Showing posts with label army. Show all posts
Showing posts with label army. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Fighting and writing workshop, day 5 and 6: military fight scenes

This is the online workshop in writing fight scenes that I did for the Catholic Writer's Conference.  Karina Fabian had managed to draft me ... or I volunteered, I'm not entirely certain.  Either way, it was an interesting little experience.

Since most of you folks have been with me for a while, I'm going to give it to you.

Don't worry, I wasn't paid for this, so giving this away for free will hurt no one. And, few to no people wanted to show up and play with my workshop, even though there were over 25 viewers for each post.  But, I've been told few people showed up anyway for the forums, something to do with schedule confusion.

So, here is day five and six.... Day five was merely an assignment. Day six was more interesting.


 Day Five: Putting It Together

 
At this point, you should have an idea of what you're doing. Take assignments three and
four, and put them together. Whether you start from a weapon and go to hand-to-hand, or vice versa, is up to you. This is the assignment.

Like with most writing, practice makes perfect. So don't be discouraged if you're not writing full-scale battle choreography by now.

 
Day Six: Writing For Military Fights

 
Writing a military fight scene is no different from any other, when you get down to it. Do some research on terms, maneuvers, etc., but don't overstress that part. It's mostly just a matter of vocabulary.

But, seriously, there's little difference from warfare fighting.

Character: In describing filming for Lord of the Rings, and the Battle of Helm's Deep, director Peter Jackson discovered a basic law of fight scenes – Jackson had hours upon hours of stuntmen beating
each other to a pulp, but the battle was boring when the camera was not on the primary characters.

The important thing you need to know is, no matter what, you need to focus on the individuals involved. The more modern your setting, the more things are done by groups of individuals, squads and fire teams, and not massive lines of fire, one against another.

However, no matter how many people you have fighting whatever enemy, you need to have individuals the audience can focus on and care about. Writing about a line of tanks is boring. Writing about someone the audience has met, and is invested in, is much, much better.

For great examples of this, read the Richard Sharpe series by Bernard Cornwell – he has, on average, about six players in any battle that he focuses on, as well as a massive, historical battle taking place.
 
Setting: If you want to focus on a full-scale battle, in whatever age and setting, one thing you'll
want to focus on is the field of battle. You're going to want to focus on the sounds, and the sights, perhaps even the smells. You want to recreate it as though the battlefield is a character. A loud, monstrous, messy, rampaging character, with lots of property damage.

The best I've ever seen of this type of recreation is John Keegan's The Face of Battle, where he recreated the battlefields of Agincourt, Waterloo, and Verdun.
 
Hand-to-hand combat and weapons:
Depending on the scenario, military battles do not start with close combat, unless it's a type of covert infiltration, where getting in close and killing people silently is important. And, let's face it, the use of weapons will vary wildly depending on what time period and setting you're using. For the most part, it boils down to individuals.

Fighting and writing workshop, day 5 and 6: military fight scenes




This is the online workshop in writing fight scenes that I did for the Catholic Writer's Conference.  Karina Fabian had managed to draft me ... or I volunteered, I'm not entirely certain.  Either way, it was an interesting little experience.



Since most of you folks have been with me for a while, I'm going to give it to you.



Don't worry, I wasn't paid for this, so giving this away for free will hurt no one. And, few to no people wanted to show up and play with my workshop, even though there were over 25 viewers for each post.  But, I've been told few people showed up anyway for the forums, something to do with schedule confusion.



So, here is day five and six.... Day five was merely an assignment. Day six was more interesting.






 Day Five: Putting It Together





At this point, you
should have an idea of what you're doing. Take assignments three and
four, and put them together. Whether you start from a weapon and go
to hand-to-hand, or vice versa, is up to you. This is the
assignment.





Like with most
writing, practice makes perfect. So don't be discouraged if you're
not writing full-scale battle choreography by now.





Day Six: Writing For Military Fights





Writing a military
fight scene is no different from any other, when you get down to it.
Do some research on terms, maneuvers, etc., but don't overstress that
part. It's mostly just a matter of vocabulary.





But, seriously, there's little
difference from warfare fighting.





Character: In
describing filming for Lord
of the Rings
, and the
Battle of Helm's Deep, director Peter Jackson discovered a basic law
of fight scenes – Jackson had hours upon hours of stuntmen beating
each other to a pulp, but the battle was boring when the camera was
not on the primary characters.





The
important thing you need to know is, no matter what, you need to
focus on the individuals involved. The more modern your setting, the
more things are done by groups
of individuals, squads and fire teams, and not massive lines of fire,
one against another.





However, no matter how many people you
have fighting whatever enemy, you need to have individuals the
audience can focus on and care about. Writing about a line of tanks
is boring. Writing about someone the audience has met, and is
invested in, is much, much better.





For great examples
of this, read the Richard Sharpe series by Bernard Cornwell – he
has, on average, about six players in any battle that he focuses on,
as well as a massive, historical battle taking place.





Setting: If you want to focus on
a full-scale battle, in whatever age and setting, one thing you'll
want to focus on is the field of battle. You're going to want to
focus on the sounds, and the sights, perhaps even the smells. You
want to recreate it as though the battlefield is a character. A
loud, monstrous, messy, rampaging character, with lots of property
damage.





The best I've ever seen of this type of
recreation is John Keegan's The Face of Battle, where he
recreated the battlefields of Agincourt, Waterloo, and Verdun.





Hand-to-hand
combat and weapons
:
Depending on the scenario, military battles do not start with close
combat, unless it's a type of covert infiltration, where getting in
close and killing people silently is important. And, let's face it,
the use of weapons will vary wildly depending on what time period and
setting you're using. For the most part, it boils down to
individuals.





Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Muslims Can't Be Good Americans ..... Huh?

A long while ago, I discussed one Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. He was, at the very least, one of the candidates most likely to be kicked out of the US Army, having given a June 2007 PowerPoint presentation that discussed “adverse events” that would occur if the Army did not accept the precepts of Islamic Shariah law and grant Muslims serving in the Army conscientious objector status.

I'm sure Maj. Hasan would be quite, quite happy to learn that the US Army has now taken his advise.

Enter Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, a member of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. He refused to deploy to Afghanistan, claiming that Sharia law prevented him from killing other Muslims.....

Ahem ....

Let's start with the fact that Sharia is the sort of thing used in Sudan to justify hacking off limbs for theft, stoning for adultery, and crucifying members of other religions.  This is the sort of thing that makes you arch an eyebrow and wonder "What the....?"  

All in all, this is a generally Bad Idea.

Not to mention that it is pure and utter garbage.[More below the break]

Monday, December 13, 2010

Mr Phelps, You Are Disavowed…

[This blog is rated PG, for mild intemperate language.]

I do not feel the need to disavow every single stupid thing a Christian group has ever done. For one thing, I'm Catholic, so most Christian sects, denominations, etc, have already disavowed me. So when other folks in other Christian groups do something stupid, I generally don't care.

Like, for example, when a creationist museum that has what appears to be a Garden of Eden setting … with a Velociraptor off to the side.

Thankfully, I can usually say, “Yeah, that's stupid,” and move on. Because it is stupid: even ignoring that human beings and dinosaurs were separated by about a few BILLION years of development, you'd think that the museum designer would have picked a dinosaur that was more friendly in appearance, and what wasn't the primary adversary of one of the top grossing films of all time.

So, with idiocies like that, I don't care. It's not my church, not my problem.

And then there's Fred Phelps.... who may or may not have appeared in one of our stories.

Mr. Phelps, who bears no relationship to Jim Phelps of the Mission: Impossible TV series, is not unknown to constant readers of this blog, or fellow writer/blogger Rebekah of Masks. He is a failed Kansas Democratic Party nominee. He is a failed lawyer (disbarred in 1977).  He is 81 years old, and has been banned from enterting the United Kingdom, and sent a letter to Saddam Hussein, praising him for his religious tolerance.  And he is an all around failed human being.

Most recently, Phelps runs a marginal little Baptist church in the back end of Westboro, Kansas. They run websites called “God Hates the World,” and even “God hates Sweden.”

Obviously, this guy has too much time on his hands if he could work himself into a lather about Sweden.

Phelps and company host a lot of protests. His most recent protest was at … the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards.

Constant readers know that I am no fan of politics, politicians, or even people connected with them. I have no particular affection or disdain for the late Mrs. John Edwards. When her husband had illicit offspring, she attacked anyone and everyone who discussed it, even though it was later revealed she knew all about it, even as she called everyone else a liar. While this does not put her into my nominee for sainthood, the woman's dead, get over it.

However, reasons for Mr. Phelps protesting her funeral are … odd. Part of his stated reasons for the protest include: “Elizabeth Edwards & her faithless husband, John, lightly esteemed what they had. They coveted things that were not theirs – and presumptuously thought they could control God.”

Um, what? I can tell more lawyer jokes that start with “John Edwards” than I know what to do with, but, seriously?  What drugs are you on, sir?

While I would usually just paint Mr. Phelps with the stupid brush, and say “this is not the Christian you're looking for, move along,” I have had an atheist friend of mine use Phelps as an example of why all religion is for weak-minded fools bewitched by old religious mind tricks (Yes, I put more than one Star Wars reference into an overwritten sentence. I'm a nerd).  So, Mr. Phelps has earned some special attention.   And it's not the first time on this blog (see Item 9)

Why does he deserve it? Because Mr. Phelps is not a Christian. He actually belongs to no organized religion that I have ever heard of. After all, he wants to spread “God's hate.” While God is somewhat cranky in the Torah, it's mostly a matter of “Screw With My People, I Will End You.” Hate is never stressed as a key component of any modern faith I know of; the others were wiped out centuries ago.

However, Mr. Phelps does remind me of something else. Looking over his history, he does nothing but organize protests. Protests at military funerals, random high schools, celebrity deaths, the San Francisco office of Twitter … the list goes on. And on. His band of bozos spend their time proclaiming that God hates gays. And that God Hates Jews. And God Hates Catholics. And God Hates the military. And God Hates…

Well, “God hates” everyone who isn't Mr. Phelps and his little band of twits.

“God” even “hates” comic book readers. Phelps and his band of fruit loops protested San Diego's Comic Con because “comic books encourage idolatry.” 


Riiiiiight.

I suspect that if there's a headline media story, Phelps will chase it, and park his people in front of it, lodging a protest, because God suddenly “hates” everyone involved. But only after it becomes front page news.  

Obviously, if you take any attention away from Mr. Phelps, God hates you.

When you consider that a Christian is defined as someone who follows the principles of Jesus Christ, Mr. Phelps is not a Christian. At no point did Christ mention anything about “God hates [this large body of people].” In fact, He generally preferred using examples of social outcasts who acted as better models of proper behavior than the high priests. There's a good reason why the Catholic Church has never declared that any individual person has gone to Hell—the Vatican condemns certain behaviors, not certain people.  It has never tried to take on the moral authority assumed by Dante.

So, let's see. Mr. Phelps has a small, insular body of people who clearly demonstrate an attitude that it is “us” versus “them.” In this case, “them” is “the world.” Also, Phelps is using the Gospel according to …. Phelps. Not to mention that Phelps is very interested in having the cameras on him at all times. It seems that the most dangerous place in America to be is between Freddy Phelps a microphone.

A narcissist with delusions of godhood … there's a term for that, isn't there?  Let me think about that a moment. Wait, it's coming to me … it's coming to me … Yes, I have it.

I think the term I want is “cult leader.”

Yes, “cult leader” and “attention-seeking media whore” sum him up rather neatly, I think.

And while there should be prayers (from actual people of faith) that Mr. Phelps become something other than what he is – maybe an atheist like Daniel Dennett -- I doubt it will happen. In fact, I await the day that Mr. Phelps and company break out a shipment of Kool-Aid, and give the rest of us some well-deserved peace and quiet.

On the other hand, Mr. Phelps is good for something. He has been put on the hit list of the Anti-Defamation League, gay rights groups, and Ann Coulter  …  I bet you'd never see those three all on the same side, did you?

Monday, October 18, 2010

Terrorists Are Stupid, Ft. Hood edition.



Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, also known as the Fort Hood shooter, faced testimony from his victims last week.



On November 5th, Maj. Hasan went through Ft. Hood with a handgun, equipped with a laser sight, and went on a shooting spree.



Not too long ago, I mentioned that Terrorists Are Stupid. I even reposted it as a note on Facebook.



The more I learn about Maj. Hasan, the more evidence I have.



For those of you who are not familiar with the technology, a laser sight is supposed to show you where the bullet is going to land. A commercial laser pointer will guide you to bullet points on your PowerPoint presentation. A laser gunsight will guide your bullet to the point on the target you want to shoot.



Part of his rampage included going through a processing center on the base. If it's laid out like other offices, I can only imagine it as shooting fish in a barrel. His path also took him through a soldier-readiness center (go there, get a checkup and sign your will before heading to a war zone). The Military Police had no bullets in their weapons, making one conclude that their rifles are only for clubbing people over the head (note to army: I hope someone has rescinded whatever stupid order armed your MPs with empty guns).



One of Hasan's first attempted victims was a Sergeant Alonzo M. Lunsford. Sgt. Lunsford was in the readiness center when Hasan stood, shouted “Allahu akbar,” and opened fire.



Sgt. Lunsford was shot five times, at least once in the face, requiring reconstructive surgery and has resulted in the loss of eyesight in his left eye. At least one of Hasan's bullets obviously hit him in the head.



Sgt. Lunsford is alive, at least in part, because Hasan is obviously an idiot.



Major Hasan “Chop,” terrorist idiot, killed thirteen people, and shot thirty-two others.



It is most likely my mindset for creative havoc that leads me to think: Only thirteen? Hasan “Chop” had the shooting equivalent of training wheels on his handgun, shot up a bunch of soldiers in the midst of paperwork, and he had no armed resistance, AT ALL, until the local police arrived. He could only kill a baker's dozen?



Pretend that you are a terrorist … if it makes you feel better, pretend I am a terrorist … you now have the ability to hit what you aim at. Your mission is to kill as many people as possible. You have surprise on your side. One victim you shoot in the head, emptying five bullets into him; would he have survived the first bullet?



From the point of view of a terrorist attack, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had “the right idea.” If a terrorist is doing it right, they should spread, well, terror. If al-Qaeda wanted to wage a campaign, they would have recruited a dozen other Major Hasans, and have a day of shootings.



I am not worried about inspiring al-Qaeda, by the way. If this idea can be thought up a guy in the back end of Queens, NY, who has never even seen a gun up close, I suspect that someone in the AQ hierarchy just MIGHT have thought of it by now.



However, let's take a closer look. Because, even if al Qaeda decided to wage such a campaign, it would be proof that terrorists were ineffectual bunglers, who only manage to kill people if they get lucky.



Maj. Hasan shot forty-five people, and killed thirteen. He couldn't even assassinate one-third of the people he shot at.



He fired over one HUNDRED rounds of ammunition and only HIT forty-five people?



Let's do some basic math.



13 (Killed) + 32 (Wounded) = 45 (Shot).



13 (Killed) / 45 (Shot) = 28.8% (Of victims died.)



Hasan had all of the advantages on his side, and had a rather pathetic “success rate.” If success for a terrorist is mass casualties and widespread panic, Hasan is a complete and utter failure.



A twenty-three-year-old college student with a history of mental illness did a “better job” at Virginia Tech, and he was an utter nutbar: 58 shot; 33 dead; 25 injured. That caused fear and trembling all over the place, and was a cause of conversation for weeks, at least on college campuses.



When I applied to be an Air Force historian, I was told that I would have weapons training, even though I would be a civilian employee. One can assume that someone doesn't get to being a Major in the U.S. Military without something like basic weapon's training, no matter the position.



And yet this wannabe terrorist couldn't even outperform a schizophrenic college student at Virginia Tech.



Hasan's rampage was an attack waged by an idiot, full of sound and gunfire. He had all the advantages one could have, and still managed a paltry outcome.



However, for all that, thirteen people still died.



Which leads to the same conclusion I had at the end of my last “Terrorists Are Stupid” article.



Even idiots can get lucky.