On how to make large-scale fantasy battles interesting, especially how it relates to being told from one character's point of view:
"There are multiple factors to consider, many depending on the setting.
The first thing to define is the ground. If there is any height involved, someone might have a good view of at least most of the battlefield (useful for getting a clear idea of what's going on). Ridges make good defensive locations, while valleys make for good ambushes. The rougher the ground, the harder it will be to root an enemy out.
Perhaps next most important, what kind of technology is being used, and how will it effect the battle and the watcher's line of sight? Dragons, airplanes, gryphons or hot air balloons would get a literal bird's-eye view, thus helping troop movements on the ground below, while dragon's fire, cannons, muskets or explosions would create smoke dense enough to obscure everything. (Dust from the ground could also do this).
Technology directly effects how information is passed from man to man, and thus how the reader learns what is going on. Aide-de-camps, radios, messenger pigeons, wig-wag signals, bugle calls, all are different methods for transmitting information quickly across large amounts of space. For mainstream fantasy, a tried and true method is to relay information by couriers, this wing calls for aid, this wing sends word it is advancing. This keeps the characters at the forefront, while maintaining a good overall picture of what is going on.
Tactics also play a major role: someone laying in ambush might only hear what is going on until his signal comes, an air strike would provide an excellent overview of what is happening, snipers would be in better positions to observe much of what is going on.
The last factor to consider is who your pov character is in relation to the battle. A general might be more aware of the battle as a whole, a simple foot soldier only of what's directly in front of him. A calvary/dragon rider would see more of the battle, but would be less in direct combat, whereas a archer/siege weapon worker might have more time to watch the battle as it progressed after their projectiles were exhausted or rendered useless by troop movements.
And finally, the most important thing to include is the feel of the battle. No matter how detailed the troop movements, the thoughts of the combatants or the originality of the tactics, it all comes down to what the reader comes away with afterward. Did they sense the chaos, smell the dust, see the price paid by those who gave their lives, hear the whine of arrows, the clash of swords, the roar of beasts? Did they cringe as the flights of arrows came whining down? Did they cheer with the embattled soldiers as the reinforcements came thundering in?
Tactics also play a major role: someone laying in ambush might only hear what is going on until his signal comes, an air strike would provide an excellent overview of what is happening, snipers would be in better positions to observe much of what is going on.
The last factor to consider is who your pov character is in relation to the battle. A general might be more aware of the battle as a whole, a simple foot soldier only of what's directly in front of him. A calvary/dragon rider would see more of the battle, but would be less in direct combat, whereas a archer/siege weapon worker might have more time to watch the battle as it progressed after their projectiles were exhausted or rendered useless by troop movements.
And finally, the most important thing to include is the feel of the battle. No matter how detailed the troop movements, the thoughts of the combatants or the originality of the tactics, it all comes down to what the reader comes away with afterward. Did they sense the chaos, smell the dust, see the price paid by those who gave their lives, hear the whine of arrows, the clash of swords, the roar of beasts? Did they cringe as the flights of arrows came whining down? Did they cheer with the embattled soldiers as the reinforcements came thundering in?
If they answer is a resounding "Yes!" from your readers, then you, the author, have succeeded.
A really good author for making large scale battles interesting is G.A. Henty. He wrote historical fiction during the late 1800's, retelling nearly all the great battles of history in over 120 novels. His method of choice was usually to tell the battles from a bird's eye view, detailing troop movements, then go back and tell what his main character saw of the battle and how it affected him. He was also a master strategist, (if you want any information on guerilla warfare throughout the ages, his books are the place to go). His battles, even told from a historian's pen, accurately convey the chaos, tactics, strategy, mistakes, heroism, and scale of many of history's greatest battles.
Now, I'm no expert in this field, and I haven't written a full-scale battle in some time, (so I'm not sure how my current writing style will affect the final product) but I hope my musings and experience gained from my own writing and reading help someone else.
Passing on what I have gained from others,
Farjag
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you liked the post (or conversely, didn't) leave a comment! It helps me keep in touch with my readers, and gives you opportunities for constructive criticism and feedback! Thanks for reading!