- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 500
One of the things that seems to work for me when I write action scenes is to use short choppy sentences. To me, it feels more immediate and adrenaline filled.
Good tip. Thanks indianroads.
One of the things that seems to work for me when I write action scenes is to use short choppy sentences. To me, it feels more immediate and adrenaline filled.
It's also possible to use long flowing sentences to convey a sense of one-thing-happening-after-another action. This happened and this and this and this and this...
Bernard Cornwell does this to perfection. I'll try to come back later and post an example.
Thanks, Beth. I've seen this done too and it does work, at least for those who can do it well.
"Bail!" I shouted desperately. "Bail!" And then, with a noise like thunder, the great sail split into tatters that whipped off the yard, and the ship came slowly upright, but she was low in the water, and I was using all my strength to keep her coming around, creeping around, reversing our course so that I could put her bows into that turmoil of sea and wind, and the men were praying, making the sign of the cross, bailing water, and the remnants of the sail and the broken lines were mad things, ragged demons, and the sudden gale was howling like the furies in the rigging and I thought how futile it would be to die at sea so soon after Ragnar had saved my life.
I forgot I said I would come back with an example. This one is actually three sentences, but the first two are very short. Which, btw, shows good technique; it's usually advisable to frame long sentences with shorter ones.
From Bernard Cornwell's The Last Kingdom:
This has a breathless feel to it that mimics the sense that things are happening fast, both sequentially and concurrently. Also notice the frequent use of the progressive tense--using, creeping, reversing, howling, etc--all of which contribute to the feel of flowing, constant movement.
Two thoughts:
Action shows character.
This extends the "show don't tell" principle. I know what you mean, distinguishing action vs. character, but it may help to think about how they overlap.
Your genre should influence how your story starts.
The start of the story sets reader expectations. If you're writing an action-packed story, start with action. But, if you're writing a more meditative novel, then starting with action may leave readers disappointed later, because they are expecting more action.
According to some craft book I read, character is decisions. So character is action. Starting with action is fine, but don't equate this with battle scene. A battle scene is fine, as long as it's not smite, smite, dodge, smite, oh no giant orc! Put some decisions that reveal character in there, and you can start with it.
According to some craft book I read, character is decisions. So character is action. Starting with action is fine, but don't equate this with battle scene. A battle scene is fine, as long as it's not smite, smite, dodge, smite, oh no giant orc! Put some decisions that reveal character in there, and you can start with it.
I feel like it 100% has to do with your book. You're goal is to hook the reader within the first few pages. If your narration is compelling and your character uniquely interesting, I see no reason why you can't start off with your character.
I feel like it 100% has to do with your book. You're goal is to hook the reader within the first few pages. If your narration is compelling and your character uniquely interesting, I see no reason why you can't start off with your character. If your character is average, run-of-mill (and there's nothing wrong with that, plenty of adventures start with the average individual), then it might start off with some action. My advice would be to write two openings, send it out to your friends/beta readers, and see which one they prefer!
I think the character has to be doing something. It doesn't have to be "action", which is a loaded word anyway, but something has to be happening. Static description of a character is like static description of a setting: an attention-killer for most readers.
caw
For me, the best action scenes are when someone that I care about is in danger or needs to overcome an obstacle. This isn't action for action's sake. It is a character or a group of characters trying to do something difficult or challenging.
Similarly, the best character descriptions are when the character is engaged in some form of action. They need to be doing something.
So if I'm faced with a choice of action or character, I tend to wonder why I can't have both.
I like openings to books to grab me, either because I feel empathy for one of the characters or there's an unresolved question that I want to be answered. I need a bit of foreplay, a bit of tease, a nice cuddle, before we get to the main action.
I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said, but action through character is a starting point for me. As others have said, it doesn't have to be a battle. I interweave both in my stories and if I'm still struggling with either action or character, writing out a scenario that I want to read or a decision I want to see my character make in the book fleshes out what will work best for the novel. Like others have also said: it also depends on the tone and flow of your novel.
Hope that helps and happy writings!
Also, wrote this out via cellphone so I apologize for formatting!
Thanks, Once! I have read stories that open with what feels like action for action's sake and I agree it doesn't work. My opening isn't action for action's sake and starts in the middle of the ongoing action thread, but I am worried readers won't care about the danger yet since they won't care about the character yet (and like you say it's when you care about the character that you care about the danger).
I guess there's action meaning just doing something / being active, and action meaning the more dangerous kind of action.
Maybe the alternate beginning will be the foreplay.
This is true, to an extent.
I've seen people cite Bond movies as opening with action that grabs people. The problem with the argument is that they're Bond movies. No one going in is confused about the basic setup: the audience knows one of the characters by name, by job, by motivation. Thus any action sequence can be parsed on a superficial level very easily: Bond good, other guy bad. People know who to root for and why.
If you redid the opening of, say, Skyfall, replacing Daniel Craig with an unknown actor, and changing the character to Bob Smith, the thing falls apart. The audience would be lost as to why one guy is chasing another, who's meant to be good, bad, right, wrong, what's going on, why someone was shot, etc. Something has to ground people, even if it's uniforms.
Same deal in print. There has to be enough for a reader to grab onto.
I tend to vary the sentence length in action sequences. When it's blow by blow, short sentences. When things are a little more deliberate, such as pausing to draw breath or find a weapon, longer sentences.
As for action sequences at the start - that's not just James Bond. So many times I've seen movies with action at the start and end, with nothing much between. snore.
As a slight digression, this thread reveals the difficulty with using the word "action" in relation to narrative. I often think the word "activity" would be more appropriate. You don't need to have exploding zombies running around, but you do generally need to have something happening. And something suspenseful, which may be very quiet from a descriptive standpoint, is often a more effective hook for a reader than is a violent action scene.
caw