Facts Matter as a Matter of Fact

So, three times in a week.  Three times in a single week I've seen some glaring examples, from people in my radius, of something very disturbing; confusing facts with opinions.

A customer came in and, as I usually do, we got to talking.  He asked how my business was going and it led to discussion about the economy.  During the course of our talk I'd point out things that were true about our country, things that can be measured, counted, observed, verified, and are in no way shape or form subject to interpretation, and he'd respond with; "Well, that's just your opinion.".  But... it's not.  Economic disparity is there, wage stagnation is there, illegal employment is there, and outsourcing is there.  It can all be shown.  Clearly.

So here's a neutral example; the fact that Forte' is surviving as a business despite a recession isn't an opinion.  It's a fact.  I can count how much money I need to make it.  I can count how much money I made.  I can see that one is larger than the other and make a declaration that is TRUE.  Now, will this always be the case?  Hopefully, but I didn't say Forte' would survive forever.  I said it's surviving, and there is no denying that.  To argue against truth is fundamentally idiotic.  It is to argue against reality itself.  If I put a box on a scale, and it says it weighs 10 pounds, you can't really argue it's not a 10 pound box.  Okay, maybe you can say the scale is wrong and we weigh it with another scale.  Again, 10 pounds.  Eventually, if it IS 10 pounds, you can't logically argue that it isn't.

Now, we could argue about why the fact exists.  He may believe Forte' does well as a result of divine blessing and I may believe it's a result of hard work.  We can argue that under different political leadership I'd be doing better or worse.  We can argue about how the box got to be so heavy.  But central to the argument is the fact.  Until there is agreement on reality, discussion about reality cannot exist.

Yesterday in Wisconsin the Governor repealed an Equal Pay law.  The Senator who sponsored/created it came out today and said that there is no such thing as gender discrimination, that it's a myth.  The problem is, that can be checked.  Women nationally make, on average, 20% less than men doing equivalent work.  This can be checked, verified, counted.  It is true.  Now, he could have come out saying he didn't care, or he didn't believe the reason they made less was sexism, or any other argument about why that fact shouldn't matter enough to create a law equalizing women, but what he can't do, logically, is deny that it's happening.  It's happening.

It's the same thing with climate change.  It's happening.  Why is up for some debate, but not the fact that it's happening.  The economic recovery.  It's happening.  Debate why, but you can't deny it.  Women's rights are being diminished.  It's happening.  Count the number of laws presented now compared to the past.  Easy to check.  The military budget is still the biggest expenditure of our country.  True.  Can't truthfully say it's something else.

There have been more instances of politicians calling facts opinions than any other time in recent American history (fact). This trend is infiltrating from out out of our politics and into our general culture (opinion).  I think the growing inability to recognize, accept, and deal with reality is a pretty big problem.  Massive even.

You can't make facts go away just by saying they're not true.  You have to face them, decide what you think about them, analyze how they came about, and set your future course based on your observations.  You can't play ostrich and put your head in a hole, cover your ears, and ignore it.  Well... you can, but you're not playing in reality any more.  You're off in your own little world based on things that aren't true.  And where are we going to wind up if we've all got blinders on, willfully seeing only what we want, not what is real?

So the question is, even if you don't like it; can you handle the truth?


Oh, and in case you were curious.

fact: [fakt] noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
opinion: [uh-pin-yuhn] noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3.the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

Lets Fight!

So I was talking to Eric about the fantasy story he's (still) working on and the topic comes up about fight scenes.  He tells me he's been having issues working through them because, in general, he finds fight scenes to be dull affairs.  At first, this would seem not to make sense.  After all, if you've ever been in a fight, or close proximity to one, they're anything but dull.  Fantasy, Sci-fi, Action, even Horror all have a pretty big dose of fighting to add drama and excitement to a story.  But that's just the first impression.

When I actually stop to think about it, most of the fight scenes I'm recalling were things I've seen on a screen, not read in a book.  A blow by blow martial arts fight, with details, is incredibly tedious and, at the end of the day, it's much more exciting to watch someone do a back-flip face kick than to read about one.  I frequently hear this complaint from people that they don't like particular action movies because "it was just a bunch of fighting".  So if a fight scene on screen, where it only takes moments and you actually get to see the physicality, is boring, how do you make writing one interesting?  I've got a couple of ideas.

First of all, I think its important to only actually describe a fight when it matters.  Fighting guard #6 on your way to the top of the evil wizard tower?  Perhaps you gloss over that as quickly as possible.  There is no significant difference between guard #1 and guard #10.  They all have equivalent meaning.  Now, when your protag gets to the top of the tower and meets up with the wizard, we expect a fight.  Why?  Well, there's the assumption that the wizard and the hero are proportionately matched so the outcome might be in doubt.  Unlike the guards.  There is little chance guard #8 will luck out and defeat the hero.  Sorry guards, you are just there as an example of the hero's proficiency.  Generally, we know what the villain can do.  Somebody's gotta be a punching bag to show that the hero also has chops.  This is why guard is a bad career choice.

Now, I'm aware that I'm talking in very simplistic hero vs. villain terms and good stories aren't that simple.  But that's up to plot, character development, etc... to solve.  I'm just talking about the straight up fighting side of things.  For that, all you really need is two people (or groups) in opposition.

We also expect a fight when the hero comes into conflict with the main villain because that's where plot turns happen.  If the hero wins, the villain has to alter their course.  If the villain does, the hero must change plans.  Moments when these main characters come into conflict divert the story direction.  Guards are speedbumps.  They might slow a hero down, but they're not going to alter the course of the story.  We don't care about serious details on speedbumps, but when we change direction, the whole thing moves somewhere else, well, that's worth some detail.

So, rule one of writing fighting; Only bother with serious detail when it's significant characters involved and the results move the story into a new direction.

So that's when to detail, but it still doesn't tell us how to make a bunch of traded blows exciting.  I've gotten several compliments on my fight scenes so it seems I'm doing something right, intentionally or not.  So went back and looked at every fight scene I've ever written to see how I've handled them.  I discovered something really interesting.  I have, never, ever, written a fight scene under normal conditions.  I have land bound guys fighting opponents who can fly.  I have people fighting someone invisible.  I have someone fighting someone poisonous, super fast, invulnerable, blind, or multi-limbed.  I have fights in knee deep mud, on cliffs, or ice.  In every single scene I've ever done, the protagonist has to deal with something else in addition to the opponent.  Something that makes it more than just two guys hitting each other.  Something that makes them think or have to behave differently.  I immediately started looking for examples of this in movies and other writing and, lo and behold, this happens a lot.  From Errol Flynn fighting the Sheriff of Nottingham on a staircase all the way up to a ridiculously outnumbered guy fighting with only a hammer in Oldboy, it generally improves a fight scene. 

So, rule two of writing fighting; Add something else to the fight to make it abnormal.

I'm sure there are plenty of other things that can jazz up a fight scene, but these two should be sufficient to, at very least, keep your reader from nodding off or skipping past your fight scenes.  I leave you with the best fight scene ever made.  In this example it follows rule #1 by being the climax of the story and follows rule #2 by being absolutely freaking ridiculous, over the top, cheesy.

Happy fighting!