Martial Arts in Fantasy/Sci-Fi

Now that I think about this (you are all going to regret @gpseymour dragged me into this :))... There are some interesting unconventional fights in some of the old-fashioned Russian sci fi I work with a lot.

For example, in Alexander Belyaev's Ariel there is an aerial fight between a flying man and an eagle. The man in question flies without any devices or wings (it's explained in the book), but the author didn't want to make him all-powerful or invincible. So, it's actually a pretty intense scene in the book.

In another book - also by Belyaev - Amphibian Man there is a fight between the main character who can breathe underwater and a veritable army of squids. I don't think he gave quite enough credit to how smart squids actually are - somewhat forgivable, since this was written in the late 1930s, and we are still figuring out the brainpower of these critters. Still, I thought it a bit unrealistic how easily the guy had beaten them. I think they could have had him for lunch if they strategized a little.

In yet another Belyaev novel there is a fight in 1/10 of Earth's gravity - he does a good job talking about the difference between mass and weight, and how that impacts the dynamic of the fight. Would be fun to try what we know at different gravity levels - 1/10 or, like on the Moon, 1/6.

Another write, Ivan Yefremov, frequently has conflict in his books and these confrontations almost always fall into one of two groups. Either the book focuses on the ancient times (from cave dwellers, to ancient civilizations like Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.), and the fight is very physical in nature, often man vs. beast (sabretooth tiger, wild boar, a ticked off bear, a runaway horse, etc.) Or the book is about the distant future, and the conflict is about brain vs. brawn. In the Hour of the Bull, a dictator panics when the spaceship captain leaves all his guards mentally "frozen". He asks her to bring them back to normal state and wants to know how she managed. She tells him with a laugh he had surrounded himself with too many people who are too used not to have the will of their own, which makes them very susceptible to the power of suggestion originating from another strong-willed person.

Russians aside, Francis Carsac (Francois Bordes) had lots of good fights and battles in his books. In Parasites in the lion's mane, it was a bit unfair, since the male lead was practically a super-man - a triple Phd decathelete, who just happened to own a super-lion - a lab animal larger than a regular lion and with the intellect roughly of a seven-year old. Quote a few altrecations ended with someone's head flattened into a pancake, and the lion sitting off to the side contentedly, licking his paws.

One of the more bizarre fights was in Carsac's Earth's Escape, in which three factions were involved, but one of the factions insistent there were only two, because its members were brainwashed not to see the members of the third faction. Weird stuff!
 
Mostly plot driven. I suck at writing characters.
Though there are different challenges in writing plot vs characters driven stories, don't let some of the complexities of character driven stories deter you. Character writing is much easier than people make it out to be. If you have a clear understanding of who and what your characters are, the writing process becomes much easier.

Writing a somewhat in-depth analysis of your main characters before you start the story is a great place to start. Anything from basic characteristics to deep rooted flaws and insecurities will help shape the story. The actions of the characters should be consistent with the traits they have.
 
Though there are different challenges in writing plot vs characters driven stories, don't let some of the complexities of character driven stories deter you. Character writing is much easier than people make it out to be. If you have a clear understanding of who and what your characters are, the writing process becomes much easier.

Writing a somewhat in-depth analysis of your main characters before you start the story is a great place to start. Anything from basic characteristics to deep rooted flaws and insecurities will help shape the story. The actions of the characters should be consistent with the traits they have.

The bolded parts are the parts I have most trouble with.
 
Regarding beliefs and combat...there's a book I read a while back called Eyes of Silver. In that book, there were two main factions that both had magic, but one faction considered it perverse to use magic on people, while the other considered it perverse to use magic on objects. The first faction therefore would enchant weapons, armor, and vehicles for fighting, while the later faction would use magic to boost their own capabilities or use magic itself offensively.
 
The bolded parts are the parts I have most trouble with.

The easiest way to approach it is write what you know. Using your own traits and embedding them into some of your characters is a great way to get others to relate to them. For example; if you have a temper, you can describe in great detail on how it feels to have a temper and illustrate the drawbacks of having one. Giving a highly detailed account of what it feels to have certain traits puts the reader in the character's shoes, even if the reader doesn't have said traits.

There are going to be traits that you're going to have to write about that you don't have though. In those cases reading other character driven stories will help you understand how that is done. It usually comes down to providing enough detail and making the reader empathize with the characters. Brushing up on developmental and behavioral psychology isn't a bad idea either. Just understanding why people are the way that they are will be invaluable as a character writer.
 
The easiest way to approach it is write what you know. Using your own traits and embedding them into some of your characters is a great way to get others to relate to them. For example; if you have a temper, you can describe in great detail on how it feels to have a temper and illustrate the drawbacks of having one. Giving a highly detailed account of what it feels to have certain traits puts the reader in the character's shoes, even if the reader doesn't have said traits.

There are going to be traits that you're going to have to write about that you don't have though. In those cases reading other character driven stories will help you understand how that is done. It usually comes down to providing enough detail and making the reader empathize with the characters. Brushing up on developmental and behavioral psychology isn't a bad idea either. Just understanding why people are the way that they are will be invaluable as a character writer.

My degree is in psychology...
 
My degree is in psychology...
Mine is in mechanical engineering, although I minored in social psychology during undergrad. Psychology doesn't hurt, of course, but I think it's more fun to write the characters as if you were to interact with them. You know? If this character was your friend - what would he be like? If that character was your next-door baker - what sort of person would he be? And if that one over there was someone you really weren't too fond of - what traits would he possess?

Also, I think it's not atypical for literary characters to not quite fit with any specific psychological profile. What often draws us to certain books is that the heroes are nothing like what we are used to seeing around us. They are larger than life - both heroes and villains.
 
Also, I think it's not atypical for literary characters to not quite fit with any specific psychological profile.
It's not they must fit a specific profile, but more so the character dynamics making sense.

What often draws us to certain books is that the heroes are nothing like what we are used to seeing around us.
Though many readers, in particularly scif/fantasy, are drawn to characters with interesting abilities. However; that's not automatically exclusive to relatability. Game of Thrones is a great example of this. Characters that possess great abilities, wealth and status, but are relatable to your average reader. What makes them relatable are their personalities and character dynamics. Even a few of their "villains" are relatable because they show their human side to the reader.

They are larger than life - both heroes and villains.
I think their abilities and situations need to be larger than life, but having believable and flawed characters makes it more interesting.
 
I think their abilities and situations need to be larger than life, but having believable and flawed characters makes it more interesting.
I pretty much eat it all up. :) I started reading sci fi when I was ten. My dad used it to teach me how to read faster. So, he and I would sit next to each other on the couch reading the same book, and I had to learn to keep up. Frances Carsac's stuff was the first sci fi I've read, and his situations were more interesting than his characters, especially in Earth's Escape.

And then I read the Strugatski brothers - and they preferred to write their characters real and ordinary, but place them in extraordinary situations.

Ever since then, I've been oscillating between these two types of characters in my reading, although in my writing I veer more toward believable. That's why I like writing nerds - I am a sucker for unlikely heroes.
 
i do not write sci fi but i would enjoy it. i just do not have enough hours in the day.
so my approach would be to first come up with a little back story on a fantasy race. i would look at it from an Ethology, Evolutionary Biology and Psychology level. but this would be an example.
Vodran (species)

i would start with the species biology and put behavior in place. from the behavior patterns and the species value system and mythology/ religion i could begin to piece together how they would fight and their own agonistic behaviors.
i can assume most people when they write they just let their mind create. i would need some deeper research but i would enjoy that process. i think this is why i find so many movies detestable.
for me the first star wars was the best. Lucas had a lot of plot line help from Joseph Campbell. if you dont know him you should youtube him. he is a mythology expert. but after the first one Campbell was not involved and Lucas created from his mind and to me things got worse and worse. changes in plot and concepts. horrible mistakes in my view. the whole one teacher and one student relationship was ill conceived. dont get me started lol.

Anthropology 101, then maybe throw in a little astronomy.

I once took a course titled Extraterrestrial Life and Interstellar Travel. At least one course in anthropology and one in astronomy were required prerequisites. Not at all as easy as one might assume, but very informative. One of the things we were required to do was select an approved by the professor book, and using what we learned in the class, critique to book.

FWIW, I don't suspect one needs anything more than a fertile mind, but such study would probably make a book more interesting.
 
FWIW, I don't suspect one needs anything more than a fertile mind, but such study would probably make a book more interesting.
as a pure sci-fi sure. but the OP was leaning toward martial arts based fantasy. so my thinking was that in order to create on the page a martial art that did not already exist, you would need some back round that would make the art believable.
 
as a pure sci-fi sure. but the OP was leaning toward martial arts based fantasy. so my thinking was that in order to create on the page a martial art that did not already exist, you would need some back round that would make the art believable.

That's a good point. I let that part slip by. But I need not be restrained as I am not doing the writing. :)

But in high school, I did seriously consider writing sci-fi myself. Somehow I just never got past a lot of notes on things to include in some stories.
 
There's never an easy time to start writing, unless you just start writing.

All you really need is a can of bum glue and an idea.
 
Anthropology 101, then maybe throw in a little astronomy.

I once took a course titled Extraterrestrial Life and Interstellar Travel. At least one course in anthropology and one in astronomy were required prerequisites. Not at all as easy as one might assume, but very informative. One of the things we were required to do was select an approved by the professor book, and using what we learned in the class, critique to book.

FWIW, I don't suspect one needs anything more than a fertile mind, but such study would probably make a book more interesting.
So which book did you pick?
 
There's never an easy time to start writing, unless you just start writing.

All you really need is a can of bum glue and an idea.
I've started multiple books - fiction, non-fiction, and parable-style business stuff. When I'm working by myself, I start strong, then get lost in the structure and can't get past a point. I'm much better when collaborating.
 
There's never an easy time to start writing, unless you just start writing.

All you really need is a can of bum glue and an idea.

Agreed, you must have discipline if you want to write. However; I have found that some days the creative juices are flowing better than others. When I review what I've written I can see a huge difference in quality from the more natural days vs the forced days. But that may just be me.
 
So which book did you pick?

Sorry, too long ago. I only remember that one alien species was crablike, and 'saw' through sound rather than light, and the other was a species that was more balloon like and floated in the air.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top