I've been reading a lot of fantasy and consuming a lot of fantasy related or adjacent media lately, and one thing I can say with absolute confidence is that outside of clearly deliberate writing choices, no one seems to understand how swords work on a fundamental level in combat. Like, so, so many authors out here are writing somewhat grounded settings in terms of power-level, yet have swordfights that make the Star Wars sequels look good by comparison.
So, I'd like to have a post about it.
Before I can do that though, some exceptions I'm going to make and some disclaimers, and I swear to god if someone posts something [redacted] even with these exceptions and disclaimers here I'll [redacted].
Exception 1: Settings with wildly superhuman characters and wacky ass magic can do whatever the hell they want. They can be pool noodles for all I care, the spectacle is the only thing those stories are going for and so nothing else matters.
Exception 2: LitRPG and LitRPG adjacent stuff. While I have... opinions... we'll call them that, on how combat should work in a world like that, I can understand authors treating swords like glorified number sticks in that context. Call it a quirk of the genre.
Disclaimer: Real swordfights aren't really possible to portray accurately in a purely written form, and while I do think they're really fun to write and explore the space of anyway, that's not what we're talking about.
Disclaimer 2: When I say 'realism' I don't mean "Like real life" I mean "The logical way things should work in setting". If the setting is sufficiently similar to real life, then yes, it means that by proxy, but, like, if I mention realism when someone makes a comment about Bleach or something, what I'm talking about is 'the closest logical conclusion or explanation'.
With that out of the way: Sword fights! They're fun, they can be thematic, they're classic, they're mildly erotic, and so many other things! So why the hell are so many authors doing them WRONG. I'm being facetious, there's no one right way to write a swordfight and no exhaustive or all encompassing list of wrong ways... Except their totally is a list of ways they're very commonly done that lose out on massive amounts of both potential, realism, and stakes! So sike! There is an objectively right way to write a swordfight(contextually, don't be stupid, commenters)!
It's called... knowing how swords, and more specifically melee combat in general, works. See, in so many fantasy settings nowadays, people seem to think of combat as being this back and forth exchange with coherent breaks in the action to talk, monologue, have flashbacks, or receive kisses from loved ones gods forbid... and while there are lots of valid reasons you might want to write like that... Please don't. Combat, particularly melee, is ludicrously fast compared to what most people think. A swordfight between equally skilled HEMA duelists reaches a realistically debilitating conclusion in under 20 seconds at absolute most, and a fair few of those conclusions would be grievous injuries to both parties if they were fighting on a battlefield or duel to the death hundreds of years ago.
Now obviously most narratives just aren't structured for that to work, but that's no reason to do the goofy ass boring 'one single exchange of blows, unrealistic bind/clash, right back to monologuing' nonsense. That stuff is boring, weak, and portrays a fundamental lack of knowledge or care for the physical stakes of the situation, which is supposed to be the whole point of having an onscreen fight at all! Instead, I recommend you learn a bit of terminology, maybe a couple types of strikes and guards, and watch a few HEMA matches and a few from other martial arts styles, then re-examine your fight scenes with that in mind. A real fight between real people trying to win will be a little faster and three times as deadly.
That doesn't mean it can't drag on, though. Having a lightning fast high-skill duel that leaves both parties unharmed but momentarily unwilling to continue raises the stakes of your fight scene back up, placing real emphasis on the danger of the situation for both combatants, AND it provides an actual reason for them to stop and talk for a moment - they're weighing the odds, judging whether or not they'll remain uninjured if they continue, or are simply too shaken and off kilter from the first exchange to continue. Those excuses only work if the brief exchange is realistic to how a swordfight actually works though, hence my recommendation.
If what you want is more to get these characters to actually kill each other in a satisfying way, having a high-speed high-energy realistic swordfight also works really well with this focus; it's already a deadly situation, you just need to write in the exact way the fight ends within the exchange. It can be made thematically appropriate too! A character who's biggest flaw is a lack of love and empathy? Stab them through the heart to end things. A character that's always looking down on people? Cut them in half so that they die literally beneath everyone. A big bad villain that needs to be killed in a highly specific way? Be as brutal as you want when incapacitating them, then show off the flashy big bad only deathray of love in a drama filled addendum after the fight! The possibilities expand to the same degree that a poorly written fight's do, except this time your fight is way cooler, more realistic, and opens up more unique opportunities to actually impress upon the reader how skilled the combatants are and what the stakes of the fight are.
Ultimately, this is kind of a rant. The authors that suck at writing swordfights won't get better by anyone, and certainly not me, explaining to them why treating swordfights like two toddlers with pool noodles and an infinite supply of 'quippy' Marvel-esque one liners sucks to read, and the people who aren't writing the highly specific type of fantasy I'm talking about or have no desire to explore the creative space that better fight scenes provide didn't read this far. A subset of people, if they did read this far, will still write something like 'realism bad because its FANTASY' and regardless of how moronic it sounds, won't hear any argument to that. So, to the anticipated... 5%? That sounds reasonable. To the 5% of people who feel strongly enough about this topic to engage with it, I'd love to hear any opinions or other takes you may have.
Ok so when I said sword fights can be erotic I didn't really mean sexually pleasurable but obviously if you clicked on this you're curious enough to know that already so I'll explain.
Basically, imagine two individuals that you the author or maybe just the readers ship together. Keep that in mind. Swordfights are sweaty, fast, and fundamentally about penetrating the other with a long rod. Not with me? Cool, now imagine your chosen duo of characters, one of them stabs the other in an area that won't kill them but lets them slide the blade all the way through, bringing their faces close enough that they could kiss if they wanted to, only one of them is in immense pain from being stabbed and the other is panting hard from going through the effort of having stabbed them.
Write more swordfights in your romances is what I'm saying in case none of that made sense ok bye[/SPOILER
I would like to point out HEMA are fencers and duellists in a protected, isolated training environment. They don't actually risk their lives, which is crucial, as it makes them significantly more risk taking and decision seeking than they ever would be in reality. So how whether their performance is representative for actual combat outside the context of duelling is hypothetical at most.
I would like to point out HEMA are fencers and duellists in a protected, isolated training environment. They don't actually risk their lives, which is crucial, as it makes them significantly more risk taking and decision seeking than they ever would be in reality. So how whether their performance is representative for actual combat outside the context of duelling is hypothetical at most.
I agree with you. But at the same time, all my jokes aside, watching a couple of HEMA fights, or at least fights that were staged by HEMA practicioners, will help an author with writing a swordfight. Maybe they won't become realistic per se, but they will look different. In my opinion, it will help the fights stand out, which is advantageous for the author.
I agree with you. But at the same time, all my jokes aside, watching a couple of HEMA fights, or at least fights that were staged by HEMA practicioners, will help an author with writing a swordfight. Maybe they won't become realistic per se, but they will look different. In my opinion, it will help the fights stand out, which is advantageous for the author.
There are too many layers here, as the thread posters never specified about which type of sword combat they were talking, which makes replying to them so difficult.
- are they talking about swords in a duel?
- are they talking about swords in a 1vs1?
- are they talking about swords in a fight?
- are they talking about swords in a battle with all its sub types?
The sword isn't just more difficult to use, taking years to master, it's a piece of artistry, and extremely expensive. Hence why it was the weapon of a noble. Interestingly enough, European sword is also shaped quite like our Christian cross giving it added meaning on that front. Chivalry and knightly valor and all that. Take your pointy stick and pitch some hay, lol.
I don't remember the quote exactly, but there one who goes like :
You need a year of sword practice to use it and ten years to master it.
But you only need ten days to use a spear but a whole life to master it.
Spear are easier to use, but harder to master.
I like swords, but they can't compete when it come to the amount of time needed to master the art.
There are too many layers here, as the thread posters never specified about which type of sword combat they were talking, which makes replying to them so difficult.
- are they talking about swords in a duel?
- are they talking about swords in a 1vs1?
- are they talking about swords in a fight?
- are they talking about swords in a battle with all its sub types?
I think they were talking about swordfights in general, but I didn't read it thoroughly. If they talk about fights in general, I agree with it. You don't have to make every fight like HEMA fight. But watching a HEMA fight will help you in writing a more interesting duel, 1vs1, fight, and battle with all its sub types. Obviously you have to apply it correctly as well. However, the problem with swordfights is the one that OP stated. People don't even understand how this or that works. HEMA is not a panacea, but it will help an author to cover at least some of the missing pieces.
I think they were talking about swordfights in general, but I didn't read it thoroughly. If they talk about fights in general, I agree with it. You don't have to make every fight like HEMA fight. But watching a HEMA fight will help you in writing a more interesting duel, 1vs1, fight, and battle with all its sub types. Obviously you have to apply it correctly as well. However, the problem with swordfights is the one that OP stated. People don't even understand how this or that works. HEMA is not a panacea, but it will help an author to cover at least some of the missing pieces.
That is the problem, what is a sword fight in general? There is a big difference between fighting a street ruffian and asking someone to charge into a wall of pikes with a sword big enough to simply bludgeon people to death, like with a hammer, which happened.
That is the problem, what is a sword fight in general? There is a big difference between fighting a street ruffian and asking someone to charge into a wall of pikes with a sword big enough to simply bludgeon people to death, like with a hammer, which happened.
The problem is narrative immersion suffering from authors not understanding what swords are or how medieval combat works in general.
As stated, “fast”, “lethal”, and “technical” are the answer. Readers shouldn’t feel like an author is writing a video-game Pokémon battle. Contextual realism solves this problem
I agree with you. But at the same time, all my jokes aside, watching a couple of HEMA fights, or at least fights that were staged by HEMA practicioners, will help an author with writing a swordfight. Maybe they won't become realistic per se, but they will look different. In my opinion, it will help the fights stand out, which is advantageous for the author.
This. Plus, we aren’t looking for a real life realistic sword fight when we’re writing fiction. We *want* it to look somewhat “sterile” like in HEMA so that it isn’t too messy for a reader to follow.
The problem is narrative immersion suffering from authors not understanding what swords are or how medieval combat works in general.
As stated, “fast”, “lethal”, and “technical” are the answer. Readers shouldn’t feel like an author is writing a video-game Pokémon battle. Contextual realism solves this problem
This. Plus, we aren’t looking for a real life realistic sword fight when we’re writing fiction. We *want* it to look somewhat “sterile” like in HEMA so that it isn’t too messy for a reader to follow.
The problem is narrative immersion suffering from authors not understanding what swords are or how medieval combat works in general.
As stated, “fast”, “lethal”, and “technical” are the answer. Readers shouldn’t feel like an author is writing a video-game Pokémon battle. Contextual realism solves this problem
This. Plus, we aren’t looking for a real life realistic sword fight when we’re writing fiction. We *want* it to look somewhat “sterile” like in HEMA so that it isn’t too messy for a reader to follow.
I recently spoken on my profile about "immersion" or basically "why the f new authors suck at immersion"
Give it a look.
Btw i recommend you, (not to reduce words) to edit your long text, and make it more attractive.
Like 1) 2) 3)
(lol forgot there is a list function in SHF)
or add colors for important points LIKETHAT or THAT
---------
Anyway, dont bother.
What can you expect from people that dont analyze market preferences or even looking at "TRENDING" ?
Do you truly believe they would take 10min to check about the facts on swords ?
You can expect them to be like chinese novels authors that bother to fact-check for 2h, or looking at medical database, or pulling out real cases from their work place.
(though for their defenses of EN authors, CNs authors has the bonus to get paid for their chaps, its quite a big important point compared to EN WNs)
As stated, “fast”, “lethal”, and “technical” are the answer. Readers shouldn’t feel like an author is writing a video-game Pokémon battle. Contextual realism solves this problem
Most people are ignorant of the fundamentals of combats. The distances, measure, the stance, the stand-off, reading one opponent's slightest shift of the body. The mental fight, feign, the psychological misdirection. The stake, too. Most people only write about the action itself, but seldom delve into the psyche of the fighters. Fighting is as much of a physical thing as it is mental
As a (bad) HEMA practitioner, monologues during fight CAN happen. It's called Distance (or Measure if you're a fancy Italian fencer.) Basically, you can do whatever you want if your opponent isn't close enough to hit you. You can do a few exchanges and retreat. Your opponent may chase after you... or they may also retreat. This gives time for conversation or taunts.
Remember, nothing is absolute. Even the reverse grip that everyone seems to hate can also work (emphasis on "can.") You can be a complete beginner swinging with no form or consistency and can still beat a master if you're lucky enough.
There are too many layers here, as the thread posters never specified about which type of sword combat they were talking, which makes replying to them so difficult.
That is the problem, what is a sword fight in general? There is a big difference between fighting a street ruffian and asking someone to charge into a wall of pikes with a sword big enough to simply bludgeon people to death, like with a hammer, which happened.
