Good day class,

I was inspired to write this after seeing a post questing whether it was the action in an action scene that mattered more or the motives and characters behind the action. I think it’s an interesting topic that has changed over the past few hundred years. There are two secrets to writing at work here.

First, people like it when their brains are active, it's an evolutionary trait, and different people generate more brain stimulation from different things. Some people like action more and some people like the metaphorical fights.
A good visual example is the Luke/Vader fight in The Empire Strikes Back vs. any light saber fight in the prequel movies. In Empire there is a lot of emotion, motivations, circumstances, there is a personal relationship between the characters and the very basic fighting, with the occasional cool special effect, enhances all that. On the other hand in the prequels everything is excessively choreographed which is visually pleasing but the conflict is usually summed up with me good you bad stahhhhp being bad, I kill you, goodnight Tatooine may the force be with you. The choreography is also counter to potential character growth such as when Qui Gon died and Obi Wan becomes angry and attacks Darth Maul only to suddenly have his rage induced charge turned into a perfectly choreographed dance and he doesn't really face falling to the dark side, there are zero consequences because of how the action was choreographed.

How does this translate into writing? Well before I get to that there is one more little secret that works its way into this dilemma. What would the audience like to see? This is actually a deeper question because in the history of writing this has changed. It use to be that people looked to books for things they couldn't get anywhere else; fantastical alien worlds, armies the size of cities, impressive and imaginative fight scenes. These were all things that books gave affordably that nothing really else did. But now we have movies, TV, the internet, video games, and people can get masterful paintings reprinted for an hour or two of work. Not only that but movies, TV, and video game all do action better to the point where what would have been enjoyable before isn't as good anymore simply because, by comparison, the action scenes are less action packed.

So when it comes down to it writing on its own can go either way when comparing action to characterization and plot. But with the modern media available to us that action becomes extremely hard to make worthwhile on its own because people won't respond as strongly to it as it's rather dull by comparison sometimes. On the other hand decent characterization and plot are still as strong as ever and can activate a lot of the brain. Add to that the things that other media does for characterization and plot often pale in comparison to a book equivalent, thus elevating the medium of writing by association which makes it stronger. Now good media can do this as well, it's just rarer.

Of course, the one consistent exception to this is for action scenes that aren't portrayed well in the media. The Dresden Files has an amazing magic system. But, it doesn't carry over to visual mediums as well because it's more about outsmarting and putting two and two together than flashy visual displays. It also has a lot of character to it and is first person which also doesn't translate over to visual mediums as well.

So if you are trying to decide to focus on action or the motives/characterization in an action scene I say go characterization except when the action is more unique and thought provoking than you would normally see in other mediums. Do be careful about reader fatigue when writing action, however, because it can get to the point where the reader doesn’t care and can’t keep track of it in their heads.

3857185
Even a pure action scene, when written, can be extremely characteristic. How they describe what's going on, how they move, how they react to the overly choreographed display all goes towards painting their mental image. How calm they are, how angry and bitter or screaming a the top of their lungs compared to controlled breathing. It's all still action, but it carries a lot of character with the reaction, not so much the action itself.

3857587

Agreed, but I see this as characterization because we are focusing on the character, not the action. The character is being used to break up the action.

3859470
You're implying the action isn't characterization in and of itself.
A man swinging a bat into someone's head and laughs is much different than one who thinks about the grim horror of what he's doing.

3859685

Any time a character does something, even thinks, it's characterization. I should have explained myself better in that the more you display characterizations the more you are focusing on character and less on action. In your example you have the emotions of the character, you're calling out if they are screaming or breathing controlled. A lot of action scenes don't focus on this. They have character in that a character might make a choice on what they do based on their fighting style.

Here is a comparison of what I mean.

1) He brought the sword up and at an angle, glancing the orc's attack so it would glance off his armor while continuing his own swing to slash at the arm that held his opponents blade. He turned his hand and the blade back over, crossing again at the arm before the blade slid across his opponents throat.

2) He inhaled as he brought his sword up at an angle, glancing the orc's attack so it would glance off his armor. He grinned as his blade continued on an arc that brought it across his opponents sword arm eliciting a grunt of pain. His eyes turned, finding the attackers as his hand rotated to bring the blade around. With a quick flick he brought the blade back the other direction across his attackers throat as he exhaled.

The difference between these two examples is that the action is more broken up by character. Our hero is skilled and controlled and makes quick observations, it's more about how he is doing it than just the fact that he is. Yes the more action oriented version has character but it's largely minimized and feels weaker to me because of it.

Another example would be the Gotrek and Felix series where a magically enhanced dwarf and his human companion sometimes will cut through dozens of soldiers. It generally starts with a bit more focus on the action to set the stage but then draws out to the larger battle plan and the missed opportunities the characters had to avoid the conflict or the danger the future might bring. It's stylistically about 70% character and plot and often glosses over half an hour of fighting. That's more of what I meant by character vs action. It's the focus.

3857185 I try to mix both. Bring about a lot of action and have the characters become more known through there actions.

3859826
Your examples feel week. It didn't seem like an example of characterization breaking up fight as much as it was action trying to reflect character. In addition, I question your interpretation of the original question of this forum post.

In my opinion, fight scenes can have multiple choices when it comes to what they focus on. While characterization in a scene can be very important, it should always play some role in the fight, but it doesn't have to extend past how the character reacts to fighting. A fight in which a persons characterization is focused on is usually using the 'my ____ gives me strength' reasoning. A story focused on action usually has fight scenes based on cleverness. It ultimately comes down to what the story is like.

Why is cleverness the focus point of an action scene? Well, think of all the classic action movies that are praised for their fight scenes. James Bond, Indiana Jones, even the cartoons like Avatar the Last Air Bender, all have this need for cleverness. When James Bond is in a fight, his gun skills are unparalleled, but it is his use of gadgets that people remember. When Indiana Jones is in a fight, it's his use of the environment that gives him the win. The entirety of Avatar the Last Air Bender came down to some clever trick that saved the day. It was always something that made the fight unique that caught every ones attention, but the fighting itself was still epic.

Sometimes, characters must clash in their minds and ideas, not their bodies. These battles are where the characters emotional might wins them the battle. A good example of this is any scenario where the characters are in no physical danger, like Yu-Gi-Oh or even most of My Little Pony. (Although for the later, it is usually a mixture of both over something ridiculous.) The thing is, these sort of scenarios can happen in any genre, even action movies. In Avatar the Last Air Bender it is a common occurrence for fights to have both of these sides, with a clever trick saving the day, but an idea passed between the two sides that wins an even greater battle.

To me, this is just a question of what kind of story is it. Is it all about the awesomeness and resourcefulness of the main characters? Focus on being clever, aka the action! Is it about two passionate forces clashing due to unfortunate circumstances? Focus on characterization. Is it supposed to appeal to everyone, young and old? Use both!

Keep in mind I am a new writer, so I am by no means an expert.

3861311
I would say that Erotic writing definitely relies more on description, but you're also going for a very specific form of entertainment.

First, people like it when their brains are active, it's an evolutionary trait, and different people generate more brain stimulation from different things.

Erotic would definitely fall into this category.

3863840

1) I am weak when it comes to giving examples. It's something I'm working on and thank you for pointing out that I didn't convey my meaning very well.

2)

It didn't seem like an example of characterization breaking up fight as much as it was action trying to reflect character

Both versions include character. I was showing how very little character is less interesting than a decent amount.
Also the original question I was answering was

...was the action in an action scene that mattered more or the motives and characters behind the action.

3) You said

t doesn't have to extend past how the character reacts to fighting

My argument was that it's better when it does extend past the minimum needed, not that it has to. It also depends on what's going on. A shorter fight is easier to show just the action and then the character after. But something that is longer can cause a fatigue in the reader.

4)

A fight in which a persons characterization is focused on is usually using the 'my ____ gives me strength' reasoning.

Usually, no. Is it one of the more common forms, yes. Characterization can be the thought process, the special traits that make that character unique, the prioritization of importance, the degree to which they are willing to sacrifice themselves. How someone does something matters as much as why but to explain how often there needs to be character involved otherwise it's super easy to have the author come off as checking things off a list.

A decent example is batman. He refuses to use lethal force if at all possible. It ties into his back story and his character and after a few fights it's there in spades but isn't the focus. But having his style reflect his character is still part of what makes him awesome.

5)

A story focused on action usually has fight scenes based on cleverness... Why is cleverness the focus point of an action scene. Well, think of all the classic action movies that are praised for their fight scenes... on being clever, aka the action!

I think we are operating on two different definitions of action. I'll use Jackie Chan fights as the first example. He could have a fight that is just a back and forth of kicks and punches, he actually does this a lot, but he breaks up the fights with cleverness, comedy, a bit of tension in that objectives like the safety of others are in threat which enhances the conflict. The straight fight would be an example of very linear action. But by constantly changing flow from action to a few one liners, to calling out the names of attacks and back to a comedic name followed by changing his focus from the three guys around him to getting to the other side of the room and helping a friend, is very much a character that he is playing and it's what makes his fight scenes awesome.

A lot of your examples are movies and TV shows. That's fine but keep in mind that those are different mediums that have different tricks up their sleeve. I would also say that the cleverness in them often has to deal with character. Let's take the Avatar TV series like you used. They use a lot of subtle character that gets called out a bit more when Aang in the first series talks to King Bumi. Bumi knows Aang is an airbender and thinks like one so he presents problems that are hard for Aang based on how he thinks (his character). It's only when Aang changes the way he thinks that he can complete the challenges (character growth). In fights this presents as Aang being more agile, rather than blocking or challenging the strength of attacks directly. He is more likely to dodge or redirect an attack. By contrast earth benders are more likely to block. In fact I would say fire and air are more likely to dodge and water/earth are more likely to block creating a character of culture in the show that is further defined by their specific styles.

Movies and TV shows also tend to break up fights in their own ways. Instead of focusing on one straight fight for a long time they switch between looking at different mini fights. This keeps things from getting boring as two characters popping out from behind cover, taking a few shots, and getting back in cover gets boring. They will also switch locations which is part of why chase scenes are fun to watch, each new street has it's own obstacle such a s a turn, a cart in the way, a new set of bad guys, a jump, or even an innocent to veer around. How the characters deal with these has very little to deal with character, they simply must make the turn or the jump, maybe with the innocent how they choose to not hurt them reflects on the character but in general it's straight forward and has to change quickly or it becomes boring. This kind of thing can work in writing but like a movie/TV show if done more than once or twice it can become stale. Unlike a movie or TV a written story would also easily get bogged down by description if the scenes change to much which ruins the tension.

TV shows and Movies will also throw in character all the time in the form of quips between characters, one liners, asking about something unrelated and/or mundane. Yeah there is action going on and they are still popping up to shoot and then ducking again but the fact that the two main characters are talking about how one of them is having problems with his girlfriend becomes the focus. You can do this in writing as well, and some authors do, but you have many more tricks up your sleeve and the ones that work best often deal with characterization.

Shows will also focus a lot on facial reactions of characters because that's one way they show character in an action scene. In Terminator, Arnold keeps a straight unemotional face and that is character. The Joker, on the other hand, constantly laughs when he is winning and scowls when he falls behind in a fight. He is very emotional and it shows on his face in extremes. These types of characterization need to be written into writing, you can't rely on the reader to do it for you unless you've primed your reader to think that way and trigger that visualization in their mind, but it's still a characterization it's just front loaded.

So keep in mind that just because a show or movie doesn't explicitly call out character, it doesn't mean that it's not there. And that cleverness that you value only works because the characters are clever which makes it a characterization.

That is why, in writing, I see character as being more important, how much an author decides to focus on character should be determined by length, necessity, and how the reader is suppose to relate to a scene. Saving a train from blowing up already has a lot of tension so character matters less but a one on one duel might need a lot from the characters to make it truly excellent.

5376250

Thank you for the compliment. I liked a lot of the points I made and it's still a relevant lecture but it could have been explained better. Primarily with better English.

It's also 85 weeks old. It got some attention when it first came out but things fall away to be rediscovered years later.

3857185
Thank you for the advice, now I have to rethink about my fight scenes.