Support for Indie Authors discussion

Do we have fantasy and medieval writers here? How you describe movements with swords in a duel?

Here's a sample from my book, where happens to be a training duel in a courtyard:

Chestibor holds his sword with two hands, blade in the vertical, pommel at neck height, and try a blow overhead, from right to left, and feints in the same way as Bozhil, but launches the sword down below in direction to Bozhil’s left shoulder. The Miskovian, however, predicts the blow, and parries the point of Chestibor with the base of his sword, sliding the blade and turning it with a relaxed hand, stopping before it hits the Kirkovian’s right leg.
They say nothing, and take some steps back, then to the right, circling each other, under Dmitri’s watchful eyes. Chestibor try another feint, this time slashing down-up, from the left, and, still holding the sword with both hands, turns the slash into a thrust. Bozhil parries, but leaves his right arm exposed. Chestibor takes a step forward with the left leg, spins the sword up-down, in an arc of a hundred and eighty degrees, and Bozhil just moves his blade to parry the blow, keeping it in the vertical, and falls in the trick: Chestibor inverts the direction of his blow and stops the blade before it hits the neck of the Miskovian. Bozhil smiles.

So, do you think its over-descriptive, or the description comes fast to your senses? Which way is better, over-descriptive parrying or a faster approach? In this sample I was trying to describe a "veller".

Fabio wrote: "Do we have fantasy and medieval writers here?..."

Nope. Not a one. None at all.

Actually, I think I'm the only one that's not, so I'll step aside and let the stampede of them help you.

Something I regularly do is interview skilled individuals and do a great deal of research on movement wording, videos on fight scenes, and decide if I want cinematic or real-life like scenes.

Shorter sentences lend to intensity and pacing. Some of the above is a tad long and drawn out. Consider splitting up your sentences. You really want to give the reader a sense of movement. Imagine how it feels, observe how it looks and then describe it. Accurate, specific descriptors of body movement, of character experience, and of sounds, smells, tastes, and sights like lighting can vividly paint a fight scene.

You've got a good foundation here. I find myself wondering, how does the strike reverberate through the combatants? How does it smell? What does it sound like when the blade moves through the air? Do muscles twitch? What facial expressions do they have other than smiling? How does their scuffle sound? Is either tiring? Who is watching? How does light play into the scene? What are the characters thinking? Assessing? Deep POV in third person can also assist in drawing the reader into the scene, making them a part of it.

Catherine wrote: "Something I regularly do is interview skilled individuals and do a great deal of research on movement wording, videos on fight scenes, and decide if I want cinematic or real-life like scenes.

Sho..."

Echoing this with the Deep PoV; I don't do a lot of sword/choreographed combat in my stories but there's still fighting and action scenes, and reading a play by play of everybody's moves is incredibly dull in text (and writing it's kinda not fun either.) It's better saved for comics/movies/anything with a visual element.

There's a sort of hard and fast rule when drawing comic book action that I kind of think has some application in written stories; don't show the moment of impact, show the follow-through.
Obviously it's going to be a little different in text, but I see it as the difference between describing person A hitting person B on their left leg with the sword in their hand, and actually dragging the reader into the action by laying out the consequences of those attacks--ie, bleeding, metal scraping on metal, maybe the person falters off-balance because their leg just took a hit, etc.

You have a good basis but it needs paring down; the over description slows the action.
For example: under Dmitri's watchful eyes. If you need to show that, put it someplace else, not in the actual fighting.
Chestibor tries another feint. This is inherent. Again the action stopped. Instead: Chestibor feints. (I'm picturing the feint with those two words alone.)
Bozhil just moves his blade to parry the blow. Instead: Bozhil parries. He falls.

What others have said. Unless your target audience happens to be fencing experts who will notice and appreciate the subtleties of the moves, focusing so much on the technicalities is likely to be wasted.

As a reader, I care that there's a sword fight going on. I care who wins, who loses, who gets hurt and what happens to them afterwards. I don't care that a feint was right to left or left to right, single-handed or double-handed - unless it has direct consequences for the story.

I have trouble following blow-by-blow descriptions anyway, and I certainly don't want to sweat over trying to picture all this detail only to find it didn't matter. Instead, I want to feel the ferocity of the attack, the sting of sweat in my eyes, the soreness in my limbs, the surprise on my opponent's face when I trick him. These things will draw me in as a reader. The precise positioning of the blades won't.

I am told I write good fight scenes. The amount of detail slows down the action. And that is what you want, exciting action.

Joe swung at Bob, who barely managed to evade the stroke. Spinning away, his heart in his throat, Bob cut at his opponent's legs, forcing Joe back.

Like in a love scene, the technical aspects of it aren't interesting. The reader wants the action, the tension, the characters' emotions.

Thank you all for the input.

In fact, the description in question is a sparring duel, a training between two swordsmen. Hence I tried to be as detailed as possible about direction of blows and cuts, since it was a focused fencing.

When I got to a real fight, it was a bit different. See this sample:

The listener uses a black hood, and a black mask covers his jaw. His clothes are a combination of green and grey, without any identification, except for the peculiar disc, an infamous Voldaic disc, capable of causing discharges of electricity from time to time, but the assassin would not risk it there, in a closed space, because he would be roasted in the discharge as well.
They parry three blows and counter-blows, until Sagremar throw the axe to the left hand and launches a telekinetic discharge with the right one. His opponent would fly sixteen feet to the floor and would be prostrate for the kill if he was a common warrior, but this is not a worldly warrior used to fight behind a shield. The listener stop the throwing at nine feet, falling afoot like a trained acrobat. He stares Sagremar with hate, and the redhead notices the scar in his left eye. But that is a distraction, and the piercing gaze from the listener try to take off the focus from Sagremar. The redhead shakes his head, and reacts in time to see his adversary advancing with full force in his direction.

Maybe it's still over-descriptive. But as you can see, it was only "three blows and counter-blows", without description of a direction. The character would not pay attention to it, since he was not in training, but in a situation of life and death. So the tension grows and is more reflexes than studied fencing.

(btw, this isn't my book)

A Subtle Agency has really good examples of fight scenes. It has martial arts combat so kick-ass you could be watching a Jet Li film.

You should also read Joe Abercrombie. He does some great fight scenes. I think 'The Blade Itself' is the book that has a duelling match (with swords). Maybe give that a go.

It's still over-described and there is too much qualifying of the action: as if, it would, etc. Some of that is ok, but the amount above inserts the author into the middle of everything. It's like watching a movie and someone sitting next to you is saying he only did that because, or he really hates that guy and if . . . . The author is cluttering up his own story. Try to eliminate that in general. Best of luck!

Fabio wrote: "In fact, the description in question is a sparring duel, a training between two swordsmen. Hence I tried to be as detailed as possible about direction of blows and cuts, since it was a focused fencing. "

Even so, IMO the actual details are still not as interesting as the character's thoughts and reactions. The fact that it's sparring rather than an actual fight will certainly change things up, and offer different opportunities: The MC's focus on technique (as distinct from the technique itself), maybe fear of messing up in front of his instructor, maybe even some frustration at having to stick with proper form rather than using some street-fighting trick he knows ...

The description you gave of an actual fight is certainly more engaging IMO.

I would echo what everyone else said above. From reading those two excerpts I wasn't 100% sure who the Point of View character was, but when I write fight scenes I always write them in third person limited and I let my POV character's emotions, feelings, pain, etc, lead the way for the scene. Also, I am of the opinion that in a chaotic, life threatening situation people are going to be even less able to pick out details, just noticing a few random details along the way, so I minimize the descriptions even more than I usually do and just focus on the character's struggle more. Are they running from something? Are they tired? Did they come into this battle knowing what they'd signed up for or were they thrust into it suddenly? Does their left leg hurt from when they fell a few minutes ago? etc.

Also, concerning the details. I once spent hours upon hours researching pictures of sail ships and the names and terminology that goes with them, but if you read my two ship-related stories (Wanderer and Wandering Storm) you will only see a couple of words here and there used by characters in passing, because to them these details are important but to my readers they are just that, details!

Leaving aside technical issues about swords, the biggest issue is one of pacing. Swordplay, like most violence, is *fast*. An expert practitioner, which I infer these two are supposed to be, doesn't think in terms of an arc in this direction or that one. Those motions were long ago ingrained where they happen almost on automatic. In many cases they couldn't tell you after an exchange exactly what the motions were. That's true even at modest skill levels, and in situations where the violence is within the normal professional parameters of someone's day and doesn't induce adrenal stress. Once adrenal stress is in the game you get all kinds of weird effects, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. But you're probably looking at a sentence or two per exchange.

It's worth looking at well done sword play in prose. Some of the best sword duels in writing that I know of were written by Rafael Sabatini. His book Scaramouche, available from Gutenberg, or the first few chapters of the Marquis of Carabas, available from Gutenberg Australia, are the best places to look.

Clink. Swish. Parry. Dodge.

Don't be afraid to use one word sentences in some fight scenes. It's not unheard of and it keeps that pace fast. Obviously you don't want the whole fight to be that way, but throwing in a one word sentence or replacing a long sentence with this is going to be better in the reader's eyes. Their minds will fill in the rest of the motions.

If one word seems a little weird, do two word sentences.

"________ swings. _________ parries."

Personally I think it is preferable to go at least into some detail, especially if fights are common in your book.
At the very least one should write how your character is attacking (with the point, the cutting edge, or the guard/pommel) and what part of your opponent he his attacking (head, neck, chest, arms, legs).

If you're not certain of how a certain action would end up being, realistically, I would suggest to go watch historical fighting on Youtube rather than take the movements from other books, as the average fantasy writer is notoriously.. hm.. how should one say.. not accurate.

Sìlfae wrote: "If you're not certain of how a certain action would end up being, realistically, I would suggest to go watch historical fighting on Youtube rather than take the movements from other books, as the average fantasy writer is notoriously.. hm.. how should one say.. not accurate."

I watch HEMA videos, they are very instructive. The sparring that I partially described had a trying at the "veller" move, which is a kind of feint using two hands. There's one video 32 minutes long of Roland Warzecha about sword and shield fighting that I will still try to describe if the circunstances (of the plot) allows for it.

Fabio wrote: "I watch HEMA videos, they are very instructive. The sparring that I partially described had a trying at the "veller" move, which is a kind of feint using two hands. There's one video 32 minutes long of Roland Warzecha about sword and shield fighting that I will still try to describe if the circunstances (of the plot) allows for it. "

Yes, that's the idea. There's plenty of different sources on the internet of people recreating and testing the tecniques written in the ancient manuals, which can be extremely informative.
Once you've learned why and how a certain move is made, and you've learned a certain number of them, you can piece them together in various combinations to create a more interesting duel.
The only major factor lacking in HEMA videos is exploiting the surroundings, and non-traditional arenas (since, of course, that could be a little hazardous).

There are a lot of good points made here. I worked with a fight master (choreographer with swords) several years ago, and something he said really stuck with me:

One of the best ways to convey a fight scene in a natural way is to respect the capabilities of the weapon with which you're fighting. (and the character who wields it)

Do enough research to know how someone would hold the weight of what they have, and think about your particular characters, and how long they've been fighting with it. A person who just picked up an unfamiliar weapon in a training ground will have different reactions to a knight who's been wielding the same sword his whole life.

If he/she's got a double-handed broadsword, it's not going to lightly jab or flick anywhere, but, it'll surely lop off a few limbs.

Similarly, if they have something like a rapier, fast and quick will give them an edge on speed. Be true to the blade, and be honest about what your character can do with it.

The rest is describing the intentions and reactions, as many above have put well. When you have a phrase like: "feints in the same way as Bozhil, but launches the sword down below in direction to Bozhil’s left shoulder", it can be a message to the reader that you're not sure their imagination is sufficient to picture the fight. Use the intent, like "aimed the sword high in the hope of grazing his shoulder," and trust that the reader will fill in details as they go.

Connect with the senses, interest the reader with the motivation and result of the fight, and have fun with it. Best of luck.

Jordan wrote: "If he/she's got a double-handed broadsword, it's not going to lightly jab or flick anywhere, but, it'll surely lop off a few limbs."

I'd say lopping off limbs is very unlikely in a realistic combat, unless we're talking of magic weapons, or supernatural strength. Even an heavy weapon versus an overly exposed arm will have a hard time chopping the whole thing clean off (unless the arm is being held still), and usually, in realistic fights, the characters' limbs are not going to be bare: there's going to be cloth and padding (if not metal armor), which also contribute in making it harder to cut through.

I agree on everything else, though.

V.M. wrote: "Fabio wrote: "Do we have fantasy and medieval writers here? How you describe movements with swords in a duel?

Here's a sample from my book, where happens to be a training duel in a courtyard:

Che..."

That's a great article.

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "V.M. wrote: "Fabio wrote: "Do we have fantasy and medieval writers here? How you describe movements with swords in a duel?

That's a great article."

per Graeme's rec, i'm going to read it.

Hi Alex, it uses great examples and is very pertinent to what we do.

Hi Fabio,

My advice would be as follows.

[1] Use shorter sentences.

[2] Reserve detail for the important parts of the fight - like the opening and final strikes, or key turning points in the fight.

[2.a] In between the detailed elements - step the detail back to allow room for your reader's imagination to fill in the blanks.

[3] Keep your external witnesses out of the fight itself, unless they are the POV character.

[4] Watch your verbs they are the hero of the sentence. Make them clear, bold and decisive.

[5] Use a sentence for each complete action by a character.

For example, your opening sentence.

Chestibor holds his sword with two hands, blade in the vertical, pommel at neck height, and try a blow overhead, from right to left, and feints in the same way as Bozhil, but launches the sword down below in direction to Bozhil’s left shoulder.

Reads in a confusing way for me - simplify it. Take the load off the reader.

(Given it's a training scene.)

1st sentence is set up - I'm assuming that Chestibor is the POV character.

Chestibor and Bozhil faced off on the training ground under Dmitri’s watchful gaze.

(Note: Don't speak of Dmitri again, unless he intervenes in the fight or he is the POV character).

2nd sentence is still setup - more detail.

They held their swords high, in the classic style.

3rd sentence is action.

Chestibor feinted right, then slashed his sword down at Bozhil's left shoulder.

Putting this together we have

Chestibor and Bozhil faced off on the training ground under Dmitri’s watchful gaze. They held their swords high, in the classic style. Chestibor feinted right, then slashed his sword down at Bozhil's left shoulder.

Follow with Bozhil's response in detail (one or at most two sentences).

Then soften the detail as they fight back and forth, thrust, parry, counter, for a couple of sentences - allow the readers imagination to fill the gaps.

When you come to a key turning point in the scene or the climax, dial up the detail to bring it into focus.

I hope that helps.

Sìlfae wrote: "Jordan wrote: "If he/she's got a double-handed broadsword, it's not going to lightly jab or flick anywhere, but, it'll surely lop off a few limbs."

I'd say lopping off limbs is very unlikely in a ..."

Actually, you'd be surprised. Longswords and broadswords are very capable of severing limbs.

Perhaps grisly reading, but if you're interested this is an excerpt from a great article on various weaponry and armor from the Metropolitan Museum of Art's website. The full article is also well worth a read for researching how to describe swords and armor:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams...


"The majority of genuine medieval and Renaissance swords tell a different story. Whereas a single-handed sword on average weighed 2–4 lbs., even the large two-handed “swords of war” of the fourteenth to sixteenth century rarely weighed in excess of 10 lbs. With the length of the blade skillfully counterbalanced by the weight of the pommel, these swords were light, sophisticated, and sometimes beautifully decorated. As illustrated by documents and works of art, such a sword, in the hands of a skilled warrior, could be used with terrible efficiency, capable of severing limbs and even cutting through armor."

Now, as fantasy authors we get to take this information and throw it out the window whenever we want. Choosing when to make it ridiculous is always a good time, but, learning about our own history in the process can also be a great way to blend the two with the most creativity possible.

The curved edge of a katana is highly effective at cutting through things - especially limbs.

Jordan wrote: "Sìlfae wrote: "Jordan wrote: "If he/she's got a double-handed broadsword, it's not going to lightly jab or flick anywhere, but, it'll surely lop off a few limbs."

I'd say lopping off limbs is very..."

A whole lot depends on how the sword is sharpened. Some large swords weren't left very sharp, as they'd just get blunted on the armor anyway. They could cleave through limbs, certainly, or cripple horses, but they wouldn't usually go all the way through unless you were an exceptionally strong warrior. The shape of the blade, viewed in profile, was often more like an axe than a thin razor. If a blade is fairly thick, it will often stop in a cut because the width of the edge often slows it down.

A katana is extremely good at lopping off limbs, partly because of the blade geometry (the curve and the bevel of the edge, among other things) and party because they are kept beyond razor sharp. In later years they weren't used against armored samurai, but against silk or cotton kimono clad samurai. Not only that, but the katana also has a carefully engineered shape that naturally cleaves through things as you swing it at something. European blades did not have this kind of design.

In battle the primary weapon was the big, powerful bow the Japanese used. There is no analogue for the katana in any part of Medieval Europe. In the Middle East, there is the scimitar, which is superficially like the katana, is also sharp but doesn't have the flexibility or the finely shaped blade that the katana does.

(As an aside, one of the reasons why katanas can carry such a keen edge is because they are deferentially tempered. The edge is hard steel, the back of the blade is softer. In this way a keen edge can be kept but the blade doesn't break as easily.)

I HAD NO IDEA THIS THREAD EXISTED!!!

I'm so glad I know now, I'll be looking over the tips. Thanks in advance guys!!

Fabio wrote: "Thank you all for the input.

In fact, the description in question is a sparring duel, a training between two swordsmen. Hence I tried to be as detailed as possible about direction of blows and cu..."

A small note that I think might be helpful - sometimes your present tense isn't quite done right, and also you might want to add a few more articles. Here's examples:

You wrote: "Chestibor holds his sword with two hands, blade in the vertical, pommel at neck height, and try a blow overhead, from right to left..."

I see you are writing in present tense here, so I won't mess with that, but if you change "try" to "tries" it flows a lot better.

"Chestibor holds his sword with two hands, blade in the vertical, pommel at neck height, and tries a blow overhead, from right to left..."

Here's another, with the missing bits added back in.

"His opponent would fly sixteen feet to the floor and would be prostrate for the kill if he was a common warrior, but this is not a worldly warrior used to fight(ing) behind a shield. The listener stop(s) the throw at nine feet, falling afoot like a trained acrobat. He stares (at) Sagremar with hate, and the redhead notices the scar in his left eye."

You might want to add a "normally" before "his opponent," so that the audience better understands your meaning. "Normally, his opponent would fly sixteen feet..."

Are you absolutely wedded to present tense? It can be good for conveying immediacy of action but it can be harder to do properly. I hope my suggestions help a little.

A good start!

• Chestibor holds his sword with two hands, blade in the vertical, pommel at neck height, and try a blow overhead, from right to left,

Because you're describing what the camera sees, nothing of Chestibore comes through. And because the voice of the narrator can't be heard, it's told in a monotone. That being the case, it reads like a report.

A picture is worth a thousand words. And that picture is static. So to make the reader "see" a snapshot of the action would take pages, and in the words of Jack Bickham, “To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.”

Remember, the reader is there for story, not a detailed description of what can be seen. Our medium is serial. We must mention events and items one at a time, and that matters a great deal. For film, a glance and we see how he stands, how he's armed, his mood and dress, the ambience of the setting, and much more. But just reading your first line takes many times longer than the blow you describe takes in the film version. So by the time you describe ten seconds of action, the reader has been churning through it for half a minute, and your action is someone talking about what happened. Can half a minute of explanation have the impact of tens seconds of flashing swords? Hell no.

For that reason, alone, dump the visual stuff and tell the reader what's meaningful to him, in the moment he calls now.

In the storyteller's now, he's standing just so, and moving just so. But in his viewpoint he's focused on the threat his opponent poses, and what he might do to negate it. If the other man feints, and he recognizes it as such, do we really need a description of an unsuccessful attack, in detail? No, because story isn't about what happens, it's about what its effect is on our protagonist and how he responds. Story lives in the heart and mind of the protagonist, not in the words of a reporter.

In short, you're telling, from the seat of an external observer—explaining when you should be entertaining. It's something that appears in fully 75% of query sampes, so you have a lot of company.

The problem isn't a matter of good or bad writing, talent, or anything within you. It's that we all leave school believing we learned to write. We did, but not as a fiction publisher views that act. What we were given is a set of general skills that employers want us to have—the traditional three Rs, to provide them with an employment pool with a predictable and useful skill set. But writing fiction for the page is a profession, and like any other has its share of specialized knowledge and tricks-of-the-trade. The reading we do helps, but we see only the finished, and polished product. To create that product we need the process.

So the solution is easy enough. Simply add a few of those tricks to your current set and polish them a bit. I had some articles to suggest, which I presented in an earlier post, but it disappeared, so I assume our moderator frowns on links. In that case, I'll suggest you invest a bit of time in digging out the nuts and bolts issues of structure and scene layout. The library's fiction writing section is a great resource. While you're there, I suggest looking for the names Dwight Swain, Jack Bickham, or Debra Dixon on the cover.

Hang in there, and keep on writing.

I haven't that much experience in writing this type of scene but I read lots of post from a blog on tumblr. The person there know a lot about various type of combat and weapons, style of fight and so on. They answer lots of questions : comparing weapons, improvised or real, how to describe fighting depending on the type of character, things like that. I love them as they're very helpful. Here's the link to the blog: Howtofightwrite
Good luck

Jordan wrote: "The majority of genuine medieval and Renaissance swords tell a different story. Whereas a single-handed sword on average weighed 2–4 lbs., even the large two-handed “swords of war” of the fourteenth to sixteenth century rarely weighed in excess of 10 lbs. With the length of the blade skillfully counterbalanced by the weight of the pommel, these swords were light, sophisticated, and sometimes beautifully decorated. As illustrated by documents and works of art, such a sword, in the hands of a skilled warrior, could be used with terrible efficiency, capable of severing limbs and even cutting through armor.."

Given the weight you're giving, I'm assuming you're referring to greatswords, not longswords, right?
If that is the case, remember that greatswords are more of a battlefield weapon, not a dueling weapon. They tended to be used in formation, likely to either stop cavalry (although in that regard they were quickly replaced completely by the pikes), or to open a passage between a pike formation by pushing the poles away.
If you half-sword it, as it is often depicted (and as the shape of the blade clearly implies it's its use), putting one hand on the grip, and one hand on the forte, it works pretty much like a short spear, so, in that regard, I'd agree it would have a considerable piercing power, but chopping limbs in battle? Hm, seems unlikely.
And by "cutting armor", to which kind of armor are we referring to? Because if it's any kind of metal armor, then I'd be inclined to suggest you to dismiss that source althogether.

Historical depictions can be useful, but they are not to be taken as gospels. These sorts of depictions oftentimes have dragons, and demons, and angels, unlikely to have been part of those historical battles, just as chopped limbs were. Artists always exaggerated events to captivate the public, they did it then just like we do it now. And they didn't have internet to fact check either.
Viking Sagas (as well as Japanese myths) have plenty of legendary swords (or swordsmen) capable of beheading people left and right with ease, that doesn't make it true.
If we go by looking at actual bones of warriors taken from battlefields (the most famous being Towton) we can see that broken bones can certainly happen, and limbs are the most attacked target, but cut limbs do not really seem to be a thing in real combat. I could see that there can be exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions.

Rohvannyn wrote: "A katana is extremely good at lopping off limbs, partly because of the blade geometry (the curve and the bevel of the edge, among other things) and party because they are kept beyond razor sharp. In later years they weren't used against armored samurai, but against silk or cotton kimono clad samurai. Not only that, but the katana also has a carefully engineered shape that naturally cleaves through things as you swing it at something. European blades did not have this kind of design.

In battle the primary weapon was the big, powerful bow the Japanese used. There is no analogue for the katana in any part of Medieval Europe. In the Middle East, there is the scimitar, which is superficially like the katana, is also sharp but doesn't have the flexibility or the finely shaped blade that the katana does."

I'm sorry, but I will have to respectfully disagree on several accounts.
First of all, the katana was good at chopping limbs of naked, bound prisoners (oftentimes with the blade having been tied to a long pole, which was able to give a lot more strength to the strike than what you'd have in an actual battle).
The katana is good cutting weapon, certainly, both because of the way its blade is made and because of the curved shape; it can cut through human flesh relatively easily, but cutting through the bones, and doing it while in battle, is another matter entirely.
There are all sorts of "tests" on youtube on the katana, but, most of the times, they are with bound targets, and with the guy testing the blade charging the blow in a way that would not be possible in real battle (as it would leave you too much exposed for too long).
In battle, when you strike at your opponent's arm or leg, you cut through it, sure, but are also pushing it back, and if the limb doesn't offer resistance (because it's not tied or stuck), then it's very unlikely you will be able to perform a strike that is both strong and fast enough to chop it off.

Just like you rightfully say, katanas were not a samurai's primary weapon. Bows and polearms were. If the katana was such an amazing thing, you'd guess it'd be used more often...

As for an European equivalent to the katana, we actually have one:
http://www.paul-binns-swords.co.uk/Pa...
The Celts did it, about 2,000 years before the Japanese. It was abandoned, of course, since we discovered superior tecniques.
Japanese couldn't get past the katana, because Japan's metal resources are scarce and of poor quality.

Sìlfae wrote: "Jordan wrote: "The majority of genuine medieval and Renaissance swords tell a different story. Whereas a single-handed sword on average weighed 2–4 lbs., even the large two-handed “swords of war” o..."

About the katana, there's this german documentary showing the different build techniques:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2ui...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_3W1...

The japanese did not have quality iron, so their blades were not used against armored targets. They also didn't have plate armor, they used lamellar most of the time. You can check that their armor were not much different in structure from the ones used by the slavs, who also didn't have greatswords.

I think the greatsword, the zweihander, was used sometimes against plate armor, because of its blunt force. But the warhammer was better in that respect, since it would smash the plates.

Regarding the Japanese not having quality iron:

That is true, their stock was terrible, however they developed techniques to create the finest steel in the world.

They refined the awful quality iron they had and used the differential tempering process to create a blade that was flexible, curved perfectly for slicing, and held a razor's edge. They still did not often use their blades against armored targets, that is true.

Totally agreed about the zweihander and the warhammer.

Sìlfae wrote: "I'm sorry, but I will have to respectfully disagree on several accounts.
First of all, the katana was good at chopping limbs of naked, bound prisoners (oftentimes with the blade having been tied to a long pole, which was able to give a lot more strength to the strike than what you'd have in an actual battle).
."

Unfortunately, real world experience doesn't bear that out. I've seen even a fairly low quality commercial katana (though well sharpened) that cut cleanly through a deer vertebra without spalling or chipping. Also, a limb is not completely limp in battle, the muscle tension does give some stiffness. However, since this discussion is going away from the author's original topic, I am going to bow out after this.

(sources: kenjutsu, taijutsu, iado, iaijutsu, test cutting.)

Fabio wrote: "The japanese did not have quality iron, so their blades were not used against armored targets. They also didn't have plate armor, they used lamellar most of the time. You can check that their armor were not much different in structure from the ones used by the slavs, who also didn't have greatswords. "

Yes, of course, that was my point.

Fabio wrote: "I think the greatsword, the zweihander, was used sometimes against plate armor, because of its blunt force. But the warhammer was better in that respect, since it would smash the plates."

Obviously, anything can happen in a battle, but, as you say, in that case, it'd be used for the blunt trauma (which I agree on). The point that was being refused was of it being used for amputating limbs.

Rohvannyn wrote: "Regarding the Japanese not having quality iron:

That is true, their stock was terrible, however they developed techniques to create the finest steel in the world.

They refined the awful quality ..."

Of course, I'm not questioning the refinement of the forging tecniques of the Japanese regarding katanas.

The point that was put under questioning was whether amputation of limbs was a relatively common occurrence in duels with swords, which evidence points me to believe it was not, regardless of whether we're talking of European or Asian blades.

V.M. wrote: "Going back to Fabio's original request - it may prove helpful even though it doesn't specifically deal with fantasy or sword-fighting. The general principles behind what makes a good fight could be..."

It looks like there might be enough interest for a separate thread regardless!

This goes to the stakes V.M. mentioned - get the reader invested in the fight soon. Even if it's a training match, I as the reader should have some kind of commitment/involvement/want one to win or do better than the other. That usually means I need to know about them before. Allan, post 10, mentioned Joe Abercrombie. I haven't read The Blade Itself but have read Red Country, By the time Nine-Fingers Logan has that fight (bare-fisted match/brawl really), I know who I want to win. So there can be lots of sword fighting but it has to mean something.

My take on depicting sword fights in fantasy fiction is this. If the story needs to have limbs chopped, then chop off limbs. We are writing fiction after all. And if it's fantasy fiction, then reality is not actually much of an issue.

The important thing in my scenes is to give enough visual detail to stimulate the imagination without bogging down the action. And don't forget to portray the emotions of the character as well. If the scene is compelling, no one will question authenticity.

That's the way I see it (and was taught.). :-)

Hi Fabio, whose fight scenes do you enjoy reading? Try to work out why these are compelling - minute detail on each sword-stroke or the battle-joy and/or fear of the protagonists, or a mixture of both? To make a fight scene believable you have to choreograph it in the setting and I find it helps to act it out physically (not with real swords!). And as Bill says, if the plot requires limb-lopping, go ahead.

What do you guys think of this fantasy fight scene?

[The ship look out burst into flashes of exploding gun powder, flares and excited sparks.
"Welcome back lord reader, your shell is busy it would seem!" Oner said, as you gained visuals of your shell.
The slapping sounds of liquids rush around you, tightening your body like a wet suit.
Your Plafusion core armor activates its assault mode. Your body covers in a complete black liquid like sheet of nanomachines.
You stand on the icy ocean surface — the unforgiving cold.
. The giant moon sat on the ice sheet, bringing with it the concepts of, existence and its value.
“My lord…” Oner voice squirms quickly as you stand entrance.
Under the giant moon your sight becomes air filled rushing bubbles and high powered flashing lights.
“You can’t let those hit you reader!” Oner said calmly, but cautiously.
Your body tugs across the surface of the ocean upside down, tilting more and more slowly as you move at inhuman speeds.
The movement leaves a splitting display of water waves from a jet-ski shooting towards the sky, as you were cutting through the air and dodging incoming fire from the ship.
No time to wonder what your shell was up to this time. It always somehow found a way to almost find death in your absence.
The marine begins to ease his trigger grip, slowing his fire in disbelief as he wonders if this is really happening by a human.
A gentle tap on the ocean’s surface from a whip of pressurized air shoot from your O.B.G. The force tilts you towards landing on your feet. The moon light beautifully shines on the ocean surface granting a few feet of sight into the icy blue. ]

It came from something, in dialect.

Reno wrote: "What do you guys think of this fantasy fight scene?

[The ship look out burst into flashes of exploding gun powder, flares and excited sparks.
"Welcome back lord reader, your shell is busy it woul..."

This passage I really liked but really all I can say is apply these changes:
The ship look-out burst quickly into flashes of exploding flames...
...liquids rush around you, tightening around your skin like a wet suit.
Your body is covered in a complete black liquid like sheet of nanomachines.
Probably clarify what this means 'The giant moon sat on the ice sheet, bringing with it the concepts of, existence and its value.'
Change the word 'squirm' to something else in this phrase.
Oner voice squirms quickly as you stand entrance.

For me thats it, this passage was pretty awesome and had me entrenched. First, I'm just asking if you meant to use the Second Point of View? Thats rare but you really made it work. And second, if you make this into a novel or book, is it possible that you could have your character be created through archetypes so that your character can follow multiple story-lines (1-3 or 1-2 so it isn't hard or long to make) that would be awesome to see how your character is made, what they experience and have to fight against or save. It would definitely appeal to fantasy fans.

Reno wrote: "What do you guys think of this fantasy fight scene?

[The ship look out burst into flashes of exploding gun powder, flares and excited sparks.
"Welcome back lord reader, your shell is busy it woul..."

Hopefully my suggestions aren't offensive.

Trelas wrote: "Reno wrote: "What do you guys think of this fantasy fight scene?

[The ship look out burst into flashes of exploding gun powder, flares and excited sparks.
"Welcome back lord reader, your shell is..." No thank you for your time sir and even reading it and commenting.

I'm glad a topic like this has started, writing sword fights in a fantasy novel can be a interesting and difficult process.

Listening and applying the feedback myself.

your wording is very discriptive, maybe a little too much so. I would recommend worrying more about the action rather than the fine details. When in combat, the only thing that matters are your opponents movements and your own.
If your readers have built a connection with your character, they probably don't care whether the opponent is left or right handed, the angle of the blade, or a scar on the new enemy's chest. They would be more interested on how your character overcomes the opponent, especially if failure means death! Obviously don't throw out all descriptions, but like all writing, have fun with it, put yourself in your character's shoes and visualise all those movements!
I love writing combat scenes, keep at it, and keep sharing your combat scenes with someone reliable. That way they can let you know if the scene feels like action, or if it feels a bit slow or boring.
Good luck!