Verbal Fight Scenes

[Boy In Doubt]

No matter what type of story you're writing, be it a high school drama or a murder mystery, there will almost always be two or more characters disagreeing with each other. It's inevitable because to have an interesting story you need conflict and most of the time conflict (between two characters) can lead to something akin to a fight.

 

And by that I don't mean two mortal enemies engaged in hand-to-hand combat or witches hurling fireballs at each other. Don't get me wrong, those are just as much fun to write and read about but for this thread I'd like to narrow it down to verbal fights scenes.

 

I'm currently working on them in my latest story and I like to pay as much attention to the details, the mood, as I would when writing lighter scenes. What I hope to improve is the way I build up the tension and increase the intensity of the emotions to express just how--in lack of a better term--pissed off the characters are at each other. I've read somewhere that it's effective to have characters speak in short sentences when upset and longer when deep in thought. And sometimes dialogue alone isn't enough. Actions help the reader sense what the character is feeling as opposed to what the character says they're feeling.

 

So what are your techniques? How do you approach verbal combat? And lastly, do you enjoy writing about characters who lash at each other with words?

[Cynical Romantic]

I think it depends on an author's individual style. For me, if the story is narrated in third person, I find an effective technique is to give the reader glimpses into the characters' inner thought processes while the fight is going on. So you hear not only the things they speak out loud, but their reactions and the things they leave unsaid.

 

For example, contrast this:

 

"I hate you!" Ben shouted.

"I hate you, too!" Alex shouted back, slamming the door behind him as he left.

 

With this:

 

"I hate you!" Ben shouted. Shit. Hadn't meant to say that. Too far. But impossible to take back, even if he wanted to. Too much anger in the room.

 

"I hate you, too!" Alex shouted back. Yes, hatred. Easier to deal with hatred than with the guilt. Easier to just run out and slam the door than to face what he'd done.

 

See the difference?

 

I also find it's effective when you have enough character development and depth so that the things that they are shouting at one another actually cut deep. There's not a lot of emotional investment on the reader's part in reading lines like "I hate you" / "I hate you back", unless you know enough about these characters and their relationship for that to take on a context.

 

Think about it: In a real fight, if you're looking to goad the person you're fighting with and really get a reaction out of them, you're going to use everything you know about that person to say the thing you can think of that hurts the most. Well, ditto with fiction. If you have a teenager fighting with his mom, and he really wants to hurt her, maybe "I hate you!" isn't as effective as "It's your fault that Dad left!". It's all about characterization and context. The trick is to get the reader to actually feel the verbal bullets as they hit, and feel the pain that they cause.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Cynical Romantic

[rec]

One masterly example of verbal fighting is in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe, which is on film with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and on paper as the play script. If you want to see the craft of verbal sparring, check it out.

[Benji]

One masterly example of verbal fighting is in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe, which is on film with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and on paper as the play script. If you want to see the craft of verbal sparring, check it out.

 

...........'sigh' ......... only you and I remember this??

[Graeme]

Sometimes a fight scene seems stilted, because when put into words these things often sound silly or trite. When this occurs, I'll sometimes start the scene, and then leave it to the reader's imagination to fill in what happened next, picking up the story again during the aftermath.

[kitten]

For example, contrast this:

 

"I hate you!" Ben shouted.

"I hate you, too!" Alex shouted back, slamming the door behind him as he left.

 

With this:

 

"I hate you!" Ben shouted. Shit. Hadn't meant to say that. Too far. But impossible to take back, even if he wanted to. Too much anger in the room.

 

"I hate you, too!" Alex shouted back. Yes, hatred. Easier to deal with hatred than with the guilt. Easier to just run out and slam the door than to face what he'd done.

 

Actually, I much prefer the former version. This is mainly because the latter version seems stilted and not the natural way people think/feel in a real fight.

 

In a real fight people are too angry to analyse what they've just said ("Shit. Hadn't meant to say that. Too far. But impossible to take back, even if he wanted to. Too much anger in the room."). That's the sort of thing one thinks AFTER leaving the room. Real fights are emotional and such cognition in the passage takes away from the emotion.

 

Also, I think it is stilted because even if this individual really is capable of such rationalising in the middle of a fight, it breaks up the flow of what in reall life would be a rapid exchange of words.

 

Finally, I think that latter version is being too explicit in spelling out to the reader exactly what the characters are feeling during a fight. It's almost patronising to the reader.

 

Just my opinion!

 

Kit

[rec]

...........'sigh' ......... only you and I remember this??

 

 

Actually, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival had a magnificent stage production a couple of years ago. The play was much less dark--as in dark humor-- than the movie.

[PlugInMatty]

Personally, I do away with the 'he said, she said' stuff and use constant, uninterrupted dialogue to capture the back-and-forth-back-and-forth nature of an argument.

 

For example:

 

[Dolores Esteban]

Quite obviously, the second example is a lot more effective. The occasional reader might have trouble keeping track, but as long as your argument is between two people, it should be easy to keep track of who's talking and when. If not, just occasionally used a 'he/she said' pr have one character address the other by name.

 

 

 

I agree. The second example is far more effective. I will keep this in mind.

[Libby Drew]

Quite obviously, the second example is a lot more effective. The occasional reader might have trouble keeping track, but as long as your argument is between two people, it should be easy to keep track of who's talking and when. If not, just occasionally used a 'he/she said' pr have one character address the other by name.

 

Agreed. Especially when the tension in the scene revolves around what's being said, the less interruption the better. To a point. As you say, the occasional dialog tag helps the reader stay on track and can actually help diffuse a bit of tension if it's rising too quickly.

[Boy In Doubt]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

 

I'll definitely take all this into account when writing my next fight scene. And yes, I agree that the main focus should be on what's being said by the characters otherwise the whole thing would seem forced and less effective.

[David McLeod]

Actually, I much prefer the former version. This is mainly because the latter version seems stilted and not the natural way people think/feel in a real fight.

 

In a real fight people are too angry to analyse what they've just said ("Shit. Hadn't meant to say that. Too far. But impossible to take back, even if he wanted to. Too much anger in the room."). That's the sort of thing one thinks AFTER leaving the room. Real fights are emotional and such cognition in the passage takes away from the emotion.

 

Also, I think it is stilted because even if this individual really is capable of such rationalising in the middle of a fight, it breaks up the flow of what in reall life would be a rapid exchange of words.

 

Finally, I think that latter version is being too explicit in spelling out to the reader exactly what the characters are feeling during a fight. It's almost patronising to the reader.

 

Just my opinion!

 

Kit

 

 

Stilted, perhaps; still, a good first draft. Myriad emotions may pass through a character

[kitten]

Stilted, perhaps; still, a good first draft. Myriad emotions may pass through a character's mind in an instant. How would one write them?

 

"I hate you!" Ben said. A chill washed over his of anger. I didn't mean to say that, he thought. I went too far. I can't take it back, though.

 

"I hate you, too!" Alex said. Yes, I hate him. If I hate him, I won't be guilty. Alex found little comfort in that thought.

No doubt lots of emotions wash over a person in an argument, but 'myriad' might be an exaggeration!

 

It is unlikely, however, that lots of thoughts would go through his head. So "A chill washed over his anger" might not be so intrusive in the flow, but "I didn't mean to say that, he though. I went too far. I can't take it back, though" would ruin the flow for me if I were reading that as part of a story .

 

Hating someone to avoid feeling guilty might very well be an emotional driving force in an argument, it might be a subconcious motivation, but would anyone actually consciously think "If I hate him, I won't be guilty" during the course of the fight? I really doubt it!

Thus (within reason!) describing emotion can work, but (IMO) interspersed cogitations don't. Thus it is MUCH better to write:

"I hate you!" he said, immediately regretting it.

than it is to write:

"I hate you!" he said. I didn't mean to say that, he thought.

 

Generally, I think it's safe to assume that readers know, and indeed have experienced, the emotions that wash over one in a verbal fight. Therefore, they don't need massive amounts of detailed description and the emotions you want to highlight can be conveyed with just a few key words like 'immediately regretting it' .

 

Kit

 

[Cynical Romantic]

To be honest, I think this is a debate about style, as opposed to a debate about substance. Short, staccato dialogue and fast-paced back and forth work well for some authors and writing styles. More inner monologue works well for others. It's an "it depends" kind of thing, and I think everyone has different preferences in terms of what they write and what they read. If it's well done, either way can work, and if it's poorly done, neither will work.

[rec]

This may not be entirely on topic, but one story I have on my Best of Nifty list is Educating Alex by Ardveche. One reason for its excellence is the quality of its dialogue, which is worth studying, even though it does not strictly reflect verbal fight seens.

[DomLuka]

"silent" emotions are good in both first and third stories. body language builds tension. unreasonable actions-- walking out, slamming a door and then coming back for more. Throw in a period where it doesn't belong: "Don't. Touch. Me." And love the drama. Every time you're out and about and end up fighting with someone in real life think about it later, and write down that line you wish you would have said.

[Former Member]

Verbal fight scenes hmmm usually when people start fighting in the stories i write i kill the one who started the fight just for the hell of it.

 

I wrote this really awesome fight scene once and sadly i lost it when my computer went stupid on me. But i remember alot of it that i could rewrite it 1 day. I have this character now i've been working with we will call him "X" and he's been fighting alot with his boyfriend "Q" and X came home the 1 day and found Q in bed with a girl. Well the fight scenes... Oh they go all over the house that they both share. I've had them fighting in the kitching,(lots of broken dishes i might add) in the bedroom, Its in first person. X is the funniest person to fight with he'll get so mad and start to cry (though he cry's ALOT) Q will be like "Oh great i made you cry agian" and feel guilty then try and make him cry more. Use lots of gestures "he stared at me with cold eyes",and postures like "he shrugged his shoulders" don't be afraid to say things that you know the characters might regret saying later its a fight people dont think before they talk. Break things, make their voices louder. (Cap Lock Key works wonders for that) Just make sure that the fight can be resolved later(even if its not a happy resolvement and that both characters had to part ways) or actually has something to do with the story. And if all else fails add some slaps and kicks. "you jerk" she yelled at me as she slapped me in the face

[jovian_w2002]

You need to have sub-text in your verbal fights/ conflict.

 

Consider the following dialogues:

 

"Could you pass the salt and pepper please?" Marcy asks.

"I... hate... you." Lance folds his arm at the dinner table.

----

"Could you pass the salt and pepper please?" Marcy asks, without lifting her head.

No reply.

"I said, could you pass me the -"

A muffled, sudden crash beside her catches her off guard. She gazes at the floor and notices that the smashed salt-and-pepper shakers have powered her newly purchased mat.

"There, I just passed it."

 

*Action speaks louder than words

 

-----

Personally, I think long description of physical violence does not portray conflicts well, with exceptions from Homer's Iliad and some other novels. Sure they create suspense, but physical conflict is usually full-blown and it tires out the reader. Unless it's done for comic effect, that's a different case. For dramatic novels, on the other hand, it would be better to diminish, but not eliminate (as a few fight scenes can prove useful) physical conflicts. I believe ambiguity is essential in verbal conflicts as it fuels the reader to explore more about the characters.

 

I enjoy novels that demonstrate conflicts in personal growth or relationship. While drafting your story, it's all right to forgo subtext. During revision, it's best to figure out what subtexts your characters are providing and adjust your writing to fit that accordingly.

[Dio]

The question in this thread is not only genre-specific but situation dependent.

 

That said, these are a few ideas I keep in mind when I'm writing a verbal fight scene:

• Short dialogue doesn't need he said - she saids. But sometimes making sure readers know who's speaking is necessary.
  
• 'Character is plot.' Thank you Henry James. Character is also conflict. Conflict should be kept in character. Sound simple? It isn't. Keep it in mind. First person writers have the most trouble with this concept...
  
• Character thoughts to a minimum (unless you have a character making some sort of significant plot-relevant internal monologue discovery revealed over the course of the argument). I cringe whenever I see what might might have once been a clever exchange broken-up by overwriting. Often a sign you're trying to hard. Sometimes less is more!
  
• Often what isn't said is a heck of a lot more important than what is said. That's the whole basis for the greatest verbal conflict, after all: the so-called 'misunderstanding'. Or sometimes we argue about small irrelevant things and ignore the source of the conflict entirely.
  
• Characters...'do stuff' when they argue. It sounds a bit ridiculous to point this out, but most people get lazy and end up with two talking heads, or a bunch of interrupted dialogue with lots of thoughts and crummy continuity. 'A picture is worth a thousand words' can apply to writing just as much as art.
  

Er...that's my five minutes of thought on the matter.

 

To be honest, I think this is a debate about style, as opposed to a debate about substance.

 

This is a bit of an aside: Is style really that separate from substance? How an argument is conducted impacts its purpose--even content. What you include is equally as important as how it is included. I think they're both intertwined. Unless you're talking pure mechanics, I guess.

 

xoxo

~sands

[David McLeod]

No doubt lots of emotions wash over a person in an argument, but 'myriad' might be an exaggeration!

 

It is unlikely, however, that lots of thoughts would go through his head. So "A chill washed over his anger" might not be so intrusive in the flow, but "I didn't mean to say that, he though. I went too far. I can't take it back, though" would ruin the flow for me if I were reading that as part of a story .

 

Hating someone to avoid feeling guilty might very well be an emotional driving force in an argument, it might be a subconcious motivation, but would anyone actually consciously think "If I hate him, I won't be guilty" during the course of the fight? I really doubt it!

Thus (within reason!) describing emotion can work, but (IMO) interspersed cogitations don't. Thus it is MUCH better to write:

"I hate you!" he said, immediately regretting it.

than it is to write:

"I hate you!" he said. I didn't mean to say that, he thought.

 

Generally, I think it's safe to assume that readers know, and indeed have experienced, the emotions that wash over one in a verbal fight. Therefore, they don't need massive amounts of detailed description and the emotions you want to highlight can be conveyed with just a few key words like 'immediately regretting it' .

 

Kit

 

 

 

Myriad...a bit of hyperbole which detracted from what I wanted to say. (How often does that happen?)

 

You are correct; it is unlikely that one would be conscious of "if I hate him I won't feel guilty." How might a writer express that unconscious motivation? Interior monologue after the scene? Before the scene? Elsewhere I've admitted one of my problems, that of making characters too one-dimensional by making all emotions overbearing. I'm exploring options, including interior monologue. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

David

[David McLeod]

For those who are still interested in this topic, I recommend reading Chapter 3 of

 

Unbecoming Darrell Matthews

 

in the eFiction section. The scene and dialogue in the latter part of that chapter are really quite excellent.