# Just enough action



## VÃ¶lf (Apr 17, 2010)

Someone was reading over one of my stories the other day, and I find a recurring theme in my writing, and it's this. An action problem, where I tend to write too much action and, "not enough plot". I feel as though I've been writing for long enough to know what it is, but sometimes when I get too much food for thought or if I get something very vague, I tend to get lost in the advice. "Plot" in itself isn't the most precise of terms. Where as the setting is wherever the story takes place, i.e. the time, the city, w/e, and the characters are the people, the plot isn't quite the same. I find when I hear the words "add more plot", I get confused. What do I add more of? More story? that's basically the same thing; and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

So I'm wondering what I can do to add more plot to my stories. The one I mentioned in the beginning was a war story, and lots of battles tend to take place. My idea was to focus on the characters, but what about them? If I need to focus on the story of a specific character, where they've been and where they come from, how do I tell it? If I need more plot, I'm focusing on the story, but what part?

I feel very confused  just looking for some suggestions on what to do. Sorry if that was too vague, but for certain reasons I really don't want to detail into my story too much.


----------



## sunandshadow (Apr 17, 2010)

Hmm.  Normally I would consider action to be the main part of plot, since I have hardly any action in my own stories and consider them to have barely any plot as a result.  But if you have action and people are telling you you need more plot, maybe the part that's missing is the 'why' - why are the actions happening, what significance do they add up to, what do they mean to the characters, that sort of thing.


----------



## A Concerned Citizen (Apr 17, 2010)

DISCLAMIER: I ain't no expert writer or even a "big time" writer around these parts, but I'll give it a stab.

From what you described (albeit you didn't give me much to go on) is that so much action is transpiring, that you don't give them much time to develop. Either that or your characters are carrying out their wartime actions without much reasoning behind them. Since I haven't read your stories, I'm going to assume the former.

You probably need more time for your characters to be introspective or to have 'down times' where the characters can talk and relate/debate with each other. Some of my favorite movies (yes, I said movies. I write scripts, yo.) such as Platoon or Full Metal Jacket have these pauses that not only allows the audience to process the action that has happened, but also to have the characters act with each other in meaningful ways. 

Then again, I ain't no expert.


----------



## Toonces (Apr 17, 2010)

in very simple terms, "plot" is the development of conflicts. it is how you establish the rules and understandings, so to speak, for the action scenes. plot is how you develop why, when one character punches the other character, he has the motive and determination to do so. if you feel you need to add more "plot," you should be attempting to develop more rules and understandings for the conflicts within which your action takes place. rules and understandings that support, contradict, obscure, or clarify each other so that when the action occurs, these competing narratives begin to fall into dominance or submission.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 17, 2010)

Action, reaction, action, reaction, action, reaction.

It sounds a bit formulaic, but one of the purposes of writing about a specific character is to draw the reader into that character's world.  Put them in that character's mindset.  No one out there is so hard core that they don't have battle affect them.  And your conflicts sound like they are literally conflicts.    

That affects people.  And when you allow for a reaction, you show how that affects people.  Maybe killing that kid who wandered into the cross fire was more than a grizzled veteran could take.  Maybe watching the rookie's face explode was too much.  It happened before, but this was the time it pushed him over.

My grandfather didn't talk much about his WWII experiences in the Pacific doing the island hopping, but he did mention one thing.  When there wasn't fighting, there was gambling or drinking.  Sometimes both.   There was a reason for that.  

So here's what I would do.  After a battle scene, follow a character around to get his feelings.    The more you reveal about a character through his actions, the better you'll understand him.    In battle, the actions are likely all instinctual and training.  Out of battle, though.

And read war stories   Those help.  Read a lot of what you want to write.  You'll see how people get to react, in the oddest ways.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 17, 2010)

I'd kind of have to know the context of that comment to understand exactly what was meant by it, but so far I'm thinking Kermit's response up there might be the problem.  Is there not very much down-time?
Either way, saying 'there's not enough plot' strikes me as pretty ambiguous, so I can see why it'd be confusing.  I always think of 'the plot' as being equivalent to 'the storyline', of which there is usually only one.  (Man, I narrowly avoided making a Highlander joke.)


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 17, 2010)

It depends on what effect you're going for. I'm writing an action adventure piece, where I decided that each chapter would either have at least part of a fight if not an entire one. 14 chapters in, I've missed this only once (that one was all flashbacks).

But the action, ideally, should be part of the plot. I can't really analyze if that's the case in my story, but certainly each battle that takes place is an obstacle on the characters' main path; they form a plot structure secondary to the main one; they're actually part of another, overarching plot that hasn't even been revealed yet; and there is, at the very least, a reason for each one. I also leave room in between them for the characters to breathe and recover, and move on, unless it's a situation like the massive 3-part epic in the middle of the series.

I'm probably not answering your question. If you're writing a war story and want it to be about the characters, well, how are they dealing with the war? How do the members of the unit get along? Is there any member whose personal demons are making it difficult for them to get their jobs done? And if you want to focus on a specific character, try using a parallel narrative structure: tell his story in the past, interspersed and related to what's happening in the present during the war.


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

As everyone else has pretty much said, the key is if the action matters to the story.

An easy way to figure out if this is the case is to print out the story and cut each scene out with scissors.  Lay them out on the floor in chronological order and read it.  Mix up the order and read it again.  Try removing some of the parts and read it again.

How does this impact the overall story?  If you can remove a whole scene and the story remains intact you should cut it from the story because it doesn't do anything to further the plot.

Basically I would say you can have a story of nothing but action, so long as all the action is relevant.  The key is that the reader needs to be able to see how it drives the story forward, which often means they need to understand WHY the action is happening.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

Personally, I always write stories in terms of "plot"(as in, the characters, who they are, what the central conflict that propels them all is and you need one to even have a story, what the characters think and believe, how they look at each other, what they seek to accomplish, and why they clash the way they do) first, and "action"(as in, the actual physical exertion of fighting) second, though not that one should ever be to the detriment to the other unless that's part of the point you're trying to make.

The confusion, I think, comes from the assumption that you even need to seperate the two. There are many definitions of narrative action(that the story continues to move in interesting directions, with or without actual combat) and many definitons of narrative conflict(the conflicting ideals of opposing characters, the why and how of why they're at ends and such....again, not neccesarily involving actual combat.)

Or, more simply, you just need to work on the ratio between action scenes and story. Why are people fighting? What are these people like? Set aside more time to develop them and the story behind all this fighting.


----------



## VÃ¶lf (Apr 19, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> Personally, I always write stories in terms of "plot"(as in, the characters, who they are, what the central conflict that propels them all is and you need one to even have a story, what the characters think and believe, how they look at each other, what they seek to accomplish, and why they clash the way they do) first, and "action"(as in, the actual physical exertion of fighting) second, though not that one should ever be to the detriment to the other unless that's part of the point you're trying to make.
> 
> The confusion, I think, comes from the assumption that you even need to seperate the two. There are many definitions of narrative action(that the story continues to move in interesting directions, with or without actual combat) and many definitons of narrative conflict(the conflicting ideals of opposing characters, the why and how of why they're at ends and such....again, not neccesarily involving actual combat.)
> 
> Or, more simply, you just need to work on the ratio between action scenes and story. Why are people fighting? What are these people like? Set aside more time to develop them and the story behind all this fighting.



Aha! First I'd like to thank everybody who posted, I glanced over everything and saw lots of helpful comments.

I think I've concluded what my problem is, and it seems that the last part here written by NaotaM sums it up pretty well. Taking the time to develop and get to know the characters is something I believe I didn't do enough of. It also seems like the ratio b/t action and story progression, simply put, tends to be the common problem that people are trying to point out when they say "Too much action". 

I probably draw a lot of my experience from what I do every day; lots of shooting video games, action and war movies, lots of fighting mangas, etc. and sadly not enough reading. I'm starting to see where it comes from lol :/


----------



## Toonces (Apr 19, 2010)

I just wrote a guide that addresses the problem of getting too deep into action. You might want to give it a look.


----------



## Alexis (Apr 20, 2010)

Look peeps, as long as you don't _forget_ to evolve your story, you can easily do it in the middle of any action you like.  I'm sorry but I'm going to refer to Ian M again, proving that 'action scenes' and plot evolution aren't mutually exclusive .


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 20, 2010)

Sure. Plot is that which matters, and that which changes during the story. This could be expressed perfectly well through action as well as dialogue, or exposition.

Things that matter which might be expressed in action might include- who is stronger, who is more confident, what causes lasting change, and so on. Hell, if you wanted to do the last one and really hit people with the idea, action might be the best way to do it- worked for Tom Clancy for whole woodchippers-full of creepy books. If you establish horrible villains, undermine any diplomatic means of coping with them, and then blow them away gruesomely with a sense of a job well done, you're using action to establish the role of violence as a higher authority.

If, like in Die Hard, you have a character like Sgt. Powell who will not use violence and you set 'em up so that they feel forced to anyway and then make like it's a big enlightenment, your action IS plot


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 20, 2010)

Action scenes aren't mutually exclusive to plot action, but too many action scenes can destroy plot.  Take Transformers 2, for example.  Had a LOT of plot development, if you could stop your ears from ringing long enough in the action scene to see it.  People missed huge major plot points (and plot holes) because the loud action was overwhelming the ability.  So, the characters seemed shallow and one dimensional, and thus, the film suffered.

If it's all action in your story and you don't slow down, then your readers may have trouble following.


----------

