Fantasy Races Physiology | Overview

True confessions of a world building geek.

Whether from mythology and legend or borrowed heavily from J.R.R. Tolkien's notes or the D&D bestiary, the fantastic races are another literary vehicle by which to explore the human condition, in a manner which is equally incredible and yet relatable.

No matter the origin of their usage, there are general expectations of the fantasy races which most readers will have.

My own world building includes several Fantasy races, hence the interest. I have mentioned elsewhere that I am not interested in calling a short, stocky bearded race of fantastic creatures Puddlefuds (or whatever) for the sake of being original. Nor am I interested in giving Elves facial hair for the sake of being different (with all due respect to those who have).

Rather, I'd like to go a step further; I want to explore what is expected of fantasy races as a trope, and craft some rules and ideas that I (and others) can build from further on down the line. In this, I expect to debunk some accepted ideas and give strength to others.

This becomes my new project, and I hope to get some feedback - because it'll make it more fun. I should note that I am not a doctor, psychologist, or a biologist, but I like to dabble. I haven't done the research (yet) to know whether someone else has already done what I'm about to do (I suspect someone has); if that's the case, then this becomes Zherlios canon and nothing more. No harm, no foul.

To begin, we have to answer the basic question of why there must be fantasy races to begin with. Because it's fantasy? No, of course not. There's plenty of fantasy tales that don't incorporate non-Human races. It's a lesson in cultural awareness. Non-human races allow us to explore (potentially exaggerated) themes of the human condition from the perspective of an outsider. The same holds true for aliens in science fiction.

In this post, I'm simply going to cover a few of the more well-known races and what will be my jump-off points for future articles.

Elves - In Tolkien mythology, Elves are a race of long-lived humanoids. They can represent longevity. Patience. A race that can look at humans and say, "Ah, you humans, always in such a hurry." They are nearly always attractive, graceful and particularly adept.

Physiology, not magic, can answer the questions of long life. Cellular regeneration must be high and overall metabolism must be slow.

Image source: Fanpop.com 

Dwarves - In Tolkien mythology, Dwarves are short, stocky, strong and bearded. Their affinity for mountains and mining seems to me a representation of labor as a human theme. Where power and magic can corrupt, can make humans greedy, Dwarves potentially represent the power of good old work ethic.

With Dwarves, we have to address muscle density. I've noticed that short, human athletes tend to have better muscle definition and are stronger, "pound for pound", then their taller counter parts. If you go with the trope that all Dwarves live in mountains (I don't see why that would necessarily be true), then there has to be some other considerations. For starters, a throat/nose/lung filtration system for the amount of dust that would be encountered in living underground, for mining, for forging, etc. (Otherwise, what, all Dwarves die at the age of thirty to emphysema?) Secondly, their blood would be more oxygenated from living at high altitudes where the air is thinner. Each breath has to carry more oxygen to the lungs, assuming near-Human O2 requirements, etc.

Which, aside, would mean that Dwarves outside of their natural habitat, and at sea level, would be virtually cheerful and giddy (if not flat-out dizzy) from the extra amount of oxygen. (At least for a few hours?)

Image Source: lotr.wikia.com

Halflings - These are pretty much Tolkien's creatures, through and through, despite the use of this race in fantasy games. I believe that Tolkien wanted us to connect to their simplicity, their love of nature and its abundance.

Physiologically, I am drawn to the idea that they are a race of people that work with their hands and go barefoot, in addition to the scientific implications found in Homo Floresiensis. I am reminded of GRRM's Hornfoot tribe in ASOIAF, as well as the particular talents of relatively short people throughout human history, such as Bruce Lee, Sylvester Stallone and Napolean Bonaparte. If we use Dwarves to explore muscle density in their stockiness, then we can use Halflings to explore agility and litheness - think "The Amazing" Yen in Ocean's 11.

Image Source: Scifiscoop.com 

This post is getting longer than I wanted it to be, so I'm going to summarize the rest.

Giants, Amazons, etc. - Whether an all-female tribe or an entire race, I want to explore the physiological aspects of a humanoid race that are much bigger than humans. Basically, fiction meets WWF, right? Casual observation has been that human giants tend to have reduced life expectancy.

Half Elves - To be honest, I don't buy into the idea of Half Elves as a race of people. Going back to the idea that Elves will live hundreds or thousands of years - would you get married and have children with someone who was only going to live ten years? And if you have children with them, your children would only live twenty years? It's a great idea as a fantasy trope (My character has the best of both races! Magical, but real and relatable, too!), but functionally it's ridiculous.

It'd be like marrying your favorite pet. Having said that, it has to be pursued - love is stupid like that, and doesn't always embrace practical considerations. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard of some crazy old lady leaving her entire estate to her cat and her butler. But, you better believe I'm approaching it with a scalpel.

Orcs, of course. Goblins, too. Evil things to represent the dark sides of humanity.

Dog people, cat people, lizard people. Yes. Well. Eventually.

Centaurs. Unicorns. Pegasi. Dragons. Why stop at the humanoid races... though I'd like to focus on the races that can some how, some way, be a reflection towards human themes in storytelling. This project, however, as an exercise in world building and magical realism.

And... I'm taking requests! What fantastic race do you want to put under the scope and scalpel?

Holiday Wish List | Thoughts on the Kindle?

Last week, I endured the Black Friday madness - and survived! I'm super tough like that.
One of the things that caught my eye was the Kindle for $75 - I ended up passing on it, for a variety of reasons, the most notable was that .. it was only a $5 discount. It didn't seem necessary to stand in line for an hour to save five bucks.

Image: Kindleport.com

Now, when the E-readers first came out a few years ago, they were more expensive than they are now, which is always rule #1 with new technology: If you can be patient about getting the new technology, you can save a lot of money. But you sacrifice being the coolest kid on the block, which has never been a problem for me. :-p

I'm a bit old school. I like having books. I like the thought of having an expansive library on ornate bookshelves, organized and categorized, reflecting my outlook and interests as a person. It's amazing for novel research, grabbing that old psych textbook or history text, and verifying some things. Notes in the margins.

In this, I cringed at the hundreds of books I left behind in Florida when I moved to North Carolina. In this, E-readers were not interesting to me.

Then something happened. I was looking on Amazon at history books. History was never a strong subject for me, but because I'm writing in a pseudo-prehistoric world, I've become more interested lately in how those hunter-gatherer tribes evolved into the powerful, epic cultures that still have their mark upon the lands, thousands of years later.

I discovered some massive tomes on say, Ancient Rome, the "goto" books, the must-haves, and they were a little pricy. Unless you got the EBook - in which case, they were FREE.

Free books.

Admittedly, pricing on new release Ebooks is not very competitive, in which case, I'd just as soon have real books for the pretty shelves of my imagination/future. On the other hand, recently there've been some amazing sales - recent releases for $3, promotional sales for $1 - only in Ebooks.

Who doesn't love to save some money?

But I've never used an Ereader, so before I put that on my Xmas wish list, I thought I'd ask around and see if any of you have one, what you think of them, and so forth.

Spoilers don't spoil, according to study.

One of the reasons I haven't written anything here about A Dance with Dragons is because I am not sure that I could without spoiling it. But, according to Reuters, I might be doing you a favor.

This article on Yahoo news states, "A new study by researchers from the University of California at San Diego shows spoilers may enhance enjoyment, even for suspense-driven story lines and film plots."

Ha, really?

Now personally, I might agree. Depending on the spoiler. As oft as not, I'm reading for the enjoyment of doing so, for the author's prose and for the way they flow the plot. For interesting characters and clever dialogue.

So, no, a spoiler doesn't ruin it for me. Although, if we're going to talk about GRRM, I'd prefer not to know who is going to die. Or, as in ADWD, appear to die. But even if I know that, I'm still going to read the book and most likely enjoy it with/without advanced knowledge.

The article agrees with me, in that. "The researchers said in the study, which will be published in the journal Psychological Science, they found that the success of entertainment does not rest on suspense alone."

Aside, and related, exciting new standards for psychological testing.

"For the study each story was read by up to 30 people and presented in two formats -- in the original version and with a spoiling paragraph inserted in the story." (Emphasis mine.)

Wow, really? Thirty people is enough of a control group to post results in a psychology journal? Bull - if I had tried to pull that sort of nonsense while I was at school, I would have been the class clown.

It's an interesting discussion all the same. What do you think of spoilers?

Source: Yahoo News

TiStF | Government Scandals

As much as I enjoy The Daily Show, I must admit that I am weary of hearing about Congressman Weiner's weiner. In last night's episode, there was a strong bit that essentially said, to paraphrase, women don't really care to see a man's junk, unless it can cook, clean, listen, provide financial security and comfort her parents. Now you know.

In Jon Stewart's defense, this is comedy gold at the end of the comedy rainbow. It's too good to ignore, and there is a year's worth of parody and satire and punchlines that will honor the idiot who tweeted his stuff to some female constituent.

Ugh, make it stop.

An interesting way to gain votes.

I was going to post video, during which I tried to come up with some clever way of saying something which hadn't been said. After all, this isn't a political blog, by any stretch of the imagination.

Which got me to thinking...

Our history as a culture is filled with government scandals. There's always a mistress, from Henry VIII to John Edwards. Where now we have CNN and Jon Stewart, even the Greeks had parodists, the Romans had cryers, and medieval times had bards.

Senator lifts his toga and flashes his stuff at a young female thespian in the alley behind the Parthenon. Did it happen? Seems very likely.

Scandal. Bloody scandal. There was even a Discovery episode about such things. Missed it? It's on DVD: Scandals of the Ancient World.

When I write, I try to not to go for those melodramatic conflicts. I like purity of intent, of action, and in my mind, that creates a more dramatic conflict, because (in theory), the reader should empathize with both sides, and in that, they must either choose a side, or sit back and see what happens.

It feels false to me when there is some melodramatic love triangle, when someone is being wicked just for the sake of doing so. To me, it's more compelling when a character is driven into temptation. "Bad" people should have serious motivations, and be well aware of the cost of being naughty.

Then, I watch the news. Pick up the newspaper. Read the headlines on my web browser. Watch a little political satire show. It stares at me, reminds me, that humans are very flawed.

I've been revising Catalyst, and there's multiple character arcs. The arc that I'm currently reworking seemed a little bland to me, so yes, I've had to go back and tighten up the older protagonist, give him a little edge to reflect his experiences. I've had to purify the younger protagonist, so that he would be a little uncomfortable as events unfold that he's never experienced.

But the other arcs seemed fine to me. More organized and coherent peoples, the conflict is more direct, and they all unite - it's pretty standard epic stuff.

Yet, here is the Universe reminding me that people are flawed. That even in Congressman Wiener's perfect life, with his new wife and his secure political position - he goes and mucks up his entire career for no apparent reason. With no sense of logic or responsibility or grace, this otherwise relatively successful man is essentially a fool.

It seems so cheap and vulgar to include this sort of failing in fiction. It's so ridiculous and cheesy. Yet, history is full of these anecdotes. Modern society can't go a week without a scandal.

What's a writer to do?

Do we imagine a world where honor and a person's truth and integrity actually means something - where two people who claim to love each other, actually do so (without either one of them enteraining offers and suggestive notions from another outside the relationship)?

Or do we reflect the decay of organized society? Men (and women) who rule counties, countries and worlds, are simply base peoples, with the same lust, greed and self-indulgent motivations of their constituency?

On the one hand, a perfect paradise is potentially very boring.

On the other, epic heroic fantasy still sells today - because when we are surrounded by war, greed, lust and government scandal, it's nice to escape into a world where people are exactly what they say they are, and that they will fight against all odds to uphold those beliefs.

What do you think?

Banned Books Week

Several of the (mostly agent) blogs that I follow have been hyping up this week, "Banned Books Week", and I think that it is my responsibility to say a thing or two.

Before I do, however, I want to note that I think others will ultimately say it better. As such, I am going to add some links at the end of this post. If you stumble across a particularly riveting article, please add it in comments.

*

In this, the Information Age, the act of censorship in and of itself is counter-intuitive to every other social movement. I know pre-teen children that are being issued laptop computers (with wireless internet), as part of their curriculum.

The phenomenon of social media encourages the exchange of information. Status updates on facebook, myspace. GPS locators built into smart phone technology. A day spent in the local library is now replaced with five minutes on Google.

Every social movement suggests, "We can share with the world more than anyone should ever want to know." Society has evolved to embrace that, in all aspects, from sports and games and hobbies and entertainment to politics and medicine and ecological issues. You are not alone, even if you sit by yourself in front of a computer. The world is at your fingertips.

Is this dangerous? Yes, it is.

But so is censorship. Moreso, in fact.

Freedom of information, of the exchange of ideas, suggests only one thing - that others may listen. It is conducive to an environment where people with wicked and evil ideas may gather together to wage philosophical, economical and societal terrorism on the unexpectant masses.

Then again, in the same stroke, lies the ability for people who have survived or suffered, who face very personal grief, terror and tragedy in their lives, who feel so very alone to reach out and find others - and to learn, indeed, that they are not alone.

Somewhere in the middle, within our nature as a social animal, technology has furthered what has been the case since before the recorded history of man - that we seek approval and acceptance, the birth of cities rose from communities of commonality, and in the 21st century we are linked to each other in ways that were only previously imagined.

In books. In stories. Written recordings of what was originally oral history, passed from parent to child, philosopher to student, king to warrior to farmer. Variations on those themes and ideas, as science and evolution and history all teaches us more of ourselves and more of our past and broadens new ideas towards our collective future.

Censorship cannot be allowed. It is a tyrant's tool, an ancient failure brought forward, when ideas were so powerful that they could create revolutions in thoughts and beliefs. It is an act of fear.

Some many others will write about freedom, about amendments. Those are valid reasons, but they are not mine. I will present to you a universal truth, that does not require legislation.

Friend or foe, if I take the time to teach you my beliefs, I assume you have the ability to understand it. Sheep or lion, it makes no matter who or what you are. Society now does this on the grand scale, we covet information, we respond as a society to knowledge and wisdom.

We live the life that the ancient sages could have only dreamed, but with this one fatal flaw.

Censorship suggests an illogical belief, that you, the reader do not know how to think. Censorship is someone taking your hand and saying, "You may think this, this or this - but not that, oh no. Let me take that from you."

Censorship is putting a cover on an electrical outlet, because you are a child who does not know to not stick your finger in there.

I do not believe in this.

I believe that too much time and effort is spent in telling people what to think. All this information, the task itself is impossible.

It is now time, friends, to tell people HOW to think. To let them decide for themselves. To not treat people as children or horses, blinding their eyes from the frightening realities of the world they live in.

Teach people that all stories have value, all opinions have value, and the wise can turn a critical eye without blinders and decide for themselves what is right - based upon their beliefs.

Do you gain more satisfaction from being followed blindly, by those cowered in fear and ignorance - or would it be better to know that those who follow your beliefs know exactly what's out there, and have made a critical decision made with full knowledge of their options?

I choose the latter. Censorship chooses the former. I will take an educated and wide-eyed decision. I will choose the critical thinker over the fearful faithful.

For the love of humanity, use this opportunity to teach people HOW to think, to make their own decisions and stop deluding yourself into thinking that in this Age of Information, that you can hide ANYTHING from the masses. You can't. You're foolish to try, and you insult everyone in the process.

In the Age of Information, can we spend no effort in teaching people HOW to think critically? How is it so politically correct to cherish the individual, to treat everyone as equal with one hand, but then take away their ability to make their own critical choices with another?

Faith remains after beliefs are manifested. But you must give people the tools by which to construct beliefs that are true to the world they live in.

People are NOT too stupid to make their own choices. Censorship suggests they are, and for that reason alone, it shames me to know it still takes place.

~ Bill, Coyote.



Links:

American Library Association

Banned Books.com

Tahereh will review her favorite banned book, Sep 30.

Agent Janet Reid (aka Query Shark).

Agent Suzie Townsend and a couple of banned book reviews here.

Banned Book Review Week Excitement, ala The Rejectionist.

Worldbuilding vs "Nerdism" (nerdism, seriously?)

Larry, over at OF Blog of the Fallen, is a bit of a literary elitist. That's a compliment, Larry. I read his blog because he represents that end of the scale, and he reminds me of some of the overly bright folks I used to socialize with.

This morning he resurrected an old argument from 2007, which you can see and research here.

It's a lovely discussion, and me only one cup of coffee into the day. You see, I am absolutely the fan of "world building" (i.e., secondary world creation) and it is an inherent aspect of my work-in-progress. Yes, I have maps, and languages and gods and tigers, oh my!

Why? Because I'm a nerd? Maybe. Anyway, here's something from an old Larry post that caught my eye...

Sounds more like a weak and twisted version of studying history, without the desire of those that do study history to apply that knowledge toward a greater understanding of ourselves. ~
Larry, 2007

Let's talk about that. I'll be the first to admit that history wasn't a strong subject while I was in school, all that bloody memorization of dates didn't work for me.

Yes, the appeal of Tolkien's Middle Earth, of tabletop gaming, of online gaming was the immersion into a secondary world that I could know and understand and participate in on some level. That cracked the egg, if you will, into giving me more interest in human history. The enjoyment gained from that level of immersion allowed me to step up to historical fiction, in books and movies.

For example, yes, "300" was not really historically accurate, but damn it was fun to watch. After that, reading Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield was far more enjoyable (and slightly more accurate). It didn't feel like I was back in high school, slipping notes to the hot spanish girl in the mini skirt while pretending to pay attention, while the teacher droned on and on.

After reading George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, I looked up some material on the War of the Roses, and the Hundred Years War, from which the fiction is influenced.

Isn't that the point of fiction? To draw relevance in a way that is spectacular, if not inherently more digestible by virtue of it being fiction? Storytelling, from an ancestry of the oral tradition to our modern day usage has always served a dual function of entertainment and communication.

Good worldbuilding will not only immerse, it will inspire. Humans just aren't that original, and you aren't going to find a political or military event in all of fiction that hasn't been documented somewhere.

So what if it's 300 Dwarves against 100k Goblins beneath a mountain somewhere? Maybe that'll make you think of the Spartans, and next thing you know you're exploring your Greek roots.

Some immersion will be pure escapism, and that's fine. Who are we to judge what the individual reader gets from a story?

What is it that a story should achieve, exactly? Good prose gives appreciation for the beauty of language. Good dialogue allows the opportunity to savor the human condition in the exchange of words, whether they be witty, humorous, profound or provocative. Good characterization and growth allows the reader to relate, to understand, to empathize in order to gain a greater understanding of the self.

There is no story without setting - so why not make the setting incredible, educational, inspirational? How many castles, swords, mountains, valleys and oceans do you have to read about before you find the urge to explore your own world?

All of this is very nerdy, hmm? Maybe it is (but nerdism, as a phrase, makes me giggle). So what, I'm a nerd. You don't break 150k words on any sort of writing unless you are, methinks.

I don't think that info dumps are helpful, as that's a reminder of why school was sometimes boring. I believe in the power of prose, the magic of language, and I think dialogue should be true to the characters, and the characters should be true to themselves. The story is what matters, and the story should take you somewhere, and bring you back. Communicate and entertain.

I do have an agenda in my own writing, my own secondary world creation and perhaps it is jaded by the role my education has had on me; I suspect that's not only natural, but redundant as a statement.

I'm fascinated by ancient cultures, and how they were honed by their geography, their challenges, the geology of the land itself. My story(-ies) takes place in a secondary world with parallels to cultures that never did meet in our history, and yes my (secondary) purpose is to show how much humans were affected by where they ended up, and what they had to endure.

Why? Why not? If setting is going to be created anyway for the purpose of weaving a tale, why not make it something valuable in and of itself? So long as I don't overpower the narrative with my shiny creation, what's the problem, exactly? It's not making me a bad person for studying Neolithic cultures, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, the Roman Empire, the Incas, et al.

If the passion I've found in the discovery of the secrets of the earth, from people to plants to animals to geology can translate to my readers, to a desire for them to find their own place in the Universe, then I consider I've gone above and beyond in my role as a writer.

Why I Write

An interesting guest post at the Mad Genius Club, prompted this reply.

One can, a la Sigmund Freud, pontificate on one's own childhood and upbringing and rationalize one's own current outlook and motivations. In this, my reply is that I was an only child raised by a workaholic father, which left me with the time, means and necessity by which to entertain myself. Within sight of whatever adult authority figure was appropriated to my "care".

So, I read. Lots. Unlike other (like omg, dude, every) vigorous writer/reader that I know of, I cannot cite great influences. Oh yes, I read Tolkien and Asimov very young, and they linger with me conceptually, in world building and storytelling.

My childhood was also dotted with stage bound performances, acting, and that also remained as a vague theme of something influential (successful performances became validation of self-esteem queries); again, I could not tell you the names of the plays I did.

Back to the question. Why do I write?

In my sin-filled twenties, I was a performing Emcee, a DiscJockey who could sing, dance, tell jokes and run contests. Fame and glory were mine for the taking.

I did not care. I still do not care.

Ladies and gentleman, there is something greater than fame, glory and power (and even slightly better than the women who love the same) - there is satisfaction.

That satisfaction, to this day... let me describe a cheesy scene.

* * *

Winter. Pinellas County, Florida. The Canadian retiree population is there en masse. It is Tuesday evening. Karaoke has started early, with another host, and I have taken over for the night time festivities. The night is still young. The crowd wants to leave, because I am a young kid, and I do not sing doo-wop hits of the 50's. But, I give them a smile, remember their names, encourage them to stay a bit longer.

I am young and full of energy. It pulses. It washes over the crowd like the scent of wildflowers in a midwest meadow. I play music with a heavy bass line and dance like no one is watching. I know they're watching, but that's not why I dance.



I savor their moments with them, I see their little grey heads bob up and down to the tunes of choice. They smile freely, without worry.

The thirty somethings begin to show up. They've worked hard all day. They just need a few drinks to take the edge off. I greet them with a knowing grin.

An hour into a show where people mostly entertain themselves, and I am simply the conductor, the emcee, the host - the energy mingles. The group unwinds. The pulse of energy is contagious, it is a virus of passion, of desire to forget what we think we know.

I see a retiree doing the Electric Slide. Then another. I see the corporate executive loosen his tie and serenade his girlfriend with a horrific rendition of some angsted 90's alternative rock ballad - and the crowd goes wild, and the girl looks about to cry.

One by one, over time, they forget who they think they are, and become something that's okay to be. Unburdened by societal pressures, by the nuances of age. They laugh, dance and smile. One by one, I watch them, encourage them, indulge them, their momentary escapism.

That is my job.

The night lengthens, and reality calls from its faraway corner in the shadows of their mind. Work, responsibilities, budgets. Slowly, some leave. Never without thanking me for this or that. Me, I'm still bouncing around, I'm a jester, a fool without a care in the world as far as they know. But, I drop the mask for just a moment and thank them for stopping by, for allowing me to entertain them.

There is no greater satisfaction in the world, in that single moment of connectivity with an absolute stranger. That I have provided the salve of escapism that soothed the worries of their day, week, life.

* * *

In writing, I can take that one step further. Back to my love of psychology, I can help a reader escape - AND - I can force a reader to think, to consider, to ponder their own what ifs.

In my childhood, that was my benefit from reading. When I read a book, I imagined myself the protagonist, living the world that the author provided, pondering the notions - and for a time, I forgot that I was maybe bored, or lonely or whatever else was on my mind as a son being raised by a workaholic father.

I can do that. I know I can. I can bring the best experiences of my life, the satisfaction I got from seeing that smile; and take it one step further, into unlocking the mind, letting the mind escape.

I create - in writing, in real life - a world where the possibilities are within reach. I provide a window to escape. Sometimes, let's face it, life/living is pure hell. When I see that I have allowed someone to escape their own shackles, I swear there is no greater satisfaction. It is gift given and gift received in one.

That is why I write.

FTA: What makes a great fictional Villian?

In response to a series over at Magical Words, today I'd like to chat with you about bad guys, particularly in epic fantasy.

I'm not talking about "antagonists", per se, though often these are one and the same.

Let me organize my thoughts for a moment. Undoubtedly this has been bounced around a bazillion times on the internet, so we can skip the redundant.

Types.

1) The GREAT EVIL. Taking our cues from Sauron in LoTR, what we have is someone bent on world domination, through the most destructive means possible. Non-sympathetic. Never in the story, do we get the impression that Sauron is misunderstood. (Notably, in Silmarillion, he at least has an interesting backstory, but he was always hungry for power.)

Thoughts: Necessary evil. Generic, in a sense. However, I think they can be written right, given some intelligence, some interesting vulnerabilities (drop the ring in some lava and it's all over!)

Overall, I don't mind reading about an overpowered megalomaniac, but I am not inclined to write about them.

2) The OTHER ONES. They are not us, therefore they are evil and must be destroyed. The Canids in Jim Butcher's Codex Alera, (evil) Saxons in Roman Britain, Spartans vs . (evil) Persians, etc.

Thoughts: This is far more common. The villians are sympathetic, they have followers, people who believe in their philosophies. This becomes a conflict based on economy, on religion, on geography - in short, the history of the world was built on this sort of conflict.

This villian is always in the telling. In my own writing, I prefer to make them understandable, to the point where the conflict lies between a fence as thin as a single strand of diplomacy. The cultural divide between warring nations often - if not predictably - falls upon the head of one despotic character (which again, history confirms). Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind as a movie which shows both sides of the conflict.

3) MAN vs NATURE. Nature as an external force, not internal urges. Even if you believe in creationism, Darwinism has a solid view in that the natural world will seek its own sense of balance. Hurricanes will come, Volcanoes will erupt, and predators will protect their hunting territory.

If you're considering mythological semi-intelligent creatures who follow the laws of nature, this makes for what? Understandably sympathetic aspect? Training, domestication, the fencing in of the natural world - the conflict is built right in to the perceived "correct" actions of the humanoid biological imperatives to thrive and survive.

Where this gets fun, in fantasy, is the usage of semi-intelligent "natural" creatures, who are capable of a degree of civilization - but are still bound by the very balancing laws of nature - versus the more Human nature of taking what is needed. Going back to LoTR, we have Ents.

*

Ah, there's more. I'll go on all day.

In my current WIP, there is an "evil", but they are not the antagonist of the main story arcs. The fact that there is any major conflict in what is an established paradise, is the issue.

In reading about villians, though, it occurs to me that I will have to go back and make them more sympathetic (More "other" and less "great evil"). The WIP is slightly a bit of a prequel, so the goal is to portray the possible lines of future changes.

My goal, as a writer, is to make all characters sympathetic (eventually). Some will be more interesting than others, and others that are doing the "right" thing will be easy to dislike.

We don't live in a moral vacuum, you know. That's the thing to remember. How wrong is the man who kills to protect his family, or who steals in order to not starve?

A Great Villian heightens the reader's moral compass, teaches a lesson about the portrayed path of actions and consequences, provides fuel for thought and introspection and self awareness - above and beyond the action/adventure the story portends.

Tell me about your favorite fictional villians, and why you remember them so.

The Power of Woman

So, I'm catching up on my blogroll and stumble upon this post about misogyny in fiction, which was a response to an article on the Ms. Magazine blog.

I will add this to my mental notebook of the numerous posts over the past six months about the roles of females in fiction stories, in that, they are poorly misrepresented by male authors.

Aside, you will find that I review as many female authors as men, as I am interested in the strengths and weaknesses of both sexes. Makes for better storytelling.

Where to begin?

Everyone is Hollywood is attractive. Their job is to make money by entertaining, not to be a societal barometer (we used to have the news for that, alas). Likewise, fiction by its nature, is escapist, which means, yes, they employ exaggerated visually appealing themes, etc.

It comes down to choices.

Feminists suggest that Playboy is misogynistic, because it features naked women. Those poor beautiful women, having no choice ... but to be paid lots of money and live in Hefner's mansion and frolick and play at the pool and wear a swimsuit...


Bar Refaeli, from the cover of Esquire magazine.

This is the thing. Who really has the power here? Is it Hefner with his millions? No, it's the random hot girl who knows that men cannot resist the perfection of her form, and she gets to say, "give me what I want." (money, security, glamorous life, etc).

Hefner's just smart enough to understand the balances involved. Ironically - or suitably, because he is so clever - women of all ages flock to him. Many live and breathe just to get him to take their picture.

NO ONE is being forced. All of those in that situation are happy making other people happy. Escapist entertainment. Everyone wins.

It is not a crime to enjoy visual beauty.

Is modern society to blame for the resurrections of the old fables of the past, where the doomed female must indeed be rescued by the HANDSOME, ROYAL PRINCE Charming? Pretty Woman syndrome. She was a PROSTITUTE (EWWWW)! And he could have had anyone (though I find R Gere a little fruity, chicks like him).

It's about choices.

Women choose. Those ancient stories about rescuing princesses - modern feminists see those tales as making women look weak and frail and incapable.

Wrong. Those stories are about the reality of what is desirable (the perfect woman, a princess) and what lengths a man must be prepared to go to win her (kill Dragons, swim moats, face death). That the woman was captured is subtext on the desirability of a female to begin with.

If a man was captured, would women go rescue him? Heck no. Not unless he was the father of her children (or her child), or somehow could provide for her a parallel to home/nest security; otherwise, he's buggered. Men must face death just for the chance of being chosen.

Where did those come from?

Ancient biological imperatives. The women choose the man who is best suited to give her a strong child and protect the home.

Helen of Troy? Anthony and Cleopatra? History is full of stories displaying to what incredible lengths a man must go in order to win a woman's heart, in order to be chosen. All women had to do was be there.

Like the avians, a male's life is spent achieving and portraying, so that we are chosen by a mate for our brightly colored plumes. Do we want to strut like a peacock? No. We have to.

"Well, women don't wanna be barefoot and pregnant!"

Fine. Don't. The species could go extinct, because men can't get pregnant, can't give birth and (in most cases) cannot breastfeed. There's nothing men could do about it, if women say no. (Don't bring up criminal acts, most people aren't criminals - you don't govern rules by the exceptions.) That is the very gist of our species survival, that women have always decided what is in their best interest to persevere, and men, by biological imperative, must abide.

There's no objectification here. There's women going, "I can make a living by looking hot and sexy and men will give me money and security and so forth."

Because, why, we're basically predictable idiots who are biological slaves to the power of a woman.



Feminists seem to forget that part.

Fables and stories are not essays in the weakness of a woman. They are "how to" lessons for being a man. The knight in shining armor is what a man must, according to biological imperative, rise to, if he ever wants to have a princess.

Ms. Magazine rags on Iron Man. He's a narcissistic womanizer. Men see him and go "Wow, look at all the choices he has."

Ms. says that the lesson is, "It is acceptable to treat women as objects."

That's laughable. The lesson is, "If you want to have more choices of women by which to bear your children, you must be mega rich, mega smart, wear a battle suit made of metal and fight evil - and have enough time in the day to be socially graceful."

Women, stop being offended by the portrayal of a weak heroine who needs a man to rescue her. Those stories are written for men, so that they will become strong, honorable and intelligent in order to be worthy of you making the choice of them over another suitor.

The power of your choices perseveres to this very day. Fiction dramatizes, exaggerates and encapsulates the ideology, but the core values are a biological imperative that are hardwired into the human brain.

You can emasculate men and overempower women in fiction, but it would not sell, because it would not connect to the reader. Why deny the imperatives? Centuries of story telling have successfully carried forward the core truths of human relationships.

Does that mean there should be no extraordinary female characters? Absolutely not. It does mean, however, that somewhere, somehow, there will be a similarly extraordinary male for her to choose when she faces biological imperatives. There'd still be a story to tell.

FTA: Pirates

Fantasy Trope Analysis: Pirates



Drunken Pirate pic from Halloween 2005.

Today, boys and girls (gentle readers!), we're going to talk about pirates.

Pirates, in my observation, are a fairly common occurrence in the fantasy stories I've read (and space pirates, in sci-fi, too). Are they a legitimate trope?

Should pirates exist in any fantasy story involving ocean voyaging and distant ports-of-call, that has the naval technology, i.e., boats that could support an aggressive sea warrior crew while also having enough cargo room to carry booty long enough to be sold (can't raid with canoes or rafts, eh)?

Are they overused? Should there be more pirate perspectives, more stories? Is it better to include them as part of the world events, but not build a story around them?

I assume that they are a common element in stories, one way or the other, because they are actually a historically based profession. So, let me share some of what I learned with you. (I'll provide a list of links that I plagiarized and used and such at the bottom, no worries.)

The earliest documented instances of piracy occurred in/around the Aegean and the Mediterranean Seas, as early as the 13th Century BC, during the Bronze Age.

These first pirates were categorized by the Egyptians as Sea Peoples, and they were made up of migratory tribes who formed (relatively undocumented) groups that sought to harass and deter the growing Egyptian empire.

In Classical Times, Illyrians and Tyrrhenians were known as pirates, as well as the Thracians, very resistant to Greek influence. The Phoenicians sometimes resorted to piracy, specializing in such to obtain slaves. Plutarch is said to have given the first definition of piracy as -'an illegal attack on a ship or coastal town, that was not of a warring nature, but for plunder of monetary gain alone'.

The Illyrian raids were detrimental to the Roman Republic, until they were defeated in 168 BC. By the 1st century BC, several pirate states along the Anatolian coast continued to plague the Romans. Julius Caesar was kidnapped by Cilician pirates in 75 BC, and held prisoner. They opted to ransom him for 20 talents of gold - and he insisted he was worth 50; the pirates conceded. Afterwards, Caesar raised a fleet, found the pirates, and put them to death.

As the Roman Empire expanded north into Europe, Frankish and Saxon pirates raided the coasts of Armorica and Belgic Gaul. The word we know today as 'pirate' or 'pyrate' comes from the Roman historian Polybius around the mid 100 BC era, who used the word 'periato' to describe sea marauders.


Right?

From there, we get into Vikings, which is a whole new discussion. Vikings attacked as far as the Baltic Sea, Persia, the coast of North Africa and even Italy.

Muslim pirates were common in the Mediterranean Sea towards the end of the 9th century.

Piracy seemed to rise in the orient at the time China was enduring great political change in their central power beginning at the end of the 13th century. During the Ming Dynasty(1368-1668) Chinese pirates ruled the China Sea. Pirates using huge ships that could carry over 300 men pillaged the China coastal cities for several centuries.

The Dutch East India Company tried to recruit Chinese pirates as privateers to help them control the Asian market trade. The European traders created a base in Jakarta and enlisted the Chinese pirates to help them expand their interests. Eventually the Chinese pirates, who were always out for their own self interests, formed their own trade companies and made double the money on their looted goods.

The 15th century and forward contains the gist of what is considered the pirate trope, by modern day standards. The time between 1519 and 1780 was known as the Golden Age of Piracy.

Pic of CBS cast of "Pirate Master", from this link.

A few descriptions:

Pirate: A pirate is really a robber who steals from other ships out at sea.

Privateer: A privateer was a captain of a ship that attacked and captured other ships and stole valuable items from them. A privateer was not considered to be a true pirate because they were given special licenses called a Letter of Marque from a nations government. Of course they were hunted down and punished as pirates by the countries who they stole from. Many of these captains who were sent out to capture pirates soon became pirates themselves. They saw how much money a pirate made and could not resist the chance of getting rich.

Corsair: A corsair is a French seaman or privateer who sailed mostly in the South Mediterranean Sea.

Sea robbers:These pirates roamed the open seas and were not loyal to any particular government, but only wanted to capture riches for themselves.

Ruthless robbers:Most pirates who earned this nickname were very cruel and did not care if they killed their victims. They just wanted to be rich and tried to get rich by stealing as much as they could and left no witnesses.

Buccaneers: These pirates were made up of a group of men from Holland, England, France, and another group of pirates called the Barbary corsairs who were chased out of the Barbary Coast when merchant captains from France and England got tired of being captured and robbed by the French Corsairs. They went to the island of Hispaniola and lived with the Indians there. The Indians used special knives called "boucans" The pirates began to sail the Caribbean Sea and used the boucan knife as a weapon. It became the favorite weapon of these pirates of the Caribbean and they were eventually given the name of buccaneer. The Caribbean Sea became known as the Spanish Main.
Despite the mythology, pirates did not actually “bury their treasure” or make others “walk the plank” and they actually stayed within a very regimented code of conduct. They were paid a daily wage, and that wage was dependent upon their participation in raids and conflicts.

A few Pirates of note:
Sir Henry Morgan - sacked the city of Panama in 1671.
Barbary Corsairs - Privateers authorized by the Ottoman Empire
Sir Francis Drake - Privateer authorized by Queen Elizabeth I

Blackbeard - Edward Teach - Caribbean Pirate - he was caught in NC, so I have to share:

In November 1718, Governor Alexander Spotswood of Virginia, knowing that Blackbeard and his men had continued taking ships long after the period of amnesty had expired, sent a Royal Navy contingent to North Carolina, where Blackbeard was killed in a bloody battle at Ocracoke Inlet on November 22, 1718.

During the action, Blackbeard received a reported five musketball wounds and more than 20 sword lacerations before dying. Blackbeard had captured over 50 ships during his piratical career, and his death virtually represented the end of an era in the history of piracy in the New World.

*
In conclusion, pirates have a rich and sordid history in modern culture.

Have you seen them well portrayed in print or media? Poorly portrayed? And the questions I asked at the beginning, what do you think: Should they be a part of any story involving oceans - should they be a main perspective, or perhaps simply an aspect of the world building?

Hot XXX Pirates. Why not?

Links used in research or because they're interesting:
Wikipedia Article
Strongblade.com
Helium.com
Thinkquest.org
NC Maritime.org
Associated Content
Snopes
Neatorama Pirate Lore
Pirate Flags

Talk Like A Pirate!
Yarr.org
WikiHow - Talk Like A Pirate

Fantasy Trope Analysis: TBA

Note: I started this post two weeks ago, and then you know... but I read it and I liked and here we go.

While my belly isn't aching (you may say, "Quit yer bellyachin', Bill!"), I do a lot of reading and this morning, I was catching up on blogs from around the world and stuff.

Found this article which talked about writers and blogging and other social media. Nicely done post.

And the warriorwriter had a dern tootin' good idea. We should talk about more geeky stuff! (Which is essentially what they were saying, sua?)

I'm torn, in a sense, because my novel is incomplete/in draft, so I do not like being specific about what I'm doing within it. (I also happen to think that I'm being delightfully original in my handling of tropes and global cultures and I'm spiffy-tastic, and I don't want to spoil the surprise just yet.)

But, eh, WW makes a good point about writers writing to writers, which gosh darn, isn't a good way to get more (potential) fans.

I'm going to thread the needle, and find some topics that I can get excited about, which might suggest what I address in my writing, without giving too much away.

It'll be fun. Or stupid? Well, either way, I haven't seen anyone else mashing things up, and that Suvudu Cage Match was certainly interesting in its own way (or nerdgasm-ish, according to Larry).

As I said yesterday:

Any fantasy tropes you wanna kick around? Vampires vs Elves, Vikings vs Pirates vs Ninjas vs Assassins, Dragons vs Griffons, etc, etc. Yea, eventually, I'm going to cover them all, because (ha!) I write about them all. I do. It's a REALLY big world and I like to mash things together that shouldn't BE together. (They have super cool conversations!)(Okay, I'm not really planning on Vampires and Werewolves, per se, but I do have a derivative idea where I can mock.. er.. mix them up a bit.)

Aside, when I say "mash" them together, I don't mean like "Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter", I mean - put two or more things in the same room that have never been put in the same room, like I dunno, Reagan and Hitler, for instance, and watch the scene unfold.

While I'm thinking about it...
- real world history of the trope, cultural origins (I like this sort of research)
- popular character identities of the trope
- good examples, in movie, tv, or print
- horrible examples, in movie, tv or print
- why is it a trope, overused, underused, general commentary on it

Either you pick one, or I'll just start picking them at random, we'll do one and see how it goes, and semi-regularly depending on what I've got going on.

Sunday Muse-ings. Accents.

I usually read books that are written by authors who are more talented than I am, particularly where descriptive prose is concerned. It helps me find my inner voice, by challenging me.

I lost a little ground this week in writing progress because I had to go back and revise stuff that I had written while reading for my first review. Grrrrr. No worries, though, I'm doing the Malazan challenge and Erikson doesn't affect me that way. I find him very hard to read, and that, believe it or not, makes my writing better.

I'm originally from the Isaac Asimov school of prose, which is essentially plainspeak. It has a level of accessibility that still addresses complex people, places and things. That noted, I still wanna be GRRM when I grow up. Seriously. ;-)

I received my first 'critical review' return on the first chunk of my novel, and I am pleased to announce that it didn't get burned! Yay!

Which brings me to what I'm musing about this week.

*

Accents. If a character has a regional dialect, this brings up a couple of concerns.

One is - will it sound like an accent to others with the same accent? If two people from Boston are talking to each other, do they even realize - or hear - their Mass. accent?

You're thinking, "Probably not."

So, the question REALLY is: Should a reader hear their accent if the speakers don't recognize them? (And yes, this will leave me with a crapload of revising if I change how I'm doing things.)

Second question!
Let's say Billy Joe Bob has a thick southern accent. Yeehaw, ya'll! Giddy up! (Etc.) Does the voice in his head, his internal monologue, have that accent, too? Or as JoeBob might say, "Dunno what de're goin' on 'bout, ah tawk jes fine."

I'm of the opinion that internal monologues are never accented. Because that voice in our head is perfect.

I'm of the opinion that accents consist of two distinct attributes. One is the formation of lips, tongue and teeth to produce the words inside the head. The other is the vernacular, certain words used to describe certain things, which may sound unusual to someone from another region.

"Pop", "Soda", "Coke", "Cola", "Cool refreshing beverage." - Same thing, just depends where you're from.

Bonus question: Once you've been through a few chapters with a heavy accent, is it okay for the accent to disappear a little bit (and spare you trudging through it), since you've sorta gotten used to the characters and their oddities - and then if/when they meet someone from another region/culture, to reintroduce that accent, because it will be an unfamiliar usage of the language to the new perspective?

Or is it better to keep up the accent throughout?

I've studied a few languages (I'm barely fluent in English, sorry can't impress you here), and I'm a huge fan of regional dialect as a way to distinguish cultural gaps. But if you're not well traveled or experienced in foreign languages, accented dialogue could be a bit annoying.

I'm interested in whatever you have to say about it.

Otherwise, have a great week.

Sunday Muse-ings. Religion.

(Spiffy graphic, huh? I found this on another author's blog, can't remember which now.)

Since it's Easter Sunday, and I have the place to myself for a few hours, I thought I'd put up today's blog before I got some work done. I am an ace procrastinator. Truly, my discipline is crap, lately. That's the other reason for tracking progress; if you see how little I am doing, it will motivate me to do more.

Plenty of fantasy fiction does fine without delving too much into religion. Others make religion an integral part of the story, and a few make religion the entire subtext of the novel.

I am a big fan of religion, although I'm not particularly religious. I believe that it creates fantastic situations for conflicting ideologies, it offers entertaining explanations for life and death, and rituals are always fun to read about.


Image of attended ritual held at Stonehenge. Found on pollsb.com, unattributed.

It's something that I want to delve into, moreso in future stories with more advanced cultures, for those reasons. But, it's also something that I have to be careful with. I have a good understanding of theology under my belt, from my childhood interest. I walk away from organized religion with a belief in humanity, in accepting consequences for our actions, and making decisions based on intelligence, not faith.

It's a topic that I can, and have, go on about for some length. But, I don't find that particularly interesting in a novel, so I have to keep religion very basic, at arm's length, les my own beliefs creep into the POV's.

In epic fiction, I believe that religion is an inherent aspect of the worldbuilding, and that - just like Humans - no being of an intelligent race is NOT going to have an answer in regards to birth, death, creation, balance of the universe, etc.

Historically, religious organizations have always influenced cultures, one way or the other. Most of the striking events from Europe to the Middle East were originally based upon spiritual motivations (and not-so-ironically, to this day, the headlines regarding change and conflict are heavily based upon the same).

I think it's necessary. Perhaps it's something that should be given as much 'air time' as land and building descriptions. Perhaps religion should be at the core of at least one conflict in every story, in order to reflect current sociology.

Fantasy fiction and cultural religions: Does this stuff interest you, does it make the world more real, or does that make it TOO real, and you'd rather do without?

Happy Easter.

Truth is oft stranger...

Okay, while researching some stuff, I stumbled across an article on a giant isopod - a Bathynomus giganteus - that attached itself to a submarine.

Before I show you the picture, you ever play those games where you're a newb and you have to kill like a hundred "giant crabs" to level up? How completely unrealistic is ... uh...

that? (Coconut crabs apparently fight back, too.) On the other hand, with a little butter....

So, moving on, this dude found this thing...


Not too bad, right? Ugly, sure, but it's an ocean bottom dweller, what did you expect? Take a look at the SIZE of this thing.



Wow! You can write some creepy nautical tales with that sorta thing (The giant octopus is soooo overdone, no?)

Anyway, I had to show someone. Aren't you glad you stopped by? ;-)

Sunday Muse-ings. Characterizations.

Inspired by this post that I read last week over here.

I've written, twice, on the concept of fantasy fiction characters, and both times, the essays have been (in my opinion) much too long. So I will try to be succinct.

Although I am unpublished, I guarantee that I can create a character that
a) You will be fond of.
b) You will hate.
c) You will understand / empathize with.
d) You will not understand, to the point that it will frustrate you. (My favorite!)

Moreso, I will not cheat to do it. There are no divine interventions that grant super powers in my world. There is magic, but magic has boundary and cost. There are weapons, but they are not over powered. There are beasts, and they are not all either easily beaten or indestructible.

How?

Not how. WHY.

I don't need a character sheet (but they're spiffy neato, and I like to be organized).

Every character type can be explained, there is no need to be original.

Take Vikings, they're always hot. Er, sorry, Danes. Natural conquerors, the coastal terrors?


(This is a real Viking helmet, by the way. Look Ma, no horns!)

Nope. They lived on a bloody damn rock filled island. They were good at building ships because the deep hulled ships got ripped open by underwater glaciers. (You think they KNEW that longships would give them naval superiority? Heck no. It was just a natural result.) They didn't have enough farmland to support their goats and veggies on their giant icy rock, so they went to trade.

People were rude to them. Trading took too long. They ... uh... didn't have anything TO trade, really, that was the point of going out to the sea (besides the fishing was decent half of the year).

They TOOK what they NEEDED to survive as a people. Then, their success led to more Viking babies, and they needed LAND to fit all these families once they figured out how to do that... so, uh, maybe they got carried away (and that's the part that excites everyone).

Vikings? Glorified fishmongering farmers, man. Yet, in the right context, that's great stuff!

*

I'm getting carried away again. Everyone has a story to tell. Are Vikings less sexy because they were really just farmers? Nope.

Don't worry about creating the Uber Original Character (TM). Don't worry about the Mega Original World (TM). That stuff can come later, if you're inclined.

Most of the literature classics that have endured time were because the prose itself was just that good. The characters that endure time are ones that people can relate to, because they feel they know the character. That's a reflection of the writer.

No lists, just a couple of KISS rules:

1) Just make them interesting enough to write about. Plain Bob in Plainville wearing Plainsocks and sucking on oatmeal all day is not interesting.

2) Challenge your character with something. And describe *that* in a way that is interesting. Plain Bob gets struck by lightning! (Hey, it could happen to you!)

That's where your mileage may vary. I like subtle coincidences, not massive acts of OMG'ness. I like stacking circumstances like tiny silver coins upon a scale, where each character has a teetering point, and the reader doesn't get to know where that is.

But other people like to do the "If you don't find/do the THING, then - generic tremendous catastrophe - will take place." (Oh noes! optional.)

If *I* did that, the catastrophe WOULD happen (that's not a spoiler, I hope), because frankly, people just aren't that good under pressure. Sorry, it's true.

You don't get to decide what will be interesting to other people. No matter what you write, someone's gonna hate it. Someone else is gonna love it. Bell curve, FTW.

You can be smart and increase your chances. But it won't be by character sheets. It'll be by answering WHY.

Characterization: The HOW is WHY. Make it understandable and interesting. That's all you need to know.

Sunday Muse-ings. Psychology of Melee.

All these review blogs have their weekly/monthly "features", so I'm tinkering with different ideas on doing the same.

So, in this feature, I'll mention an aspect of the fiction writing process that I am wrestling with this week. Enjoy, ignore, discuss, as suits you.


(Sorry, can't remember where I found this picture.)

I've spent the better part of the last two weeks reworking an early battle scene. It's not a traditional fantasy battle scene, as both sides are relatively inexperienced in the ways of warfare. I don't get to say, "The vanguard took the river while X's flank fell beneath the cavalry," (etc).

Anyway, this has me thinking of these characters and their introduction to the ugliness of battle.

To do this, I go back in my mind. To my first fight.

Does anyone remember their first fight? I do. I was a toddler! Some little kid in the neighborhood said something mean about a friend of my uncle's and I socked him in the face. Then we threw his "big wheel" over the fence.

But of course, I was a little kid and beyond the memory, it didn't really stick with me.

When I was older, I was taught how to fight. I had a bunch of friends who took karate or taekwondo, and we'd spar with big puffy boxing gloves.

I grew up around a decent amount of fighting - but I was a geek, and I got picked on alot. Duh? I didn't start fights (that's what fight training teaches you), but I could hold my own. Most of the time I did.

Movies always glamorize the sword fights and heroic battles of our protagonists. They should. They're exciting.

However, if you remember your first fight, it wasn't like that. Especially if you got your butt kicked. If it was a long melee, then your muscles ached and throbbed, that day or the next.

The first time you get the wind knocked out of you, or you feel pain inflicted with harmful intent, it's scary.

Martial arts will teach you how to push through that fear, but my characters don't have that benefit at this point in the story.

So I think back to what I remember about my fights, my conflicts. I listen to other people talk about theirs.

When I want to write about the inexperienced fighters, I think back to when I wasn't confident in my ability to defend myself. To ambushes, to scraps in the schoolyard. I think about the fear of getting hurt and how much it played a part in how I acted.

I think about the anger and how often that made it easy to ignore the fear.

In looking back, I recall that certain senses go numb, and others go bionic. So, the POV from someone in the middle of a battle isn't reliable. He's seeing certain things clear as the day and other things he's not realizing at all. If he's determined, he's likely to not even notice that he has broken a limb or strained a muscle.

Certain names and ideas will stick, others will dissipate as the adrenalin pushes its influence through the moment. The sense of hearing is almost completely cut off from anything but the most direct of vocalizations.

Likewise, at some point, no matter the skill or the power, or the outcome, fatigue and strain will command the action. I caught a break on this chapter by getting to ignore that, because the race in question have abnormal endurance. If I'd been writing about another race, the fight would have ended much sooner.

These are the things I consider when I'm writing about melee: the physical condition of the fighters, their relative experience to warfare, and the psychological impacts of the conflict. Those are the factors that matter the most, not the uber sword of doom.

In my opinion, normal disclaimers apply. Your thoughts?