Action scenes--are they really the most important thing?

[SwallowFeather]

Sorry for the slightly clickbaity title, but I couldn't find a pithy way of saying precisely what I mean. While I do know that not all stories need action--when a story does contain action, is it always a cardinal sin not to put it fully on the page?

I've been given that impression—mostly by reviews and humor about bad or controversial books (a genre I enjoy reading.) As a case in point, Twilight is sometimes mocked for having its protagonist/narrator unconscious or otherwise not in a position to narrate climactic action scenes. I've also seen books criticized for summarizing action scenes. There's kind of this sense of frustration, like, this is the big satisfying thing we were waiting for, this is the ice cream, and here you gave us an ice-cream sandwich with nothing in it.

But is it always the ice cream?

I'm writing a romance set in an occupied territory where the locals are mounting an ultimately successful insurgency. My male love-interest, as an insurgent, sees a certain amount of action. Basically two battles and a couple of smaller crises, such as racing to warn comrades of an impending raid. The action itself is not pivotal to the plot; the fighting is the backdrop for the romance and its deeply personal conflict, which is fueled by the lovers' opposition to each other on whether a certain small-time traitor should be shot. I started out writing the whole thing in the female protag's POV; she's a non-combatant though a badass in her own way, so that ruled out showing battle scenes. Seemed OK.

Well, ha. That didn't last. I just added the soldier's POV.

And there's this voice in one of my ears going, “The readers are going to throw the book across the room if you don't show the battles, you know.” But 1) I have so little room here, I don't want to send my wordcount through the roof, and 2) the battles do not, ultimately, matter. They do not turn the plot. (This is history, so… even as far as driving out the enemy, the truly pivotal stuff happens elsewhere.) The moment that turns the plot is after the raid when he learns that Doomed Character has been summarily executed by the enemy, and after the battle when a friend tells him the rumor that Traitor is the one who ratted on Doomed. Oh and 3) I'm not an action writer. I do OK, I guess. I can do that “what it's like/chaos of war” impressionist version.

My current idea is to compromise. Cut into Soldier's POV near the end of a battle/raid/action scene, give a couple of paragraphs of chaos-of-war (with some researched specifics, I'm not trying to be lazy here), and then move as quickly as I reasonably can to the aftermath moment that's important to the story. Does this seem sufficient to you? Does it seem necessary? Do you think the voice in my ear is right that leaving this off the page entirely might result in the book hitting the wall—or at least some bitching in reviews? And what is the role of action in a non-action book, anyway, and do people have misplaced expectations of how it will satisfy them?

 

[SwallowFeather]

Oh geez, my brain immediately answered my question after I posted--to some extent anyway...

Victory is the ice-cream, isn't it? I don't want these battles on the page as "big action set-pieces" or whatever, not only because they're not pivotal but also because they do not in fact contain victory. One of them sort of distantly influences it, but that's the one in which my guy gets wounded and out of the action very early on. The other is a debacle.

Well, add that to the question, I guess--I'm still very interested to hear y'all's take and how you've dealt with this type of question in your work.

 

[CathleenT]

Aargh--I'm trying to reconstruct a reply that vanished to wherever it is that these electronic things go.

I think that to truly answer your question you'd need beta readers--so much of what you're asking depends on execution. But I had some thoughts about my book, Bellerophon, that I thought might be helpful.

Bellerophon is a Greek hero, possibly the earliest tale of a dragon slayer. My book had a lot of themes running, but one of the most important was loyalty. Still, action was part-and-parcel of the tale.

Let me lay a review on you at this point, not one of my better ones, but not awful, either: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/RXN4Q1U0Y7/?tag=absowrit-20. The TL: DR version is this. I wrote a PG-13 story, more along the lines of CS Lewis's Till We Have Faces or Purtill's Golden Gryphon Feather. This reviewer wanted an R rated tale.

This is probably not the best subgenre for me to try to make an entire career out of because I think a lot of the readership is male and prefers R rated violence. But you've got to make choices. Most of my fledgling readership is female and prefers more PG levels. (Mostly I do fairy tales.) Other reviews for that book like the violence levels.

So, you're going to have to choose. What's your subgenre? Find your comps. How often do action scenes occur? How violent are they?

I would strongly recommend against trying to create a subgenre with only your book in it. This writing gig is hard enough without having to fight that sort of headwind. : )

 

[frimble3]

Seems to me that if you're writing a Romance, the romance is the ice cream.
All the action, all the battles, are merely background. Mention them, sure, but there's no need to knock yourself out over them.
Describe what it's like living and loving in perilous times, as the story goes along, then a little of the action to set up the MMC's emotional state when he gets the news - it's been one horrific thing after another, and this is one more thing, maybe the final straw.
I think your compromise sounds about right. Especially as you know your readers and what they're expecting/wanting from your books.

And, mocking 'Twilight' is a sport for some people. But, yeah, it's a cop-out if an MC is 'oooh, all worried about the Big Action', and the reader is all invested, but somehow, the MC is unconscious, locked up by third parties, or otherwise, coincidentally , unavailable when any excitement happens.
I don't know that the 'action scenes' are necessary in a romance, but giving your readers what you've led them to expect is vital.

 

[janeofalltrades]

I think action scenes are considered important because they are so difficult to do well. You want to convey the feeling of the battle, not just who shot who. There are plenty of military romances, or romances with military heroes that have flashbacks to the action that would help you see what others do. If you have Kindle Unlimited, I've recently read a couple of romance books that dealt with action really well that way. The first book, Pretend you're mine deals with a friend who was at the battle, and the second book, Finally mine, deals with the soldier that got hurt.

I'm a romance author myself and your plot sounds interesting, hit me up if you need a critique or beta.

 

[Woollybear]

General comments about action scenes:

I'm not sure the action-is-the-ice-cream, FWIW. But probably there does need to be some of it.

My sense is that a novel is so ***long*** that it's like a Thanksgiving-sized meal. It's not a short story or a flash. So if it's a meal, it needs all the side dishes, and one of those might be action. (Caveat: i don't know the expectations in romance.)

Maybe the action is the cranberry sauce. Some people like the cranberry sauce, but some people prefer the scalloped potatoes. But people come to novels (subconsciously) expecting a wide range of different kinds of moments, yeah? Action is one of those, probably.

The best advice I ever saw on writing action scenes is to write the action from the experience of the protagonist. Like, instead of writing Bob sliced me a two-foot blade, write A line of fire ripped down my side. (You still need Bob and the blade and all that, but you get the point.)

Specific comment to Swallowfeather's project:

I would think incorporating some plot-relevant flaw/wound received in battle (he lost the use of his hand, for example)--in place of the battle itself--would go a long way to filling this perceived story need.

I'm not certain the need is truly there, but seeing the cost of battle might be able to take the place of seeing the battle itself. Like serving mashed potatoes instead of scalloped potatoes. No one is going to complain, they are just going to recognize potatoes were served with your meal.

 

[angeliz2k]

Genre, I think, is a major factor. As your WIP is romance, I would think that that's what your readers are in it for, more so than battles and action. Since it's a WWII novel and your reader picked it up, presumably they have an interest in romance in a time of war, so you wouldn't want it to be all romance with the war as a vague backdrop (IMO). It depends so much on the setting, tone, and themes. Having read scenes from this WIP, I don't think a fair bit of action would be out of place, tone-wise, but I wouldn't expect extended chapters of battle. They aren't in the very thick of the war; therefore, it makes sense that there aren't any big action set-pieces.

As for me, I've conveniently managed to evade (for the most part) the Civil War and WWI. I've never been interested in the movements or ebb-and-flow of battle, per se. I'm interested in the experience of the soldiers. In one WIP, the CW soldier has come home after being wounded, so there are no battles anymore, just scuffles between deserters and a small Confederate contingent. In another WIP, our characters do step briefly into the thick of a battle (The Wilderness), but for the most part it's about how the soldier interacts with a civilian family living nearby. As for the story of the WWI soldier, it's told from the distance of several decades by a very troubled narrator (poor bloke), so you can imagine it's not exactly a crisp description of battle. So, essentially, I didn't find Action Scenes to be super necessary, either, though in each instance there's some action involved.

 

[indianroads]

I strongly agree with angeliz2k - how you show action scenes (war battles in your case) depends on genre. Without knowing your plot, it's hard to give relevant input, but I suggest you keep the POV tight to your FMC.

In similar scenes I've written, what leads up to a fight and the fallout afterward are much more interesting than the actual combat. Your genre is romance, so I doubt your readers will be much interested in the nitty-gritty details of the battle. Instead they'll probably relate to the FMC feelings when he leaves, her worry while he is gone, and what happens in the aftermath.

 

[ChaseJxyz]

I know people like to rib on George Lucas' writing (I have said "it's like poetry, it rhymes" too many times to count), but one of the things he said was "I finished the first draft. But I cheated, I wrote a lot of 'and they fight.' " I don't remember who but someone on AW said that "and they fight" is okay to write; we don't need blow-by-blow for every fight. A big, important battle should go into details (like fighting Darth Maul) but it's okay to gloss over it if it's a very long battle or the things that happen aren't too interesting. A second pair of eyes can help with this. In a movie you can't just say "and they fight," you HAVE to show SOMETHING. But with words on paper that can work.

In a romance, the most important things should be the romance. But does something happen in a fight/action scene that is important to the plot? Does someone fall into danger and need to be saved by the other? Does the bad guy do a "oh ho ho you have to choose between your men and your lover" type situations? I'm sure there's other things that I'm not thinking of right now, either.

 

[indianroads]

Hand to hand combat usually lasts only a few seconds - a minute or two at the most, while in war, battles can last days or longer. What happens and how it is described is highly dependent on the character; someone watching an altercation will describe it much differently than a combatant would.

 

[gothicangel]

I know people like to rib on George Lucas' writing (I have said "it's like poetry, it rhymes" too many times to count), but one of the things he said was "I finished the first draft. But I cheated, I wrote a lot of 'and they fight.' " I don't remember who but someone on AW said that "and they fight" is okay to write; we don't need blow-by-blow for every fight. A big, important battle should go into details (like fighting Darth Maul) but it's okay to gloss over it if it's a very long battle or the things that happen aren't too interesting. A second pair of eyes can help with this. In a movie you can't just say "and they fight," you HAVE to show SOMETHING. But with words on paper that can work.

In other words, he leaves the hard work for the choreographer!

 

[gothicangel]

My advice (having read a few historicals and find long battle scenes boring) is that if you write them they need to be relevant and should up the stakes of your plot.

On the other hand I HATE it when I'm reading a book, the tension and suspense has be taken to great heights, I think 'great, this is what I've been waiting for (for 300+ pages), and its all over in a page. That will ruin a book for me.

 

[indianroads]

My advice (having read a few historicals and find long battle scenes boring) is that if you write them they need to be relevant and should up the stakes of your plot.

On the other hand I HATE it when I'm reading a book, the tension and suspense has be taken to great heights, I think 'great, this is what I've been waiting for (for 300+ pages), and its all over in a page. That will ruin a book for me.

I'll counter with my notion that sometimes the journey is more interesting than the destination. Eric Van Lustbader is great at this. Lots of tension leading up to the conflict which happens right near the end. If the characters aren't fully developed, and the reason for the conflict isn't clear, then it's hard to care about the result.

 

[SwallowFeather]

Aargh--I'm trying to reconstruct a reply that vanished to wherever it is that these electronic things go.

Aaargh, I hate that, sorry...

I think that to truly answer your question you'd need beta readers--so much of what you're asking depends on execution. But I had some thoughts about my book, Bellerophon, that I thought might be helpful.

Bellerophon is a Greek hero, possibly the earliest tale of a dragon slayer. My book had a lot of themes running, but one of the most important was loyalty. Still, action was part-and-parcel of the tale.

Let me lay a review on you at this point, not one of my better ones, but not awful, either: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/RXN4Q1U0Y7/?tag=absowrit-20. The TL: DR version is this. I wrote a PG-13 story, more along the lines of CS Lewis's Till We Have Faces or Purtill's Golden Gryphon Feather. This reviewer wanted an R rated tale.

This is probably not the best subgenre for me to try to make an entire career out of because I think a lot of the readership is male and prefers R rated violence. But you've got to make choices. Most of my fledgling readership is female and prefers more PG levels. (Mostly I do fairy tales.) Other reviews for that book like the violence levels.

So, you're going to have to choose. What's your subgenre? Find your comps. How often do action scenes occur? How violent are they?

I would strongly recommend against trying to create a subgenre with only your book in it. This writing gig is hard enough without having to fight that sort of headwind. : )

Oh geez, you make such good points. (That review is such a good example of a book not hitting the reader's personal mark, I've had some of those as well. And that's a genre thing, it's true. Some of mine made me say "OK, but it wouldn't be YA if I did that now, would it?" or "Just admit you thought it was a vampire novel and were disappointed...") Genre is something I'm struggling with for complicated reasons (I'll likely be looking for a new publisher when this project is finished.) But it's absolutely something I need to be aware of, and looking for comps even during the writing phase is not something I've tried but is probably something I should. Thank you.

 

[SwallowFeather]

Seems to me that if you're writing a Romance, the romance is the ice cream.

Good, and also reassuring, point!

Describe what it's like living and loving in perilous times, as the story goes along, then a little of the action to set up the MMC's emotional state when he gets the news - it's been one horrific thing after another, and this is one more thing, maybe the final straw.

Yeah, that's actually precisely what that post-battle news scene is about. He's freshly traumatized, hears the news of who betrayed someone he cared about, and absolutely loses it. That's basically exactly how I was thinking of writing it, I'm glad it sounds good. Thank you.

And, mocking 'Twilight' is a sport for some people. But, yeah, it's a cop-out if an MC is 'oooh, all worried about the Big Action', and the reader is all invested, but somehow, the MC is unconscious, locked up by third parties, or otherwise, coincidentally , unavailable when any excitement happens.

Yeah, including some very funny people I enjoy reading/listening to. TBH, I ended up watching the Twilight movies because I've enjoyed so much parody, and it was fun. But yeah--I do think probably the real issue there was that these were meant to be story climaxes. You need a proper climax.

 

[SwallowFeather]

I think action scenes are considered important because they are so difficult to do well.

You know, that's a really good point. Maybe that's a little bit of why they're talked about the as the ice cream--there's a certain number of readers wandering around looking for ones that truly satisfy...

I'm a romance author myself and your plot sounds interesting, hit me up if you need a critique or beta.

Thanks!

I'm not sure the action-is-the-ice-cream, FWIW. But probably there does need to be some of it. My sense is that a novel is so ***long*** that it's like a Thanksgiving-sized meal. It's not a short story or a flash. So if it's a meal, it needs all the side dishes, and one of those might be action. (Caveat: i don't know the expectations in romance.) Maybe the action is the cranberry sauce. Some people like the cranberry sauce, but some people prefer the scalloped potatoes. But people come to novels (subconsciously) expecting a wide range of different kinds of moments, yeah? Action is one of those, probably. The best advice I ever saw on writing action scenes is to write the action from the experience of the protagonist. Like, instead of writing Bob sliced me a two-foot blade, write A line of fire ripped down my side. (You still need Bob and the blade and all that, but you get the point.)

This is a hilariously good analogy, because it's fun (the military camaraderie is the butter on top of my action mashed potatoes, btw) and also makes total sense. You want samples of many things... weighted to your guests' preferences. The main dish depends heavily on those, but you want enough of a variety of other things, as well. I like thinking of the action in my book this way, because it seems to proportion its importance correctly.

 

[Cephus]

It depends on what you mean by "action". Because all stories need action, whether you're talking raging space battles or just interpersonal conflict. There needs to be something going on, otherwise there is no story. All fiction is a journey. That journey is the action. However you decide to put that action together, that depends on the expectations of the reader and is based on the norms for your genre. So yes, all stories need action, but all action is not created the same.

 

[SwallowFeather]

Ooh, "reply with quote" decided to swiftly work this evening!

Genre, I think, is a major factor. As your WIP is romance, I would think that that's what your readers are in it for, more so than battles and action. Since it's a WWII novel and your reader picked it up, presumably they have an interest in romance in a time of war, so you wouldn't want it to be all romance with the war as a vague backdrop (IMO). It depends so much on the setting, tone, and themes. Having read scenes from this WIP, I don't think a fair bit of action would be out of place, tone-wise, but I wouldn't expect extended chapters of battle. They aren't in the very thick of the war; therefore, it makes sense that there aren't any big action set-pieces.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Moderation, I guess? By and large, I'm definitely with you on being interested in war but not so much in battle (might be one way of putting it.) The human effects of war are the truly interesting part... and that is probably what the reader's interested in too, in a wartime romance.

In similar scenes I've written, what leads up to a fight and the fallout afterward are much more interesting than the actual combat.

Yup, very true, and quite applicable really. Especially the fallout afterward!

In a romance, the most important things should be the romance. But does something happen in a fight/action scene that is important to the plot? Does someone fall into danger and need to be saved by the other? Does the bad guy do a "oh ho ho you have to choose between your men and your lover" type situations? I'm sure there's other things that I'm not thinking of right now, either.

Well, an example might be--I keep thinking about this, and it'll probably be my toughest action-writing challenge--I think I need to show my guy's finest hour, in which he saves his critically wounded cousin's life by carrying him out, while holding his newly leaderless troop together, under heavy fire. (Luckily it's right at the end of a battle--or at least the end of their troop's involvement...) Thematically/relationally important because a) he's been down on himself and this is the moment he proves himself and b) he earns his troop's respect, which plays into the conflict later.

My advice (having read a few historicals and find long battle scenes boring) is that if you write them they need to be relevant and should up the stakes of your plot.

TBH, that's kinda reassuring b/c it suggests that, in my case, I should not have any whole battle scenes ever. Which is what I was thinking (and also, I don't want to!)

Seriously, all of this has been pretty reassuring, so thank you all. I had my first go at one of these semi-action scenes today, and though I'm not totally satisfied, I still thiiink it was important thematically to cut in early enough so we could see through his eyes as his troop's hideout house burns... though that made the pacing rough, from having a bit more time to cover after that than I really wanted. (I do know about summarizing, but summarizing a deeply panicky race to go find out if your loved ones are OK is still tricky. I don't want it to feel glossed over.) Anyway, I feel like I'm finding my way. Thank you all!

 

[clawyer80]

Action is pretty central to my stories. Ironically, my favorite chapter of my current novel is probably the one with the least action.

I guess in general it depends on the story you're trying to tell. If the action is just a side thing and not really supposed to be a major draw for the story, I don't think there is anything wrong with finding a clever way to sidestep details for it.

 

[TheKingsWit]

Reader preference does also play a large role in the importance of action scenes, particularly fight scenes. Some people don't really care for it, and prefer abbreviated fight scenes, while others would probably read a book that was 80 percent fight scenes with relish. I know people that fall onto both ends of the spectrum, and plenty in the middle.

Personally, I don't care all that much for the actual action, but love all the things that surround it. It can really push your character to make decisions/show sides of their character that might not be seen otherwise, show how they react in a crisis. There are heightened emotions, heightened stakes and unique opportunities for both plot and character development. They can either create or release a build up of tension. For that reason, I tend to like to read and write books where the fight scenes are actually written out, but with a focus on characters and the impact of the action, instead of the blow-by-blow. However, 'screen time' does tend to correlate to how important something feels, so if it is an important plot or character point, I will tend to feel cheated if the actual action bit is really summarized or skipped over.

 

[runoffscribe]

Sheer action can be awfully tedious. I find myself skimming through a lot of it.

And then I have to go back and review because I missed a character note. Character development matters to me.

I find myself cutting action down to the minimum to make my character point. I've had some feedback to indicate that I cut so much that I am not quite clear. I'm finding the line.

 

[Roxxsmom]

I find the kind of blow-by-blow action, where every little wrist flick or shift of stance during a fight, to be tedious. I often get the feeling they are written by people who want to show off their in-depth experience with martial arts of some kind (or guns, or archery or whatever). And when one is writing a battle scene, there is so much more going on than in just an individual gun fight or fencing match. The best battle scenes I've read in fantasy or in other genres with military elements include action when it moves the story forward in some way and generally center on a character and their emotional experiences as they make choices and act/react in a chaotic situation.

Of course, there are different genres and subgenres, with different target audiences. A military novel whose audience includes military people or military buffs would likely need to provide realism and details most other genres would not.

Romance generally does not target this demographic. This doesn't mean combat or action scenes are out of place. It depends on whether they are an important element of the story. With romance, the ultimate focus is on the relationship and the obstacles the couple must overcome to fall in love (or realize their love) and to commit to one another and find a HEA. Sometimes a battlefield will present these obstacles or be a backdrop for these realizations. If this is the case, showing the series of events and actions one or both characters make in this situation would be important, as would depicting the setting and its effect on those characters.

Someone mentioned a main course vs side dishes, and this is a good analogy. As with a formal meal, the side elements should support the main plot and (generally) be harmonious with the central theme of the "meal." Even so, there is going to be variation in interpretation. Some people have Thanksgiving potlucks, where people bring a wide variety of foods to the table, some not traditional at all. Others expect a much more tightly aligned meal, where something like chocolate cupcakes for dessert instead of pumpkin pie is sacrilege!

I think romance is a more centralized or "Traditional Thanksgiving meal" genre than some, as it has those two cardinal requirements--the central love story with the couple happily together and committed to staying together at the end (and with foreseeable obstacles to that togetherness surmounted). Genres like fantasy or SF are at the opposite extreme, as their requirements are more nebulous and can have all kinds of subplots and side stories that support the main plot in a less direct way, and some fantasy readers are more inclined to like or expect battle scenes "for their own sake." This is one reason romance novels tend to have shorter word counts than fantasy or SF--fewer side plots or departures from the viewpoints of the central characters are expected.

But even in more sprawling or "epic" genres*, I think it's best to use them when they move the story along in an important way, or provide an obstacle to the protagonist(s), or at least contribute greatly to character growth that is important to the story.

*I have read epic romance "trilogies" where the word count is much higher than the usual, and the story takes place over years and spans the globe, but they seem to be less common than stories that take place in a more compressed time scale and setting.

 

[clawyer80]

I find the kind of blow-by-blow action, where every little wrist flick or shift of stance during a fight, to be tedious. I often get the feeling they are written by people who want to show off their in-depth experience with martial arts of some kind (or guns, or archery or whatever). And when one is writing a battle scene, there is so much more going on than in just an individual gun fight or fencing match. The best battle scenes I've read in fantasy or in other genres with military elements include action when it moves the story forward in some way and generally center on a character and their emotional experiences as they make choices and act/react in a chaotic situation.

Of course, there are different genres and subgenres, with different target audiences. A military novel whose audience includes military people or military buffs would likely need to provide realism and details most other genres would not.

Romance generally does not target this demographic. This doesn't mean combat or action scenes are out of place. It depends on whether they are an important element of the story. With romance, the ultimate focus is on the relationship and the obstacles the couple must overcome to fall in love (or realize their love) and to commit to one another and find a HEA. Sometimes a battlefield will present these obstacles or be a backdrop for these realizations. If this is the case, showing the series of events and actions one or both characters make in this situation would be important, as would depicting the setting and its effect on those characters.

Someone mentioned a main course vs side dishes, and this is a good analogy. As with a formal meal, the side elements should support the main plot and (generally) be harmonious with the central theme of the "meal." Even so, there is going to be variation in interpretation. Some people have Thanksgiving potlucks, where people bring a wide variety of foods to the table, some not traditional at all. Others expect a much more tightly aligned meal, where something like chocolate cupcakes for dessert instead of pumpkin pie is sacrilege!

I think romance is a more centralized or "Traditional Thanksgiving meal" genre than some, as it has those two cardinal requirements--the central love story with the couple happily together and committed to staying together at the end (and with foreseeable obstacles to that togetherness surmounted). Genres like fantasy or SF are at the opposite extreme, as their requirements are more nebulous and can have all kinds of subplots and side stories that support the main plot in a less direct way, and some fantasy readers are more inclined to like or expect battle scenes "for their own sake." This is one reason romance novels tend to have shorter word counts than fantasy or SF--fewer side plots or departures from the viewpoints of the central characters are expected.

But even in more sprawling or "epic" genres*, I think it's best to use them when they move the story along in an important way, or provide an obstacle to the protagonist(s), or at least contribute greatly to character growth that is important to the story.

*I have read epic romance "trilogies" where the word count is much higher than the usual, and the story takes place over years and spans the globe, but they seem to be less common than stories that take place in a more compressed time scale and setting.

As someone who loves actions scenes, I don't think it's ever necessary to go to that level of detail in your scenes. Action scenes are supposed to be exciting. They are supposed to build tension and intrigue. Obsessing over the technical details of a fight kinda takes away from that.

Authors are weird though. lol I like George R. R. Martin, but I always found it weird how much detail he puts into ever meal his characters have.