![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm currently reading Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. I picked it up at Leeds station, simply because I wasn't in the mood to browse over books and I'd vaguely remembered a friend recommending it to me. I've not got any real comments about the story itself - it's a typically US-biased (with the odd nod or two to NATO allies) [Not So] Cold War novel, and occupies my time on the Tube every day.
What I want to comment on is the way the battles are handled, the writing style that constantly flips from one side to another as the battle unfolds, and describes every maneouvre and every shot from an individual unit's point of view (I am however a little upset that Mr. Clancy assumes that I know - which I don't - the relative sizes of various military forces - squads, platoons, divisions, regiments, batallions, brigades, and so on; it really does make it difficult to envisage the size of forces engaged).
I like the style, I like the nitty-gritty, the way you get right under the skin of each battle. It's a pointer to the way I'd like to go with how I write battle scenes, and has given me a bit of an idea about how to make my current big project more interesting, by allowing me to add a whole new thread to it; a thread that will also cast a little doubt on the actions of the supposed heroes of the piece, and make you wonder if, by running, even in the face of overwhelming, ultimately insurmountable odds, that they're still not quite the heroes that they should be. That they should be on the front lines, making that last stand for the species, not squirrelling away in some backwater, hiding, making plans to strike back at an enemy that, frankly, they shouldn't have a hope in hell of defeating (heck, I've not even got as far as working out how they're going to manage that).
Food for thought, eh?
What I want to comment on is the way the battles are handled, the writing style that constantly flips from one side to another as the battle unfolds, and describes every maneouvre and every shot from an individual unit's point of view (I am however a little upset that Mr. Clancy assumes that I know - which I don't - the relative sizes of various military forces - squads, platoons, divisions, regiments, batallions, brigades, and so on; it really does make it difficult to envisage the size of forces engaged).
I like the style, I like the nitty-gritty, the way you get right under the skin of each battle. It's a pointer to the way I'd like to go with how I write battle scenes, and has given me a bit of an idea about how to make my current big project more interesting, by allowing me to add a whole new thread to it; a thread that will also cast a little doubt on the actions of the supposed heroes of the piece, and make you wonder if, by running, even in the face of overwhelming, ultimately insurmountable odds, that they're still not quite the heroes that they should be. That they should be on the front lines, making that last stand for the species, not squirrelling away in some backwater, hiding, making plans to strike back at an enemy that, frankly, they shouldn't have a hope in hell of defeating (heck, I've not even got as far as working out how they're going to manage that).
Food for thought, eh?
