Q&A: Followup: Followup: What am I Doing Here Again?

I think you answered the wrong ask with the long rule of cool answer? The question was if flaming arrow or fire weapon were ever actually used?

That question was a followup to another question answered about a day earlier, which was a followup to yet another question about flaming weapons. It was essentially asking why flaming weapons get used in Hollywood so much if the ones shown aren’t historically accurate.

We get a lot of questions about setting weapons on fire, and my point was that the movies and media you consume aren’t about accuracy. You shouldn’t look to them for truth, not even most of the “historical” ones because their needs are different. Rather they’re a place to start your search into history, which is vast. Fire and explosions have both been part of historical military campaigns but not in the way Hollywood will show you. Not the way that gets propagated throughout various fandoms, and not the way we see it represented on screen.

When you’re imagining fire arrows, you’re not thinking of early grenade like explosives in fields mined with gunpowder or Genghis Khan demanding all the dog and birds from a city he intended to conquer and then setting them on fire before releasing them. They’re not imagining flaming oil poured down from the battlements or catapults lobbing whatever it was they set on fire into a town. When they’re asking about fire arrows, they’re asking about the fire arrows seen in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (as Robin Hood: Men in Tights succinctly put it, “every time they do one these movies, they burn down the village!”) Or the flaming sword from The Scorpion King.

Fire has its place in mass battles and riots when it comes to burning shit down.

A quick internet search will find you all kinds of traditional uses for fire as a military weapon, the problem is that they’re not the ones most of those who come into our askbox are looking for. They’re not looking for artillery, they’re looking for a way to make what they saw in a movie realistic because they’ve been told realism is paramount to writing good fiction.

When you’re looking at whatever media you’re consuming, you should pretty much always assume Rule of Cool unless otherwise stated.

I wrote the post because that is what needs to be said. As a writer, it is important to be honest with yourself when you sit down to write whatever you intend to write. If Rule of Cool is what you’re looking for (which is what the vast majority of people who write fight scenes want) then just take a breath and accept it. You’ll be happier, you’ll understand your needs better and know what to focus on. There’s been an obsession lately about “realism” in battle sequences that aren’t particularly realistic but somehow makes them more legitimate than ones that aren’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *