arguing with the article, because I have my own way of handling this stuff, and I like my way better.

[zornhau]

It's an analytical tool. Some people think this way. Others don't. If you are an intuative writer, walk on by, this will spoil your mojo! And anyway, you probably already do this.

That said, it worked for Swain who was horribly prolific round about the 1960s and 70s.

[Fresie]

All right, this approach makes perfect sense to me. I think I understand it. And still there's something I'd like to clarify:

When you analyze your novel scenes this way, fine. It works. But how about the very first scene? The setup? When I tried to apply it to my opening scene, I saw that either the scene structure had problems, or the system didn't cover opening scenes.

The thing is, I just can't see any conflict being introduced in a novel's first scene. I always thought that on the contrary, it shows the status quo, the protag's comfortable life before all the trouble begins. He doesn't have any story-related goal at this point so there can't be any story-related conflict! The first scene then ends (possibly) with the story disaster. But there can't be any story-relevant conflict in the first scene, really, because there's no goal nor disaster yet!

To check myself, I looked through a few novels -- some of them indeed just start with the disaster in the very first line, thus the hero's goal, conflict and everything follow. But some (especially some nerve-wrecking thrillers) start very relaxedly -- no conflict, just the setup and backstory. Then, in the end of scene one (two, three), the disaster strikes and then, indeed, it's all "Goal-Conflict-Disaster" scheme.

It is a bit of a problem for me now because I really want to make my opening scene right (and I'm not very happy about the current, pre-MRU version which admittedly has suspense but no conflict as such -- the hero's got nothing to fight for yet, the disaster only strikes in the end, thus creating a story-related goal for him).

The conflictless first scene? I look at some bestselling books next to me -- yes, that's how they do it. But I don't want my hero to introduce himself as a passive whimp. What to do -- introduce some small story-unrelated problem? Hm...

[triceretops]

Whew, brother...I'm afraid I'm with Jamesaritchie, Volmax, and Unc Jim; this discussion intimidated me so much I layed off my novel for two days, and am now just timidly trying to re-discover the joy of novel writing. Maybe this type of analysis is of benifit to a writer, who'd like to break it down into components, but I'm going to have to rely on my instinct and understanding of the basic elements and forge on. Gads, I hope I didn't start this!

I think it's fine that somebody can write a non-fiction book on the mechanics of writing and put a new slant/theory on the whole process, but I'd have to say this is covered in Unc Jim's thread with less complication and a very simple approach. Being an idiot sometimes, I have to fly on the basic nuts and bolts of things and once into thetheoretical physics of dynamic tragectory, and atomospheric density, I become a lost little pilot.

Tri

[azbikergirl]

I think like any advice about how to write fiction, we should all take what benefits us and disregard the rest. I'm also a fan of The Hero's Journey, but some writers will find it too limiting and it may sap their creativity. No one method is right for everyone.

For me, Swain's approach helps with scenes I'm not sure about. I restructured my novel's opening to use this (as seen in the He thought thread) and I think it's better now. There's setting description (relevent to the matter at hand), goal, and impending "conflict" in just a handful of sentences. Not all of my novel will get reworked to use this structure. Only the parts that I see fit to change

[Zane Curtis]

Whew, brother...I'm afraid I'm with Jamesaritchie, Volmax, and Unc Jim; this discussion intimidated me so much I layed off my novel for two days, and am now just timidly trying to re-discover the joy of novel writing.

There's really no need for anyone to feel intimidated by this. In all the years I've been interested in abstract analytical modelling I've learned one thing: systems like this are always after-the-fact rationalizations. Nobody needed to understand the analysis to write the novels the analysis is based on. All you have to do is learn how to write well, and you will intuitively understand what this guy is trying to formally state, without having to learn a single one of his terms or rules.

[azbikergirl]

When you analyze your novel scenes this way, fine. It works. But how about the very first scene? The setup? When I tried to apply it to my opening scene, I saw that either the scene structure had problems, or the system didn't cover opening scenes.
Fresie, I changed my opening scene to use Swain's MRU-structure. Check out the He thought She thought They thought thread to see my first two paragraphs. (Unfortunately, I think I sort of hijacked the thread. Didn't mean to!) The first sentence isn't "He's dead, Jim" or anything so gripping, but if the opening arouses enough curiosity to drag the reader in with the MC, it does its job. :)

[James D. Macdonald]

If thinking in terms of Motivation Response Units helps you get words on paper, it's a good thing.

(Of course, if tying red ribbons to your wrists helps you get words on paper, they're a good thing too....)

[maestrowork]

Whew, brother...I'm afraid I'm with Jamesaritchie, Volmax, and Unc Jim; this discussion intimidated me so much I layed off my novel for two days, and am now just timidly trying to re-discover the joy of novel writing. Maybe this type of analysis is of benifit to a writer, who'd like to break it down into components, but I'm going to have to rely on my instinct and understanding of the basic elements and forge on. Gads, I hope I didn't start this!

I think it's fine that somebody can write a non-fiction book on the mechanics of writing and put a new slant/theory on the whole process, but I'd have to say this is covered in Unc Jim's thread with less complication and a very simple approach. Being an idiot sometimes, I have to fly on the basic nuts and bolts of things and once into thetheoretical physics of dynamic tragectory, and atomospheric density, I become a lost little pilot.

Tri

There's no need to be intimidated. These are tools, something to consider, and not rules. There are A TONS of advice and techniques and what not out there on novel writing. You take what you can and you write. The basic concepts are there: e.g. all this is about is "Conflict Makes Drama." It doesn't mean every scene must follow that arc -- then it's a very exhausting book. But you do need to keep conflict in mind. Plot is about movement -- about people deciding, doing things, and the consequences that follow.

Even without knowing this MRU business, I bet you already know about conflict-action-consequence...

The MRUs is a good tool to analyze your own novel, but not in first draft. Write first. Write, write, and write. Then when you're rewriting, try to analyze your scenes, especially those that are flat and trivial. If you think something needs to be done on them, think about MRUs or Conflict-action-consequence or whatever. Think about tension. Think about themes. They all are techniques to help you improve your work.

But no need to sweat this stuff if it goes over your head. I think most writers instinctively know the concepts already. I mean, read Uncle Jim's thread and he talked about conflict and consequences, etc. The MRUs are just specifics, based on someone's understanding and analysis. They can be useful, but don't worry about if you don't get it. They might be more useful for an Eng Lit. student than a writer, who knows?

[maestrowork]

Fresie, I changed my opening scene to use Swain's MRU-structure. Check out the He thought She thought They thought thread to see my first two paragraphs. (Unfortunately, I think I sort of hijacked the thread. Didn't mean to!) The first sentence isn't "He's dead, Jim" or anything so gripping, but if the opening arouses enough curiosity to drag the reader in with the MC, it does its job. :)

Without knowing the MRUs (which I still think is a good analytical tool to use on your own work, but not a "method" to write, at least for me. I write organically), I did change my opening sentence in my book to:

"Betrayal makes us do strange things."

It sets up goal and conflicts, and hint at actions. It's a hook. And it seems to work well.

[zornhau]

I don't consciously write in Swain's MRUs!:gone:
I write in Beats, with my character in dialogue with themselves and the world as they perceive it. However, I do debug using MRUs, since feelings do usually drive action, with speech to follow.

Everybody is different, and the proof of an approach is in the flow of money to the practitioner. Since Swain did very well for himself, and since he's recommended by some pros (e.g. Janny Wurtz), I think his ideas are worth considering.

All his MRU stuff really boils down to is:

Preserve the linearity of cause and effect
Keep stimulus and response distinct
IMHO:
Thog cut down Wilma after parrying her rapid sword thrust.
...is always going to be less gripping than...
Wilma lunged. The swordpoint sought Thog's throat.
He sidestepped, deflected, turned his sword and slashed the blade down. Her collarbone snapped...
If we use components like "MRU", or McKee's "Beat", then we might as well call them that so we can look at a passage and go, "It doesn't work because the MRUs are garbled."

For me, writing is like my martial art. A friend rang last night to tell me he'd hit an experienced swordsman using the zwerchhau, which I had taught him :D. Without the technical term, he'd have had to say, "Remember that cut with the hands high, thumb on the blade, reverse edge from the right, true from the left? Well, guess what..."

[Jamesaritchie]

It's an analytical tool. Some people think this way. Others don't. If you are an intuative writer, walk on by, this will spoil your mojo! And anyway, you probably already do this.

That said, it worked for Swain who was horribly prolific round about the 1960s and 70s.

Yes, but I really wonder if it worked this way for him before or after the fact? As Stephen King says, the writer is usually the worst person to ask about how he did what he did. As writers, we don't really tell people what we do or how we do it, we tell them what we think we did after we do it and look back.

Now, I've never heard of Swain, and maybe this worked for him, and maybe it didn't. Maybe he just thought it did. I don't know.

I'm all for analyzing good fiction, I spend two weeks twice a year doing just this, but the mechanics never interested me. It isn't the concrete that matters to me, but the abstract.

I'm a lousy artist, but this doesn't stop me from loving art, and hasn;t stopped me from taking some fairly advanced art classes where teachers strived in vain to teach me how to sketch and paint. The first thing they did was have us analyze and copy the techniques of the masters. But they also made it a point to tell us we would never be any good until we left these techniques behind. They were right.

Many of us learned to sketch and paint very pretty pictures, and some of use were good enough to sell those pictures. But most of the pretty pictures we painted with these techniques were really just paint by numbers work, and at the very most they were just good enough to fill a blank space on a wall until a better painting came along.

The true artists were the ones who threw Da Vinci out the window and who did something new, something all their own, and despite showing the rest of us their techniques, we could no more use them to produce art than they could use Da Vinci's techniques to create art.

I don't really think I'm that much of an intuitive writer, but I do think good writing doesn't come from analyzing and copying the mechanics of another writer. Good writing is first and foremost about story and character. After this, it's about accuaracy and honesty and insight. After this, it's about sound and rhythm and cadence.

When I analyze fiction, it's always for the abstract, not the concrete. In my opinion, the concrete belongs to that writer, and is useless for me, unless I'm after a pale imitation of the Mona Lisa.

One of the reasons I think creative writing is so terribly difficult to teach is because far too much of the teaching time is spend on mechanics, rather than on the abstract. I tend to be with those who say creative writing can't be taught, it can only be learned by those with talent.

I think it's the talent angle that bothers me most about this kind of analysis. Such analysis seems to assume that if you put together a scene of your own the same way another writer did, you'll have a good scene. I don't think this is necesssarily true. I believe the way a good scene is put together depends entirely on the individual story, characters and writer. Good writing, I think, comes from the Twilight Zone.

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that
which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as
space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle
ground between light and shadow, between science and
superstiition, and it lies between the pit of man's
fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the
dimension of imagination. It is an area we call
The Twilight Zone."


I think it's the sight and sound and imagination that need analyzed. It's the accuracy and honesty. It's the rhythm and cadence. It's the area between light and shadow, between science and superstition.

I'm not saying a writer can't learn from this kind of analysis, but I think it's value lies in using it as a departure point, not as a destination. If what the writer does is copy these techniques, the resulting story will itself be a copy.

Pretty much as Uncle Jim says, if you just learn to write well, you'll get these techniques as a by product, but they'll be your techniques, and they won;t be identical to Swain's, or to those of anyone else. If you just learn to tell a story, and if you know what good characters are, and if you know what good characters would really say in a given situation, and if you know what good rhythm and cadence is, someday writers will be analyzing your stories.

But I don't believe for a second that you can back engineer fiction. The talent in creating a jigsaw is in taking the original photograph, not in cutting it into pieces, and not in putting those pieces back together. Putting a jigsaw puzzle together can be fun and challenging, but when you're finish you just have a copy of the photo, and all the seams are showing.

I think good fiction is always more art than science, more instinct than analysis. Everything we read, everything we see and hear and do, goes into our minds, gets mashed and blended together, and if we have the talent, a blend of paint unique to ourself squirts out through our fingers and forms a beautiful picture. One that others will cut into pieces and try to reproduce by putting those pieces back together.

There's nothing mystic about it, but I do think there is a lot more mystery than any analysis can fathom or reproduce.

[Diviner]

And I thought I had finally found a recipe. . . Darn!

[BlueTexas]

I don't really think I'm that much of an intuitive writer, but I do think good writing doesn't come from analyzing and copying the mechanics of another writer. Good writing is first and foremost about story and character. After this, it's about accuaracy and honesty and insight. After this, it's about sound and rhythm and cadence.

When I analyze fiction, it's always for the abstract, not the concrete. In my opinion, the concrete belongs to that writer, and is useless for me, unless I'm after a pale imitation of the Mona Lisa.

One of the reasons I think creative writing is so terribly difficult to teach is because far too much of the teaching time is spend on mechanics, rather than on the abstract. I tend to be with those who say creative writing can't be taught, it can only be learned by those with talent.

I think it's the talent angle that bothers me most about this kind of analysis. Such analysis seems to assume that if you put together a scene of your own the same way another writer did, you'll have a good scene. I don't think this is necesssarily true. I believe the way a good scene is put together depends entirely on the individual story, characters and writer. Good writing, I think, comes from the Twilight Zone.

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that
which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as
space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle
ground between light and shadow, between science and
superstiition, and it lies between the pit of man's
fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the
dimension of imagination. It is an area we call
The Twilight Zone."


I think it's the sight and sound and imagination that need analyzed. It's the accuracy and honesty. It's the rhythm and cadence. It's the area between light and shadow, between science and superstition.

.

The room just stopped spinning. Thanks!

[zornhau]

The room just stopped spinning. Thanks!

That makes you one of those people who should have walked on by!:Sun:

[Zane Curtis]

And I thought I had finally found a recipe. . . Darn!

Ah, but you see you have found a recipe. And if it appeals to you, then use it. A lot of famous and famously prolific writers from Arthur Conan Doyle and on use them, so there's no shame in that. If the recipe is coherent and covers all the things that ought to go into a novel, then it will work, after it's own fashion.

But we writers are in the arts rather than the sciences. We're not trying to analyze a pre-existing natural phenomenon, but to create something new that exists on its own terms. There is no such thing as the one true recipe that, when followed, produces the perfect scene or the perfect novel. There is only better for me, or worse for me. I dare say there are twice as many recipes for writing novels as there are novelists, and every recipe that has ever worked for someone is valid.

I'll say again, if this appeals to you, use it. When you have used it, I suspect you'll discover certain improvements you can make to the basic formula, and other parts you want to drop because you never use them or can't make them work. This isn't cheating, it's common sense. If you favour this sort of analytical approach (and I must say, I do), then your goal should be to start with the recipe you like best, then build on it and refine it until it suits you.

[Diviner]

]
Ah, but you see you have found a recipe. And if it appeals to you, then use it. .

I apologize for being slightly facetious. James A. Ritchies' impasssioned defence of originality impressed me, and confirms my own experience.

That said, I can see usefulness in the MRU's as a tool for analysis. I write many scenes that seem flat to me, interesting and even fun but without conflict or verve. Anything that helps me to separate from what I have written, to stand back and look at it from a different angle is a welcome tool, and this does seem like it may help.

I am always so impressed with the way people here can deconstruct each other's work. Many times, I would like to deconstruct my own and rebuild it to be tighter, more dramatic, more vivid. Of course I am entirely unwilling to do that in the first flush of creativity. But after a month or so, it stops being my precious baby and becomes this awkward adolescent-like thing, full of promise but way too awkward. Then a tool, any tool, that can help to shape it is more than welcome.

So far, my writing is an awkward and fluctuating combination of creative bursts and steady slogging. I try not to let the lessons of the slogging interfere with the freewrites. But my bouts with the editing mode always improve my writing.

[Zane Curtis]

I am always so impressed with the way people here can deconstruct each other's work.

Well, it's much easier to deconstruct other people's work. They all have different weaknesses, as writers. But when you look at your own work, you're trying to track down your own weaknesses.

But after a month or so, it stops being my precious baby and becomes this awkward adolescent-like thing, full of promise but way too awkward.

I know the feeling well. I can't even look at my own first drafts before I've gone through and cleaned up the passive sentences, the run on sentences, the you're and your, the their they're and there, the awkward dialogue, and all the rest. And when all that's right, only then can I look objectively at the story and see what really needs fixing.

And for me, it helps that I started, right from the beginning, with some sort of structure that I built my story around.

[Anatole Ghio]

Yes, but I really wonder if it worked this way for him before or after the fact? As Stephen King says, the writer is usually the worst person to ask about how he did what he did. As writers, we don't really tell people what we do or how we do it, we tell them what we think we did after we do it and look back.


There is a lot to this quote James. I am going to be terribly unfair and only address this first paragraph and trust I am addressing the heart of your reply.

I agree with much of what you write. I too think it is impossible to teach someone to be the next Joyce. King himself says he feels you can improve a writers talents, but you can't give him talent.

I spent a number of years going to an institution of higher learning to gain the craft of writing. If you were to ask me the question, did I learn how to write better because of my education, I would answer no, my writing did not improve because of the instruction I received.

If you were to ask me, did I become a better writer because of my education, I would answer yes, I became a better writer because of my education.

What is the difference, you may ask. There is more to being a writer than just writing. What I learned from my education was how to analyze other writers and how more effectively communicate the component parts of writing.

In other words, I had to forgo my heart in place of my brain while I was in college. In my opinion, both are needed to continue mastery of this terrible curse we writers have. With only the heart, one is liable to emotive, connected yet undisciplined writing. With only the heart, it is very difficult to express oneself in ways other than what one learned during the core emotional experience of ones formative years. These are the writers with a great passion who produce the same work over and over. Some can do this and find enough tiny variations that the work remains vital through incrimental growth. Many just repeat themselves.

With only the head, one can express abstract ideas of great comlexity in a manner of idiosyncratic style. One can master many of the techniques and become a master worthy of study for this matter alone. However, one will more than likely produce works to a limited audience, due to a certain disconnect which readers will detect in the writing.

To return to your example of King. He uses the metaphor of gaining tools for the toolbox. Any analysis is an attempt to find some measure of repeatability in outside circumstances. By having a method that allows one some repeatability in writing, one gains a new for the toolbox.

The principle challenge with a "tool collector" is to remember a tool is only that, a means to achieving something and not the means in itself.

Often when begining a new activity, one lacks the practical experience which gives the finely honed intuition that allows one to operate seemingly without any method -- this is an illusion. The method itself was the experience which gave many little lessons. These lessons become internalized and this is what becomes "intution".

By following a method, one hopes to model someone elses intuition i.e. to cheat a little and use the lessons someone else gained through experience as the guide for forming ones own experience.

Nothing can replace experience. Nothing can replace getting down to it and getting ink on your hands and bleeding for this passion we have.

We can, however, find ways to become better at this by learning from the masters, from borrowing their tools for our projects, until that day when we no longer need to borrow from someone else, that day we realize we now have everything we need in ourselves because we have paid the price... and learned from our own experience.

- Anatole

[zornhau]

(Dropping in prior do diving off and teaching the joys of zornhau, taking off, twitching, changing mutating, and binding)

Zane: Flick through some modern novels. A lot of writers do use MRUs whether or not they call them that.

So, this is a recipe, as long as you realise it only covers the pastry and not the entire pie.

I think MRUs are preexisting phenomena, just like the 8:8 boogiewoogie beat: a slot which exists in people's heads. Consciously using them doesn't make you unoriginal, just saves you from reinventing the wheel.

My use of language, my ideas, my characters, my plot - all original (I hope). So am I original? Or do I have to create my own form of narrative too? Perhaps I should devise a special language and grammer while I'm at it?

I'm going to back off from defending MRUs further since I'm not a pro, so don't have the credentials.

Besides, we were discussing how Swain's ideas worked, not whether or not they were good idea at all.

You wouldn't interrupt a theology thread to state that god didn't exist, would you? That would be OT. Perhaps somebody should start a "How analytical should you be?" thread, or something.

Now, I'm off to play with swords.

[Diviner]

I spent a number of years going to an institution of higher learning to gain the craft of writing. If you were to ask me the question, did I learn how to write better because of my education, I would answer no, my writing did not improve because of the instruction I received....


Nothing can replace experience. Nothing can replace getting down to it and getting ink on your hands and bleeding for this passion we have.


- Anatole


Your post almost exactly mirrors my own experience. My teachers taught what they wanted to teach, not what I wanted to learn. It isn't just writing that is teaching me to write, though. It is reading both works of fiction (Oh, so that's how its done...) and all kinds of books about writing, getting feedback from other writers, giving feedback to other writers (that business of analysis again) and gleaning what I can from the WEB.

I am finding the process slow and painful but always satisfying. I comfort myself that the offerings built on my modest talent at least exist, are written down. I am far ahead of any mega talented dreamer whose words and stories exist only in her/his head. Sure, if they ever get around to slogging it out, they may create wonders--and I'll be glad to read them-- but that isn't my point.

My point is that some of us--according to Anatole, all of us, but I won't go that far--need all the help we can get wherever we can find it.

[Zane Curtis]

Looking at the responses so far, there's something else I'd like to bring up. There is a sense in which the physical structure of a novel can itself become a part of the creative process. I see this most strongly in Michael Moorcock's more ambitious novels like Mother London and Blood (A Southern Fantasy).

I think it's a mistake to think of the mechanics of novel writing as something static that you learn once and then forget about. I'm sure we're all familiar with writers who never evolve, and who just keep reaching into the same old bag of tired tricks, frittering away their careers writing one story over and over. I don't think you can separate the mechanics from the creative process. You can be as imaginative and innovative as you like at the conceptual level, but if your creativity doesn't extend all the way down to the concrete level of words, scenes, chapters, and plot development, then you're just slapping a new paint job on the same old car.

[maestrowork]

If you analyze thriller/suspense novels, you may notice that they use the MRUs a lot -- it's a surefire way to create tension, suspense, and action/movements. You will notice the use of MRUs, whether or not the writers actually are aware of them.

[zornhau]

Looking at the responses so far, there's something else I'd like to bring up. There is a sense in which the physical structure of a novel can itself become a part of the creative process. I see this most strongly in Michael Moorcock's more ambitious novels like Mother London and Blood (A Southern Fantasy).

I think it's a mistake to think of the mechanics of novel writing as something static that you learn once and then forget about.

Agreed. But if you have a technical mastery of the mechanics, you can play with them. It's a bit like knowing musical theory.

[Writing Again]

I haven't been able to read the thread fully, no time or mental for all of it.

The terms MRU throws me, and so does the word sequel used this way. It also looks a bit more complex than needed to me. I think the following covers pretty much the same things without the jargon.

Three things to keep in mind while writing: Past, present, and future. What the character just did is going to effect how they deal with what is happening now. The character is dealing with the immediate present, but what they expect to do next will influence how they do it.

I just woke up, so I'm a bit groggy. I'm waiting for coffee and typing here, but I'm not taking too long to do so because I intend to be at a friend's house in an hour.

So when your character meets the big putty tat is he tired from a long walk? Armed and expecting trouble? Or expecting a leisurely, uneventful stroll? Just leaving a friends house so full from dinner he can barely waddle?

Is he going home for a needed rest? Out hunting for big fur balls? Sneaking over to his neighbor's house to tryst with someone's wife and does not want to wake the neighbors while surviving this attack?

Staying connected in time is important, noting happens independently of the past and the future. If you isolate your motivation response units without referring to past and future your novel is apt to become a series of disconnected parts rather than a unified whole.

[azbikergirl]

A motivation unit could be something a character says, or a smell, which triggers a memory, the response. We can still use MRUs to color in back-story -- if we choose to. ;)

[Anatole Ghio]

Okay, I've read the link. I have no problem with this style of writing per se, but I see it as being limited to certain genre's. I think suspense/thriller books would find the form especially useful, as it puts the emphasis on building tension in the scene and finding the relevant conflict.

I think by emphasizing action first, one inherently makes the characters reactive. Things happen, so the character feels something and then does something about it. I takes away the possibility of a character doing something beacuase of a thought they had and not a sensation. It makes characters outer directed and not at all inner directed. This is somewhat (I forget the exact logic term) unfalsifiable. Since if I make the claim a character can act based upon a thought first, the rebutal will be the thought HAD to come from some outer event in order to motivate the thought. This makes the argument unfalsifiable, which totalizing systems tend to do.

So apart from the logic behind the system, certain styles of writing would be completely discounted by this system. Stream of consciousness, dialogue oriented, character studys.

I do see the usefulness of it, but I don't think it's the one size fits all program it claims to be.

- Anatole

[azbikergirl]

I takes away the possibility of a character doing something beacuase of a thought they had and not a sensation.

Not necessarily. I don't see why a character's own thought can't be the motivation unit. Say he wakes up and wonders 'where am I?' In response, he looks around. Depending on where he is, he'll make decisions about what to do based on how he feels and what he wants. If he wakes up in jail he'd behave differently than if he wakes up beside a naked woman.

Personally, I'm starting to prefer the word "stimulus" over "motivation" -- SRUs instead of MRUs. :D

[Writing Again]

Ok, read the article. The concept is a little more detailed, and the writer more adamant, but the basic concept has been around a long time -- Action / reaction writing. There is an action, the character reacts to it, which often becomes the action that another character responds to. You can say stimulus response, motivation response, whatever, it pretty much amounts to the same thing.

The injunction, "If it is not scene or sequel then it is garbage so throw it out" and to say "It is not fiction if it is not 'scene or sequel'" may work for that writer, but it does not work for a lot of popular writers or a lot of critically acclaimed writers.

I think the scene/ sequel and MRU concepts are good solid tools one can learn to good benefit, but I don't think they should be adopted with religious fervor.

[azbikergirl]

I think the scene/ sequel and MRU concepts are good solid tools one can learn to good benefit, but I don't think they should be adopted with religious fervor.

Should anything? :D

It's a tool in a toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. When the situation calls for a screwdriver, don't use a hammer. If the craftsman doesn't understand a screwdriver's strengths, he won't know when or how to use it.

[Writing Again]

I learn everything I can about writing from anywhere I can: I always have: But when I actually write I never think about anything except what I want to say and how I want to say it.

[Writing Again]

Should anything? :D (Be adopted with religious fervor?)



If you are a real Biker Girl then you know the answer to that one -- Yes, your ride. (My name is Nomad -- I live to ride, I ride to live.)

[azbikergirl]

OK, I'll grant you that one. ;)

[zornhau]

If you isolate your motivation response units without referring to past and future your novel is apt to become a series of disconnected parts rather than a unified whole.

In Swain's system, MRUs are part of Scenes, which is where past and future meet.

Can you give me an example of something in a scene which is part of neither of a Motivation (i.e. a stimulus), or a Response?

I think by emphasizing action first, one inherently makes the characters reactive.

They could be proactive and reacting to the results of their action, e.g.
I try the window - locked! I smash the glass. A dog barks from within. I unsling my flamethrower.
BTW I feel the same way about my very fine and functional custom plate armour as you bikers feel about your rides.;)

[maestrowork]

I learn everything I can about writing from anywhere I can: I always have: But when I actually write I never think about anything except what I want to say and how I want to say it.

It should be that way. MRUs is just another tool, much like grammar or POVs or word choices. As we mature as writers, these should become second nature to us and we shouldn't be thinking about them explicitly when we write.

We might use them when we rewrite ("is this POV correct"? how's the grammar here? Does this scene have strong MRUs?), but don't bog yourself down during first draft.

[zornhau]

I agree to an extent. However, many of us learn grammar formally, and then use it on the fly. I think you can approach MRUs the same way - I did. (Ask me in a couple of years and I'll tell you whether it worked for me.)

This is a lot like martial arts: if you think about the techniques while in the thick of it, they tend not to work. However, you still have to learn the techniques to internalise them.

Unlike the martial arts, you can pick up many of the technical aspects of fiction just by reading fiction. However, even if you write "intuatively", you still have a theory of writing, it's just that you've not articulated it.

The danger of such an approach - I think - is that you may well write the same novel again and again because it "feels right", without questioning your assumptions. (Of course, the danger of an analytical approach is that you may write mechanically without verve).

[Diviner]

"However, even if you write 'intuitively,' you still have a theory of writing, it's just that you've not articulated it. "--zornhau

Thanks for saying this. I thought I disagreed, which I will explain, but the more I think about it, the more I think my way of writing could be called a theory, though I would hate to saddle anyone else with such an inefficient method. Method is a better word.

I am very much a beginning novelist feeling my way. The first thing I learned was that I cannot follow an outline. Outlines are anti-intuitive. I do not condemn them, they just don't work for me.

I do know more or less how my story will end, that is, the answer to the story question, when I begin it, but I am never quite sure if I am beginning it in the right place. I love the middles, the place where most of the good stuff happens. Middles are like visiting new places, meeting new people, making new friends. And I know my themes.

I very much muddle through at this point, which is why I need things that will help me tighten my scenes. I guess the theory here is that I trust my intuition not to imitate itself.


"The danger of such an approach - I think - is that you may well write the same novel again and again because it "feels right", without questioning your assumptions. (Of course, the danger of an analytical approach is that you may write mechanically without verve)" zornhau


With my method, write first, analyze second, there is little danger of repetition. I am in the middle of writing three novels and the form of each is quite different. Each novel has a different story question, and the characters are constantly growing (except when they meet untimely ends. ;) ). If I were capable of formulating a theory it would be to write the story the way it needs to be told; then do what needs to be done to make it interesting to other people.

Of course, I may never succeed at this. But I think that great cooks frequently do not follow recipes, and neither should witers. I know that the best poems have their aha! moment, so why not a novel?

[zornhau]

If I were capable of formulating a theory it would be to write the story the way it needs to be told; then do what needs to be done to make it interesting to other people.

Of course, I may never succeed at this. But I think that great cooks frequently do not follow recipes, and neither should witers. I know that the best poems have their aha! moment, so why not a novel?

What makes the story need to be told? Answer that, and you have your theory in a nutshell. Character and setting perhaps?

(BTW A structured approach has it's aha! moments too, just that they happen at different stages as you look at the overall novel and make new connections and twists. In some ways, writing from outlining is more organic and wholistic than writing from the inside since you can engage with the entire novel.

Also, if outlining is detailed enough, it is writing from the inside, just without wasting time on language and imagery until you're sure it's needed.

But, as you imply, the proof is in the pudding. Let's compare notes when/if I'm published.)

[maestrowork]

I have an idea. Why don't we post a snippet of our current WIP, which we wrote without thinking of MRUs, etc. and see if the theory/analysis work on them, even though we didn't think about MRUs? Put the theory to the test.

Just a thought.

[zornhau]

OK. It's a good suggestion. I'll go first, if that's OK.
Here's a fight sequence from my WIP, about 25% of a battle scene. Ranulph is cut off and surrounded by a large army led by young Lionel Clifford, son of his arch enemy.
(For those who've just tuned in, this isn't a request for a crit - we're playing "Hunt the MRU".)

Somebody shouted a command. The knights backed away leaving Ranulph ringed by steel.
He turned slowly, deciding where to make his rush. It hardly mattered, except for form’s sake. Now the enemy had their discipline, the end was near.

A single knight stepped through the ring.

Ranulph recognised the golden armour – he’d once turned its un-runed doppelganger into so much scrap metal. “Sir Lionel Clifford – always a pleasure to see a friend from the tournament circuit.”

Sir Lionel raised a twohanded sword over his back shoulder. The sunset picked out its runes, turning them into livid scars on the smooth diamond-sectioned blade. “Save your breath, Dacre.”

Ranulph mirrored Sir Lionel’s stance, then, like a trap ball player, let Steelcutter rest on his shoulder. The blade of Sir Lionel’s twohanded sword was a foot longer than that of Ranulph’s greatsword, but that probably mattered less than the youth thought.

Ranulph dropped his voice so the other men wouldn’t hear. “Are you sure you want to do this again?”

“Last time, you had the advantage of experience. Now I have the advantage of training from Meister Gerhart Onehand.”

“Really?” Ranulph stepped into distance then aimed a simple cut at Sir Lionel’s shoulder.

Sir Lionel sidestepped, cut across his body and down at Ranulph’s outstretched hands.

But Ranulph was already twisting Steelcutter back into a hanging parry.

The runic blades met in an explosion of sparks. The two handed sword rebounded. Steelcutter windmilled around and over until its point aligned with Sir Lionel’s visor.

Ranulph drove the tip into Sir Lionel’s vision port.

As the youth recoiled and clutched at his eye, Ranulph brought Steelcutter back to his shoulder. His gaze flickered to his brothers’ remains. “You should have asked Onehand who it was that maimed him.”

Steelcutter caught Sir Lionel just under the helm. The runes cancelled each other out but the cut was perfect.

The throat guard split. Helm and head hit the cobbles with a dull clatter.

Fountaining blood, Sir Lionel’s corpse staggered back three paces then collapsed against the circle of knights.

[azbikergirl]

Most of the MRUs are pretty clear cut, especially in the beginning. Where they get muddy in my mind is here:

[M-UNIT]Sir Lionel sidestepped, cut across his body and down at Ranulph’s outstretched hands.

[???]But Ranulph was already twisting Steelcutter back into a hanging parry.

The runic blades met in an explosion of sparks. The two handed sword rebounded. Steelcutter windmilled around and over until its point aligned with Sir Lionel’s visor.

Ranulph already twisting started happening before the M-unit, so it's not a response to Sir Lionel sidestepping and cutting across/down.

The following paragraph gives me trouble too (in identifying MRUs). If the runic blades meeting was the result of R's parry, the 2H rebounding would be the response, right? For some reason, I keep thinking that the response of one "side of the equation" would serve as the motivation of the other, but Steelcutter windmilling is not a response to the 2H rebounding. Or, it doesn't seem to be.

Of course, I'm still trying to figure this stuff out, so bear with me if I have it fouled up. :)

[zornhau]

Interesting. Shows how difficult it is to write authentic martial arts sequences!
Ranulph is completing the single - deceptive - move (a "krumphau") to which Sir Lionel has rashly responded. I'll have to make that clearer. I'm almost tempted to use the technical terms...





The next bit:[M]The runic blades met in an explosion of sparks. The two handed sword rebounded. [R] {Brilliant! Ranulph worked his mighty thews such that} Steelcutter windmilled around and over until its point [M] aligned with Sir Lionel’s visor.

Since it's a fight scene, I've left most of Ranulph's R unit as implied since when you're in mid fight, your internal narrator is usually switched off or seriously lagging. (NB Just because I have a reason for this, doesn't mean that it works for the reader!)

If the runic blades meeting was the result of R's parry, the 2H rebounding would be the response, right?
In the Swain system, anything external (or externalised) to the POV character is Motivation, even if it's potentially part of another character's MRU. e.g. the sword could rebound and Sir Lionel could break down and plead, then the Gods could descend and try to pep him up, and that would all still be in Ranulph's M unit.:Guitar:

The ding-dong cause-effect structure you're describing is McKee's "Beats", which is more or less how I outline scenes (including this one).

[maestrowork]

Since I suggested that we post our WIP for analysis, here's an excerpt of my WIP. Note I really didn't have MRUs in mind and it's not really an action/adventure/thriller type story. So I'm interested in what we can find here.

Paul followed the creature, his eyes wide and alert. He flew between the trees and kept his eyes on the dark shifting shape weaving through the undergrowth. The boar’s grunts were soft as twigs crackled under its hooves. An owl hooted above them. Soon the woods opened on a clearing and the boar’s bristly coat shimmered in the moonlight. It stopped and listened, and as soon as it heard the burbling sounds of a nearby stream, it rambled toward its left.

As the boar drank, Paul flew high above the forest crowns and kissed the moon. Then he sank fast, reaching the top of the trees and looked around. Still no sign of Kai and Grace. He glanced at the boar, its snout still buried in the stream.

A faint light flickered within the umbrage beneath him. Paul abandoned the creature and sank to the ground. The light came through from a far distance, flickering, disappearing and reappearing between the trees and shrubs.

“Finally,” he said under his breath.

He glided through the thickets. The light disappeared briefly. As Paul approached, the tree house materialized before him in a warm glow. He squinted, then a wicked grin spread on his face. He slid into the grand oak, and in the dark, he flipped the skin of his face over his head and crossed his eyes, bugging his eyeballs further out. The wide grin on his face turned into a bloody mess of mangled flesh. He stuck out his tongue.

As he climbed up the steps to the tree house, the light from the lantern blinded him for a second.

“Boo!” he yelled.

A man’s scream echoed through the forest. In the light, the man’s face turned white. He took a step back, lost his footing and fell. Paul pulled his face down and scrambled toward the edge of the tree house.

Down below, the lantern started to fade, and in its dying light, on the soft turf crumpled a still, crooked body. The lifeless eyes of Tuang stared back at Paul.

[Mistook]

I don't mean to log-jam, but I'd like to throw-in a bit of my WIP too. This was written "intuitively".


---------------------------//

It took her a pensive day and a half to track down Jeremy Rifkin, but when she found his crack-house in Rosemont, she blasted the deadbolt with her 38 and kicked the door in. “Everybody ****in’ freeze!”

There sat Jeremy, shirtless, wearing a goatee, holding a glass pipe. Two twelvish girls – no doubt runaways, sat Indian style by the doorway, their eyes vacant. The punk rock of Precious Wax played on the turn-table by the stairs, and from the bathroom came the sound of a little dog barking.

Adrianne shoved her gun in it’s holster and smiled, “Jay, I am so happy you finally gave me the chance to finish kicking your ***.” She marched toward him.

He dropped the pipe, stood up, and grabbed a gun off the mantle. Aiming it, he said, “Stay back, *****!”

With a swipe of her arms, she popped the gun out of his grip and bashed him in the face with it. He fell to the carpet. She stepped on his throat and grabbed him by the hair. “If I find the slightest thing wrong with that poodle, that crack pipe is going straight up your ***, and you know I’m not kidding!”

The two girls ran upstairs.

-------------------------------//

[zornhau]

Yippee! Playtime!
A good read. The MRUs are mostly pretty clear, though some of the M's are quite long compared to, say, an action sequence. IMHO, Swain would say that the 1st MRU is the wrong way around, or possibly contains two garbled MRUs.

Thanks for sharing!
Z
[R] Paul followed the creature, his eyes wide and alert. He flew between the trees and kept his eyes on the [Misplaced M- should swap with 1st R] dark shifting shape weaving through the undergrowth. [M]The boar’s grunts were soft as twigs crackled under its hooves. An owl hooted above them. Soon the woods opened on a clearing and the boar’s bristly coat shimmered in the moonlight. It stopped and listened, and as soon as it heard the burbling sounds of a nearby stream, it rambled toward its left.

As the boar drank, [R]Paul flew high above the forest crowns and kissed the moon. Then he sank fast, reaching the top of the trees and looked around. [M]Still no sign of Kai and Grace. [R]He glanced at the boar, [M]its snout still buried in the stream.

A faint light flickered within the umbrage beneath him.[R] Paul abandoned the creature and sank to the ground. [M]The light came through from a far distance, flickering, disappearing and reappearing between the trees and shrubs.

[R] “Finally,” he said under his breath.

He glided through the thickets. [M]The light disappeared briefly. As [R] Paul approached, [M]the tree house materialized before him in a warm glow. [R] He squinted, [implied M - an idea pops into his head] then a [R] wicked grin spread on his face. He slid into the grand oak, and in the dark, he flipped the skin of his face over his head and crossed his eyes, bugging his eyeballs further out. The wide grin on his face turned into a bloody mess of mangled flesh. He stuck out his tongue.

As he climbed up the steps to the tree house,[M] the light from the lantern blinded him for a second.

[R] “Boo!” he yelled.

[M] A man’s scream echoed through the forest. In the light, the man’s face turned white. He took a step back, lost his footing and fell. [R] Paul pulled his face down and scrambled toward the edge of the tree house.

[M] Down below, the lantern started to fade, and in its dying light, on the soft turf crumpled a still, crooked body. The lifeless eyes of Tuang stared back at Paul.

[zornhau]

All very, very clear MRUs. (A nice clear style as well). I think your Adrianne would get on with my Sir Ranulph...
Thanks for sharing
Z

[TRANSITION]It took her a pensive day and a half to track down Jeremy Rifkin, but when she [M] found his crack-house in Rosemont, [R] she blasted the deadbolt with her 38 and kicked the door in. “Everybody ****in’ freeze!”[END TRANSITION]

[M]There sat Jeremy, shirtless, wearing a goatee, holding a glass pipe. Two twelvish girls – no doubt runaways, sat Indian style by the doorway, their eyes vacant. The punk rock of Precious Wax played on the turn-table by the stairs, and from the bathroom came the sound of a little dog barking.

[R]Adrianne shoved her gun in it’s holster and smiled, “Jay, I am so happy you finally gave me the chance to finish kicking your ***.” She marched toward him.

[M]He dropped the pipe, stood up, and grabbed a gun off the mantle. Aiming it, he said, “Stay back, *****!”

[R]With a swipe of her arms, she popped the gun out of his grip and bashed him in the face with it. [M]He fell to the carpet. [R]She stepped on his throat and grabbed him by the hair. “If I find the slightest thing wrong with that poodle, that crack pipe is going straight up your ***, and you know I’m not kidding!”

[M]The two girls ran upstairs.

[maestrowork]

Cool. I deliberately did not want to post an action sequence or a scene that contained obvious MRUs. The first MRU is not garbled because the passage is taken out of context. The first "R" would respond to an previous "M." The first "M" in this passage is long -- a sequence of observation about the boar.

Good analysis.


Q: in Mistook's passage, why did you say "The two girls ran upstair" is a Motivation?


C'mon guys, let's play some more.

[zornhau]

Cool. I deliberately did not want to post an action sequence or a scene that contained obvious MRUs. The first MRU is not garbled because the passage is taken out of context. The first "R" would respond to an previous "M." The first "M" in this passage is long -- a sequence of observation about the boar.

Good analysis.

Q: in Mistook's passage, why did you say "The two girls ran upstair" is a Motivation?

C'mon guys, let's play some more.

:box: OK.

The girls? Because they were external to the Protag. She might not have cared about them, but their actions provided situational information, e.g. that the ground floor was now clear, but that there was an end of level bad guy on the 1st floor. Depends on the protag.

Your opening MRU probably had too much description in the R (by Swain standards, that is - I make no claims about my own authority here!).

I think this shows that MRUs are a comfortable way to write - something you can learn, but don't normally have to think about. Certainly, examples of bad - or hard to read - writing I've seen in the past usually, on inspection, turn out to violate the MRU structure.

However, it does not follow that good writing naturally uses MRUs. Does anybody have any examples of MRU-free text?

It also occurs to me that all the examples we've parsed have been two handers, so that the Beats all map to Ms or Rs. It would be interesting to try a more complex example - any volunteers?

[maestrowork]

However, it does not follow that good writing naturally uses MRUs. Does anybody have any examples of MRU-free text?

I think popular fiction by nature follows MRUs (even if the writers and readers don't recognize them), at least most of the time. The whole motivation/wants - action - consequence thing is prevalent in popular fiction. Literary fiction, on the other hand, could go on for pages without anything happening. It could be a 10-page observation of a curtain, that doesn't necesarily lead to any response.

I don't agree with Swain's point about description and brevity. It's about pace. Some passages are slower with more descriptions, and some short and punchy.

In fact, I would even go further to say that in my passage, the MRUs don't really start until Paul questions where Kai and Grace are. The whole boar scene really has no clear MRUs.

[zornhau]

In fact, I would even go further to say that in my passage, the MRUs don't really start until Paul questions where Kai and Grace are. The whole boar scene really has no clear MRUs.

The character follows a boar, reacting to its movements, so technically he is in an MRU chain at that point, but a non-essential one. The essential stuff kicks off where you indicate.

Agree with your other remarks.

[Writing Again]

One of the problems with writing a fight sequence, as with writing many things -- You are writing for the enlightened, and the ignorant and for those who "know just enough."

Fighting is not a take turns kind of game -- It is ongoing and forward moving. An experienced fighter does not just react to what is happening but also to what is going to happen or may happen.

Two little kids will exchange blows. Joe hits Tom then Tom hits Joe.

Later Joe hits Tom; Tom blocks and simultaneously sends a punch sailing back.

An experienced fitghter knows when they throw a blow that it may be blocked, knows it can only be blocked in certain ways, and knows that the opponant may send an immediate return: An experienced fighter is therefore already blocking a blow that has not yet been fired and may never be.

An inexperienced fighter may even watch a fight and not realize the participants are not "taking turns" but are seeking an advantage.

Strictly turn based fighting such as MRU's would depict would not leave me with the impression I was watching experienced fighters, but rather that I was watching a couple of amateurs.

[azbikergirl]

Here's a snippet from my WIP where the MC is doing some internal processing. I'd never heard of MRUs when I wrote this.

"My brother thinks the Rune Solver's a noble," White Shirt said. "I think he's a scholar. What do you think?"
Couldn't they find something else to talk about? "If it's not a nobleman, it should be." [this is Gavin speaking]
"Why'd you say that? Someone smart enough to solve the runes is smart enough to be king," White Shirt said.
Gavin shook his head and lifted his tankard for a long draw. Arguing with these two was pointless. It wouldn't change anything. He was a commoner who could barely read. What business did he have becoming king?
"Nobles are learned -- and well-spoken," Gray Shirt said. "What about land holdin's and rents and such? A king's got to know all that crap."
Gavin belched loudly and said, "And he should have good manners."
Gray Shirt was right. Gavin considered simply not solving any more runes. So what if they taunted him, whispering in his head all day and night? Eventually he would learn to ignore them and be done with it. But the problem would not go away, and he knew it. For most of his life, he'd resisted the allure of the cave, ignored the call to duty that haunted his dreams. The runes had troubled him since he was a boy. No longer could a day go by without the damned things ruling his thoughts.
Besides, Thendylath needed a king. Highwaymen and monsters made the lands between the cities unsafe for anyone unescorted by a hired sword. Last week, a beyonder entered the realm of men in plain view -- in the middle of the market.
And the people. In every city he'd visited, townsfolk gathered and gossiped and wondered about the Rune Solver. They wanted a king. Soon, news that the third rune had been solved would spread like blush across a virgin's face. Gavin couldn't take that away from them.
But even if he took the throne, he didn't have a king's elegance or air of authority. He knew nothing about taxes and land holdings. Hell, he didn't even know which fork to use. The king needed to be someone like... He took in a sharp breath. "Edan!" He snapped his fingers. Yes! Why hadn't he thought of it before?
"Who's Edan?" Gray Shirt asked. Both men watched him curiously.
"Uh, just a friend," he muttered. Just a friend who happened to be the Lordover Lalorian's son. Edan had the upbringing and the noble bloodline a king needed. Good, kind person, generous nature, dashing and all that. Edan Dawnpiper would make an excellent king for Thendylath. The people would rejoice. Yes, Edan should be the king.

[zornhau]

One of the problems with writing a fight sequence, as with writing many things -- You are writing for the enlightened, and the ignorant and for those who "know just enough."

Fighting is not a take turns kind of game -- It is ongoing and forward moving. An experienced fighter does not just react to what is happening but also to what is going to happen or may happen.

Two little kids will exchange blows. Joe hits Tom then Tom hits Joe.

Later Joe hits Tom; Tom blocks and simultaneously sends a punch sailing back.

An experienced fitghter knows when they throw a blow that it may be blocked, knows it can only be blocked in certain ways, and knows that the opponant may send an immediate return: An experienced fighter is therefore already blocking a blow that has not yet been fired and may never be.

An inexperienced fighter may even watch a fight and not realize the participants are not "taking turns" but are seeking an advantage.

Strictly turn based fighting such as MRU's would depict would not leave me with the impression I was watching experienced fighters, but rather that I was watching a couple of amateurs.

Interesting. I take it that applies to Ranulph's duel, as posted earlier? Actually that was authentic 15th Century German Longsword style. However, if you couldn't believe in it, then it failed.

As regards the technical question of MRUs in complex fights with simultaneous actions: I think it's important to distinguish between the Beats, which are what happen in the story world, and and MRUs, which are what happen from the Protag's POV.

If you take a particular guard, I react to its strengths and weaknesses and pick a particular attack. Now you know that's how I'll think, but we don't see the inside of your head, so everything you do is in my R.
:idea: But perhaps you could show me what you mean. Go on! Hack out a couple of lines of martial arts and we can all play with it.

[zornhau]

Interesting - and intriguing, as in wanting to read on. Most of it is classic MRU, with feelings even preceding action. The big internal dialogue could probably be broken down into MRUs as well...


[M] "My brother thinks the Rune Solver's a noble," White Shirt said. "I think he's a scholar. What do you think?"
[R] Couldn't they find something else to talk about? "If it's not a nobleman, it should be." [this is Gavin speaking]
[M] "Why'd you say that? Someone smart enough to solve the runes is smart enough to be king," White Shirt said.
[R] Gavin shook his head and lifted his tankard for a long draw. Arguing with these two was pointless. It wouldn't change anything. He was a commoner who could barely read. What business did he have becoming king?
[M]"Nobles are learned -- and well-spoken," Gray Shirt said. "What about land holdin's and rents and such? A king's got to know all that crap."
[R]Gavin belched loudly and said, "And he should have good manners."
[M]Gray Shirt was right. [R]Gavin considered simply not solving any more runes. So what if they taunted him, whispering in his head all day and night? Eventually he would learn to ignore them and be done with it. But the problem would not go away, and he knew it. For most of his life, he'd resisted the allure of the cave, ignored the call to duty that haunted his dreams. The runes had troubled him since he was a boy. No longer could a day go by without the damned things ruling his thoughts.
[M]Besides, Thendylath needed a king. Highwaymen and monsters made the lands between the cities unsafe for anyone unescorted by a hired sword. Last week, a beyonder entered the realm of men in plain view -- in the middle of the market.
And the people. In every city he'd visited, townsfolk gathered and gossiped and wondered about the Rune Solver. They wanted a king. Soon, news that the third rune had been solved would spread like blush across a virgin's face. Gavin couldn't take that away from them.
But even if he took the throne, he didn't have a king's elegance or air of authority. He knew nothing about taxes and land holdings. Hell, he didn't even know which fork to use. The king needed to be someone like... [R]He took in a sharp breath. "Edan!" He snapped his fingers. Yes! Why hadn't he thought of it before?
[M]"Who's Edan?" Gray Shirt asked. Both men watched him curiously.
[R]"Uh, just a friend," he muttered. Just a friend who happened to be the Lordover Lalorian's son. Edan had the upbringing and the noble bloodline a king needed. Good, kind person, generous nature, dashing and all that. Edan Dawnpiper would make an excellent king for Thendylath. The people would rejoice. Yes, Edan should be the king.

[azbikergirl]

Thanks! I think I am beginning to see. I kept thinking that Ms and Rs needed to be single-sentence or maybe a couple sentences. I have big chunks of Ms and Rs. This was what confused me about using MRUs in the sequel. (The scene preceding this one showed Gavin solving a rune, and now he's mulling over what it means.)

[zornhau]

Thanks! I think I am beginning to see. I kept thinking that Ms and Rs needed to be single-sentence or maybe a couple sentences. I have big chunks of Ms and Rs. This was what confused me about using MRUs in the sequel. (The scene preceding this one showed Gavin solving a rune, and now he's mulling over what it means.)

I think it's to do with pacing. This Gavin bloke isn't being shot at! He can afford to have long Reaction units. The main thing is that you have a ding-dong chain of cause and effect, the character in dialogue with his world.

BTW how far through are you with this novel?

[azbikergirl]

I'm in the home stretch :hooray: . It's on the long side, so I'm trying to whittle it down to < 120,000 words. I have about 5,500 words left to eliminate. :faint: I've already cut it by about 17,000 words!

[Mistook]

The girls? Because they were external to the Protag. She might not have cared about them, but their actions provided situational information, e.g. that the ground floor was now clear, but that there was an end of level bad guy on the 1st floor. Depends on the protag.

One of my worries about that passage is that there could be somebody dangerous on the second floor. I asked myself, "Is she really so impulsive that she'd fail to think of this danger?"

The answer was yes. When her instincts take over, she doesn't worry about complications. Whether you see it as a flaw or a strength, she trusts herself to deal with whatever may happen next.

Had I extended this scene, The girls running upstairs would probably have motivated her to be aware of footfalls, and metallic clicks coming from upstairs as she went to get the dog and leave out the back door.

As it stands, after the girls run upstairs, we cut directly to Adrianne returning the kidnapped poodle to the rich widow.


An experienced fitghter knows when they throw a blow that it may be blocked, knows it can only be blocked in certain ways, and knows that the opponant may send an immediate return: An experienced fighter is therefore already blocking a blow that has not yet been fired and may never be.


I agree. If it has any bearing on the scene I posted, I'd say Adrianne knows this Rifkin guy from high school, and knows that while he is holding the gun, he believes he's won the confrontation, especially since (we can infer) her hands are going up. He doen't realize it's possible for her to disarm him, but the move she uses is one that might be familiar to fans of the martial arts.

What she's done is grabbed the barrel with one hand, and his wrist with the other, in a crossing motion that forces his arm down, while the gun goes up, out of his grip, and becomes a pair of "brass knuckles" flying straight toward his face.

And yes, I know i'm straying way off topic. Sorry. I'm just really in love with this character. :)

[zornhau]

...grabbed the barrel with one hand, and his wrist with the other, in a crossing motion that forces his arm down, while the gun goes up, out of his grip, and becomes a pair of "brass knuckles" flying straight toward his face.


Some of that detail could probably go into the text! It would also work fine as a a couple of terse MRUs.

I can never quite decide how much martial arts detail readers want. I've been discussing this with my friends off- and on-line (http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/11948.html (http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/11948.html)). Perhaps we should start a thread on the subject once this one's played out.

[Writing Again]

Interesting. I take it that applies to Ranulph's duel, as posted earlier? Actually that was authentic 15th Century German Longsword style. However, if you couldn't believe in it, then it failed.

As regards the technical question of MRUs in complex fights with simultaneous actions: I think it's important to distinguish between the Beats, which are what happen in the story world, and and MRUs, which are what happen from the Protag's POV.

If you take a particular guard, I react to its strengths and weaknesses and pick a particular attack. Now you know that's how I'll think, but we don't see the inside of your head, so everything you do is in my R.
:idea: But perhaps you could show me what you mean. Go on! Hack out a couple of lines of martial arts and we can all play with it.

My WIP does not have any fighting in it: There are, as in real life, threats, intimidations, and chases between vastly unequal opponents.

Between work, studying for my next belt rank, family and writing I don't want to take the time to write anything new.

I think Ranulph's duel shows what I mean: The attacker discovers he has already been blocked, (The hanging parry was probably slid into as a reaction without thought) in what appears on the surface to be an out of sequence move -- i.e. he did not take turn.

I also have a tendency to use fight scenes to slip in backstory...I have stretched out a "quick draw" gunfight with two shots fired that would have lasted three seconds real time into three pages.

[zornhau]

I think Ranulph's duel shows what I mean: The attacker discovers he has already been blocked, (The hanging parry was probably slid into as a reaction without thought) in what appears on the surface to be an out of sequence move -- i.e. he did not take turn.

Phew! You more or less got it*, which is enough for me. As long as it passes for marital arts before the scrutiny of a martial artist, then the Emperor has clothes!
:Trophy:
Thanks for your comments, which have made me reassess how I write combat scenes.

*Actually, though, Ranulph always intended the hanging parry. He feinted a diagonal cut to get a reaction, turned it into an across-the-body cut, which landed under Sir L's blade as a parry which turned into a cut which landed short but opened up the possibility of a thrust. (In German longsword terminology:feinted a zornhau, set-aside with a kurtzhau then thrust from Ox - Ranulph is a tricky fellow!). But who cares?

[Writing Again]

I'd say Adrianne knows this Rifkin guy from high school, and knows that while he is holding the gun, he believes he's won the confrontation, especially since (we can infer) her hands are going up. He doen't realize it's possible for her to disarm him, but the move she uses is one that might be familiar to fans of the martial arts.

:)

One of the things untrained fighters don't realize is that holding a weapon, be it knife, gun, or club, is that having a weapon does NOT make the person a better fighter.

Most untrained fighters believe that once they hold the weapon they have won the fight. Few realise that a highly trained martial artist can disarm an untrained gun wielder from twenty-one foot away. Police know it, which is why, once they have a drawn gun they are ready to shoot if the perp so much as flinches wrong.

Of course it works the other way as well. Untrained fighters facing either a weapon or someone who looks bigger, stronger, or meaner, may suffer psychological defeat when in truth they could have won easily with a quick snap kick to the knee.

On the other hand a lot of martial artists have learned techniques for disarming a gun wielder that do not work in real life. Slamming the back of the hand holding the gun can actually discharge the gun into the defender's chest with little or no escape possible ... Even though the person holding the gun did not intend to shoot.

You have no control over what the reader knows, worse you have know control over what the reader thinks they know: I myself was a brown belt in competition Judo when I came across a guy with a far lower rank than my own who was very difficult to throw. His instructor had taught him to block my hips -- Not my throw. The reason I was not taught this simple thing was my instructor wanted to keep this info as his "edge" against his students, while the other guy's instructor spent less time teaching his students to throw and more time teaching them to not be thrown, "You can always hit, kick, bite, and scratch if you are still standing up" he told his students, "but once you are on the ground there is not much you can do." (BTW students of ground arts, especially Brazilian will chuckle at the last line, because on the ground is where they want to take you.)

You have to include enough detail that the reader can draw their own pictures based on what they believe to be true, never so much detail to contradict what they think they know,

I believe MRU's would create fight scenes that would be believable for most people. If the two combatants were portrayed as competent, but far from expert, it would work for me. People learning fighting skills spend a long time in the "He swings, I duck and hit back, then he blocks and swings again" mentality, it just doesn't work at the pro boxer, pro wrestler, black belt, or championship swordsman level.

[zornhau]

So, in a nutshell: choreograph an authentic fight scene, then stand just far enough back not to bore or confuse the non-martial arts reader.

This rather puts martial artists in the same position as gays a generation back: reading between the lines for their own experience!

[Writing Again]

*Actually, though, Ranulph always intended the hanging parry. He feinted a diagonal cut to get a reaction, turned it into an across-the-body cut, which landed under Sir L's blade as a parry which turned into a cut which landed short but opened up the possibility of a thrust. (In German longsword terminology:feinted a zornhau, set-aside with a kurtzhau then thrust from Ox - Ranulph is a tricky fellow!). But who cares?

I believe you could work that into the fight scene -- Possibly as MRU's -- and make the fight not only more believable, but add tension and stretch out the suspense. However it looks as though you are writing 3rd person objective, I prefer 3rd omniscient (although I usually stick to one one pov.)

Example:

Sir Lionel had improved, but how much? Ranulph launched his body forward but did not commit his arm to the full swing. If Sir Lionel had not improved, and did not react, then Ranulph would have missed a quick win and be leaving himself vulnerable to a lesser fighter: No telling what would happen next -- Or if Sir Lionel had become extremely good and seen through the ruse -- though Ranulph doubted he could have improved that much in so a short time. In any case it was too late now to change tactics.

Note: A reader untrained in fighting would wonder what was going on, and you would explain it later, raising questions is good, while a trained fighter would realize a feint of some kind was happening. A feint is believable because one part or another of the body is committed to the false attack, at least for a second. The attack itself is ineffective because other parts of the body are either committed to, or ready to be committed to, the follow up attack.

I don't use feints much myself, they require as much time, training, and skill as a real technique, and have a greater chance of working against you. Some arts, boxing comes to mind, use them extensively. A skilled fighter knows, feint or not, the second blow is coming and prepares for it accordingly. Some styles, such as Aikido, know feint or not, the blow is going to be withdrawn sooner or later regardless of the commitment, (otherwise the attacker would fall on their face of their own accord) and relies upon the sensitivity of the practitioner to either extend the motion forward, continue its reversal, or alter its direction up, down, or sidewise. Therefore a skilled Aikidoist can treat a feint as though it were a real blow.

[Writing Again]

So, in a nutshell: choreograph an authentic fight scene, then stand just far enough back not to bore or confuse the non-martial arts reader.

This rather puts martial artists in the same position as gays a generation back: reading between the lines for their own experience!

So funny, but so true.

[zornhau]

Indeed:
I remember being ecstatic to find hand parries, halfsword and certain wrestling moves in Edgard Rice Burroughs's Mars series. He was one of us!

[Anatole Ghio]

Some of that detail could probably go into the text! It would also work fine as a a couple of terse MRUs.

I can never quite decide how much martial arts detail readers want. I've been discussing this with my friends off- and on-line (http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/11948.html (http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/11948.html)). Perhaps we should start a thread on the subject once this one's played out.

For the most part, going into too much detail in a fight scene will only slow down the story. Unlike film where many actions can be conveyed in a short time, in print many actions can usually only be conveyed in a large space. It can become hard to convey every little action in a fight without seeming to be overlong.

There are exceptions, of course. The best part of writing is in being able to jump into a characters head and convey emotional nuance. With this invaluable tool, you won't need to convey so much physical detail... so the trade off for losing some of the fight description is in being able to convey how the character feels in the writing.

- Anatole

[zornhau]

I tend to agree with you - hence my make it authentic but from a distance thing.

However, it does depend on your genre or sub genre. Military SF positively requires you to gloat over all the details.

Also, some of the combat details do have an emotional significance - remember Dirty Harry's Magnum speech?

[Mistook]

This conversation about the fight moves is invaluable to somebody like me. I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag, but I'm going to write a few fairly involved scenes as the WIP goes forward.

Adrianne's going to find herself in later chapters being hunted down by a male bounty hunter who is twice her weight and a foot taller. I intend to choreograph three fights. The first two push her to her absolute limits, but she manages to get away. The last one she finally loses and gets captured.

[Writing Again]

Well, Mr. Mistook, remember that knowing how to fight is not what wins fights -- What wins fights is the mind. Kenny Rogers said it best when he described poker: "You gotta know when to hold em, when to fold em, when to walk away, and when to run." Convincing someone you are drawing to an inside straight when you have four of a kind -- Convincing someone you have a full house when you don't even have a pair -- That will win you more fights than years of study and practice.

Trickery and deception are everything.

My favorite fight scene is when James Garner runs away from the bad guy and into the bathroom: Once there he dumps liquid soap onto the floor. In comes the bad guy. The bad guy throws a hard kick at Garner. The bad guy slips on the soap, falls on his backside.

As he leaves Garner says something to the effect of, "The problem with that stuff is it only works if you play by the rules."

Never play by the rules.

[Writing Again]

I tend to agree with you - hence my make it authentic but from a distance thing.

However, it does depend on your genre or sub genre. Military SF positively requires you to gloat over all the details.

Also, some of the combat details do have an emotional significance - remember Dirty Harry's Magnum speech?

Know your reader!

[Mistook]

Well, Mr. Mistook, remember that knowing how to fight is not what wins fights -- What wins fights is the mind. Kenny Rogers said it best when he described poker: "You gotta know when to hold em, when to fold em, when to walk away, and when to run." Convincing someone you are drawing to an inside straight when you have four of a kind -- Convincing someone you have a full house when you don't even have a pair -- That will win you more fights than years of study and practice.

Trickery and deception are everything.

My favorite fight scene is when James Garner runs away from the bad guy and into the bathroom: Once there he dumps liquid soap onto the floor. In comes the bad guy. The bad guy throws a hard kick at Garner. The bad guy slips on the soap, falls on his backside.

As he leaves Garner says something to the effect of, "The problem with that stuff is it only works if you play by the rules."

Never play by the rules.


That is a great insight. I'll keep it in mind. The Bugs Bunny strategy. :)

[zornhau]

This conversation about the fight moves is invaluable to somebody like me. I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag, but I'm going to write a few fairly involved scenes as the WIP goes forward.

Adrianne's going to find herself in later chapters being hunted down by a male bounty hunter who is twice her weight and a foot taller. I intend to choreograph three fights. The first two push her to her absolute limits, but she manages to get away. The last one she finally loses and gets captured.

IMHO - speaking as somebody fresh out of the shower from coaching German Longsword, a martial art - the main thing is to avoid always stepping outside the system for a win if your character is supposed to be able to fight.

For example, Guy Gavriel Kay ends a fight between his two heroes with one throwing dirt in the other's face - a dead give away that the author has no idea of which end of a sword goes where.

Worse is to misread the combat styles which go with the weapons: Simon R Green's swordspeople spend most of their time stamping(!) and lunging, whatever the weapons. Robin Hobb has Fitz armed with an axe because of his berserker mentality - this is a very hard weapon to use and stay alive with unless you're in a team.

If you're not a martial arts person, perhaps the trick is to adopt one of the following strategies:

Keep the fights very short - a three blow exchange, concentrating on the risk management and deception
Have long fights, but keep them vague until the finish, which should be a three blow exchange
Even so, you need to interorgate martial arts friends, or read some manuals. Better yet, get off that chair and go take a class!

[azbikergirl]

I've got a swordfight scene that concerns me, esp. after your comments above. What I want is for my hero to be badly injured because of his opponent's deception and Hero's inclination to trust the word of another man (without making him seem gullible and/or stupid).

Currently, I'm showing a vague fight between two evenly matched fighters. They grow tired before either gets in a fight-ending strike. The Bad Guy steps back and asks for a short respite. Hero, being the honorable guy (and tired himself) agrees, but without lowering his weapon. Behind them, Hero's sidekick is fighting her heart out with the BG's sidekick, and Hero can't help himself. He has to look. BG darts in, Hero hears the movement and turns, BG throws dirt in his eyes. Hero tries to lunge but can't see, misses. Now blind, he takes BG's sword in the chest. BG, being stupid, thinks he has won and stands there taunting the blind, wounded hero (unaware that Hero has some magic powers and is healing and gaining his strength back every second). Hero's sidekick ends up doing BG in.

As an obviously skilled weapons fighter, can you make any suggestions that would lend more realism to this scene? I studied martial arts for 4 years (and boxing for a year), but only took one short knife class and no sword instruction.

This prob'ly deserves its own thread, but WTH. :)

[zornhau]

I've got a swordfight scene that concerns me, esp. after your comments above. What I want is for my hero to be badly injured because of his opponent's deception and Hero's inclination to trust the word of another man (without making him seem gullible and/or stupid).

Currently, I'm showing a vague fight between two evenly matched fighters. They grow tired before either gets in a fight-ending strike. The Bad Guy steps back and asks for a short respite. Hero, being the honorable guy (and tired himself) agrees, but without lowering his weapon. Behind them, Hero's sidekick is fighting her heart out with the BG's sidekick, and Hero can't help himself. He has to look. BG darts in, Hero hears the movement and turns, BG throws dirt in his eyes. Hero tries to lunge but can't see, misses. Now blind, he takes BG's sword in the chest. BG, being stupid, thinks he has won and stands there taunting the blind, wounded hero (unaware that Hero has some magic powers and is healing and gaining his strength back every second). Hero's sidekick ends up doing BG in.

As an obviously skilled weapons fighter, can you make any suggestions that would lend more realism to this scene? I studied martial arts for 4 years (and boxing for a year), but only took one short knife class and no sword instruction.

This prob'ly deserves its own thread, but WTH. :)

More knowledgable than skilled, but yes - glad to help. What weapons? What armour? What kind of period feel?

[azbikergirl]

Hero has a bastard sword that he mostly uses one-handed, BG uses a short sword. Hero is too poor to afford real armor, so he wears a leather cuirass. BG has a mail shirt. The period of the story is sort of a mix. 1600-1700 is probably closest overall feel. Thanks!!

[Writing Again]

IMHO - speaking as somebody fresh out of the shower from coaching German Longsword, a martial art - the main thing is to avoid always stepping outside the system for a win if your character is supposed to be able to fight.

For example, Guy Gavriel Kay ends a fight between his two heroes with one throwing dirt in the other's face - a dead give away that the author has no idea of which end of a sword goes where.

Worse is to misread the combat styles which go with the weapons: Simon R Green's swordspeople spend most of their time stamping(!) and lunging, whatever the weapons. Robin Hobb has Fitz armed with an axe because of his berserker mentality - this is a very hard weapon to use and stay alive with unless you're in a team.

If you're not a martial arts person, perhaps the trick is to adopt one of the following strategies:

Keep the fights very short - a three blow exchange, concentrating on the risk management and deception
Have long fights, but keep them vague until the finish, which should be a three blow exchange
Even so, you need to interorgate martial arts friends, or read some manuals. Better yet, get off that chair and go take a class!

I think this is part of it. I have never yet, (Not saying it won't happen, cuz it could) had a hero who knows how to fight. Usually the bad guys do not know much either.

I do not like the image "all karate people, weight lifters, gun lovers etc are crazy people ready to explode" that some movies and stories tend to portray. There may be some nutcase martial artists, weight lifters, gun lovers out there, but they are few and far between. So I avoid making the bad guys experts.

On the other hand the average person is not an expert either...They are just a person who suddenly got in over their head.

One WIP has heroes who are out of their depth in worlds they do not understand. The people in those worlds use weapons as a matter of course, it is what everyone in those worlds do. The ones that cause the most problems for my poor heroes are not especially skilled, but they are soldiers and there are a lot of them.

The other concerns a rather small girl who has no idea how to fight, yet in the end she defeats a monster that tries to crush her too death.

BTW Zornhau discusses German Longsword. The European style of fighting, ideals of honor, philosophy, beliefs, are far removed from the Eastern styles and concepts.

To begin with a European would draw his sword and let his opponant draw his -- Then they would cross blades and begin. To do otherwise would be considered cowardly. The Samuri's object was to draw his sword and cut the head from his opponant before the opponant had time to draw -- Much like a gun fight in the old west.

When writing a fantasy you might pause and think, "What is the attitude toward the weapon? Toward the opponant? What is honor in this culture? What is a deadly insult?"

In one culture taking advantage of an opportunity to kill a defensless opponant is considered cowardly -- In another to give your opponant an opportunity to kill you is a deadly insult which implies he is too unskilled to take advantage of the opportunity.

You are not just dealing with skill and combat and weapons, you are also dealing with a culture -- In a fantasy it not only may be different than ours, it probably should be.

[zornhau]

Agree with Writing Again's general remarks about cultural aspects of weapons and fighting.

Hero has a bastard sword that he mostly uses one-handed, BG uses a short sword. Hero is too poor to afford real armor, so he wears a leather cuirass. BG has a mail shirt. The period of the story is sort of a mix. 1600-1700 is probably closest overall feel. Thanks!!

OK, here's my best guess as to how it would work out. Please bear in mind that other martial artists/swordsmen may disagree, and that your local SCA bods - who I earnestly encourage you to chat to - would probably suggest something different (though they are welcome to come to Scotland to try it man-to-man).

If they're evenly matched, in the actual fight hero would concentrate on using his longer reach by:

Thrusting: Stabbing BG in exposed face. He could also try for legs and thighs, but you can't go for these without losing reach (think of the geometry- try it with broomhandles!). A good thrust with the body behind it should penetrate mail, but no guarantees, and he'd have to get BG's sword out of the way first.
NB General rule of fencing is that the poitn always lands first.
Cutting to the hands/wrists: Either by stepping away from BG's attacks then cutting at his wrists, or tempting him to attack and actually parrying against the wrist (in modern fencing, this is a stop cut. In German LS, cutting off)! Sword unlikely to cut mail in one blow, but will shatter bones, deaden hand.
BG would have to overcome lack of reach (assuming no shield here):

Beating Hero's blade out the way then springing in with a cut or thrust
Binding against Hero's blade (i.e. pressing blade to blade), then pivotting in and grabbing the wrist with the left hand - a sword capture.
All exhausting stuff! So, when they do back off by mutual consent before things become random, that's quite reasonable. Then the hero's distracted as you describe and the BG does something evil which is only foiled by hero's regen. powers.

This could be:

Hero is resting, so holds his sword on his shoulder like a baseball bat.
Hero distracted.
Villain lunges, impales hero
At this point, you have two options:

Option 1. Sidekick kills BG (as per original)

BG recovers from lunge, i.e. withdraws to a safe distance
Hero is dying, and his muscles have locked up. So villain gloats.
At this point Sidekick gets him
Option 2. Hero gets BG
2.1 Assumes BG isn't used to fighting an old-fashioned bastard sword, and that you don't mind a level of nastiness in your story.

Sword still sticking in Hero, BG pivots closer grabs Hero's left wrist, immobilising Hero's sword.
Almost close enough to kiss, he taunts dying hero.
Hero unclasps his left hand and punches with the right. Since he's still holding his bastard sword, this drives the crossguard into the BG's face, eyes, or throat
BG either: falls dead; or falls back dying from a throat wound, in which case his last sight would be the Hero regenerating.
2.2 More sanitised. Assumes BG knows what he's doing.

Sword still sticking in Hero, BG pivots closer grabs the pommel or ricasso of Hero's sword, utterly immobilising it.
Almost close enough to kiss, he taunts dying hero.
Sidekick stabs BG in back.
Hope this helps.

If you're trying for a particular period feel, then you'd do well to look at http://www.ospreypublishing.com/ since they're books will pretty much tell you what you need to know about weapons and equipment.

[azbikergirl]

Z, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!!

This helps tremendously. I have a book on Medieval Swords and Swordmanship in which the author looks down his nose at SCA guys and their "inauthentic" swordplay, which is why I did not seek out any of the local groups. I used mostly drawings and description from that book to choreograph my scene (in a vague sort of way). However, your suggestions help me see how both guys would approach the fight -- something the book did not do.

It may not matter much, but my hero is a lefty. I want the sidekick to do in BG because I want to show how she is completely unscathed from her fight (not even a bruise), while he gets totally beat up and stabbed. (She has a magical advantage she's unaware of.) This becomes significant later.

I can't wait to go revise this scene with the help you've given me. Thanks again!!

[zornhau]

Z, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!!
This helps tremendously. I have a book on Medieval Swords and Swordmanship in which the author looks down his nose at SCA guys

Glad I could help! The SCA tend to know more about fighting SCA style than real combat, however you'd get some sort of versimultude by talking with them - which is all you really need. Also, some of them will really will know their stuff, or at least have 'real' weapons you can handle.

The best book on medieval longsword is Windsor, The Swordsman's Companion http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/ which has some good overview of body mechanics and the basics, before getting onto specifics. The same publisher also does good books on Sword and Buckler, and German Longsword.

As for the book you have - beware of anybody who insists parries are done with the flat.

I think we're about as far OT as it's possible now! If you need any further cold steel help, please feel free to drop me a private message or start a new thread.:)

[Liam Jackson]

Regarding the MRU issue- What James Ritchie said.

Regarding the sword/system/combat discussion-
Add-on to the remarks concerning parry. I can understand, and have used flat parries, depending on the cicumstance. For instance, if I need a prisoner more than I need a body-count, I might parry low on the blade to open up the opponents stance, then step inside to nullify his weapon and use a "less-lethal" counter. (Don't you just love that term, "less-lethal'?)

(No, I'm not an SCA player, although I've met a couple of those guys who are techncially sound) I can also tell you that flat (slap) parries run a hellacious risk of fracturing the steel of tempered blades. Been there, done that, got the broken tachi to show for it.) Edge on edge is safer. Edge on flesh is optimum. :)

Furthermore, I'm not all convinced that modern efforts to portray open combat are in any way accurate. (Duels, on the other hand, were highly stylized events and do not accurately battlefield conditions.)

Yes, we have tons of period text from which we derive our understanding of single and group combat. However, I think few disagree that many of those texts were written by academics, or others who deliberately attemtped to romanticize combat. I DO know this...in combat, style and convention quickly surrender to "do what works." Many of our textbook teachings may give thanks to unconvential techniques born on the field of battle. Thus, the evolution of individual (battlefield) combat was in ever in flux, and many times, based on second, third, or fourth-hand accounts.

Warriors of the day (and even now) were renown (or dead) for their abilities (or lack thereof) to adapt to meet a given situation. These same warriors produced the "prinicple vs. techinque" mindset. While trying to give a fight scene an element of period flavor, it's reasonable to rely on texbook examples, but remember, there were no paint-by-numbers system of individual fighting on the battlefield. Certain "principles" were likely adhered to, but that's probably as close as one can get to stylized combat. (unlike most duels)

Just my two bits. (allowing for inflation.)

[zornhau]

Yes, battles would be a bit different. For a start, the ground might well be rough, the numbers uneven, and the weapons mixed. Also, you wouldn't have time to exchange more than a couple of blows per encounter.

I've yet to find a good contemp. description of small unit tactics, or ways to survive a melee. The medieval manuals I use all cover 1-1 or, rarely, 1-2.

That said, the general principles of the weapons would still apply. This is certainly true of the techniques of German Longsword, which are implicit in the weapons themselves. A good cut is a good cut in any circumstance, and so on.

[Mistook]

This may be a long-winded metaphore, but I'm good at installing wires, so last weekend my girlfriend's aunt needs a phone extention run from the kitchen to a bedroom. Not a problem, but after traveling 60 miles, I'd forgotten my tools.

Scaring up what was handy, and using my teeth at one point to strip some wires, I managed to do a fairly professional job - better I suspect than a novice with the proper tools might have done.

In other words, if you know the underlying principles, you'll be able to catch as catch can.

[Liam Jackson]

RE: Principle vs. Technique- The notion is that if one understands certain fundamental principles, one can adapt/create appropriate techniques on the fly.

[zornhau]

RE: Principle vs. Technique- The notion is that if one understands certain fundamental principles, one can adapt/create appropriate techniques on the fly.

Exactly! This still means that the pro swordsman is more lethal than disorganised amateurs, no matter how much right is one their side etc: http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/15571.html#cutid1

There's a lot of comforting tosh about the experienced swordsman being most at risk from the enthusiastic novice. Can feel a lj essay coming on....

[Mistook]

Exactly! This still means that the pro swordsman is more lethal than disorganised amateurs, no matter how much right is one their side etc: http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/15571.html#cutid1

There's a lot of comforting tosh about the experienced swordsman being most at risk from the enthusiastic novice. Can feel a lj essay coming on....


I don't know poop about swords, but I'd have to agree, in a situation where everything depends on physics, the pro is going to win-out. Only something like thoughtless hubris, or the weariness of old age would change that dynamic, but then again... isn't that always how it's depicted? The novice has more energy and benefits every time the pro underestimates his/her abilities?

Ah, the circle of life.

[zornhau]

Glad you agree!

Only something like thoughtless hubris, or the weariness of old age would change that dynamic, but then again... isn't that always how it's depicted? The novice has more energy and benefits every time the pro underestimates his/her abilities?


Yes that's how it's always depicted, but it's still rubbish! It's also an anoying cliche.

The Old pro has economy of movement. The Heroic Ploughhboy may be 3 times faster, but the old pro is 6 times more precise. The Heroic Ploughboy leaps about from side to side, the Old Pro shuffles left and right. The Heroic Ploughboy dashes aside the Old Pro's sword, the Old Pro deflects with a deft flick.

And, when the Old Pro cuts, his entire body drives the blade. So even if he's half as strong, he's 3 or 4 times as efficient, and bits come of the other Heroic Ploughboy's body. Conversely, if the Heroic Ploughboy is untrained, he may even have trouble hurting the other guy! - see What does the greatest swordsman fear? http://www.livejournal.com/users/zornhau/ .

In the Western tradition, Sir William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke and the Best Knight Ever, famously led attacks and took part in hand-to-hand fighting well into his old age. I'm sure there are other examples from East and West.

So, if Heroic Ploughboy has Right on his side, then he should invest in a crossbow and learn how to use it. There is nothing moral in gambling the success of a Good Cause on a macho one-to-one situation.

That said, if the Ploughboy knows how to wrestle, and jumps the Old Pro, then, just maybe, he might be in with a chance. Even so, wrestling - because it is inevitable - is a key part of a swordsman's training, and probably would be in alternate worlds unless some sort of taboo banned it.