"He stood at the edge of the field, watching as his comrades ran past him in strategic lines, all holding their weapon in arms."
Typically when introducing an unnamed character, it provides a less-jarring entrance to vary from constant pronouns. "A man stood at the edge of the field,[...]." Also, that phrasing opens the door for some 'show' description.
"A man stood at the edge of the field, armor-clad visage gleaming in the sunlight." or something similar.
Also, you omitted a word: "[...]holding their weapon in -their- arm."
"He closed his eyes, listening to the sounds of arrows whistling through the air, a never ceasing hail that rained a constant flow of iron at his men."
This is a great sentence. Good complexity in phrasing, and the visual generated is very description.
"These people weren’t their enemy, their enemy was on the home front, sitting on their thrones… safe."
This is a great expression of political tension. I know that parallels a lot of modern feelings too; it's timeless. However, you need to proofread, proofread, proofread. The comma after 'enemy' needs to be a semicolon; you have two independent clauses that need a conjunctive agent between them.
"Men at each others throats in hand to hand combat."
Again, make sure you closely watch for punctuation mistakes; they can be tricky to catch. 'others' needs an apostrophe after the s. Also, given the fragmental nature of that sentence, I think that it would provide some powerful repetition for effect to make the next sentence a fragment too.
"Men at each others' throats. Men falling from long range shots being fired."
Fragments are almost a method of performing a mental montage. If you link them together, your mind gets a quick snapshot of the action described, rather than ongoing activity like complete sentences provide.
"Their blood pouring from wounds that should have never been caused."
However, some fragments aren't literarily feasible. This one, for instance.
17-Apr-2010 20:57:47
- Last edited on
17-Apr-2010 21:18:52
by
A White Wolf