Why action is not well accepted in books? Literature is really not fitted for action?

Why action is not well accepted in books? Literature is really not fitted for action?

The only book series i know that have a relevant amount of action is Percy Jackson, but it's really simplistic and even a little dumb sometimes.

action is for children

Lots of pulp is fast paced and filled with action. You'll get more action out of comics, movies and video games though.

It’s kind of dumb especially compared to its influence, but the stormlight archives actually has really good fights gravity manipulation, soul cutting blades, and unbreakable armor

Shadow of Innsmouth

Sanderson is just really good at making cool magic systems that lend themselves to good fights in general.

Plus his writing is so straight and to the point that you can actually follow them for a change.

Neal Stephenson always throws in at least one outrageous, intricate action sequence that reads like it was meant to be adapted for film one day. I like them.

Read any Edgar Rice Burroughs book and come back to me

Proper action must be fast paced and well choreographed. This poses problems for authors since going on for pages about what each character's movement looks like is boring, but being too brief leaves readers confused about what is happening. Good action literature usually involve gunfights where actions are simple, or focus more on the pressure and emotions rather than the action itself.

Written works often include action sequences, many of them compelling and technically well executed. Possibly comic books, movies, and other visual media have somewhat supplanted the written word in this respect, but it's still out there.

As far as more recent works, modern literary types are women and pussy-ass soybitches (e.g. ) so they don't do "action" or violence in general except, occasionally, as lurid moralization.

I thought there were some pretty good suspenseful action scenes in blood meridian
-people getting trampled to death inside a tent that's collapsed
-random hobo boy stabs a bartender in the eye with a bottle in a fight
-lots of slaughtering looting raping pillaging etc.

>sun shines
>shoot arab

Action doesn't really convey the same sort of energy it would on paper compared to film etc. Violence and war is certainly found in many novels, but individual action I think is harder to do. Because it wouldn't take long to describe, either someone is shot, or snuffed out in a way that lasts one or two sentences.

I remember seeing somewhere wherein an author described killing characters as an easy way out of issue, unless it's called for (disease, war etc)

It's boring in movies and even more boring in lit, it says nothing and you can just fast forward to whoever wins.

...

The Witcher series, while not an outstanding series itself, contains some of the better action scenes I've read. They're simple to interpret and simultaneously vivid.

>action not relevant in books
>the Iliad exists

t. has never fully enjoyed a piece of classical music in his life

Are James Bond stuff as action packed as the movies?

this

the Iliad was recited for people like OP

Conan has amazing action sequences.

because Fagle's Iliad is the standard, and its impossible to hold up to

I hate to shill Sanderson again, but when I would read the action scenes in Storm Light Archives he would even stop at some sections to explain an opponents reasoning or go into the psychology of an action but it would feel like those sections took only a blip of time and the action never felt slowed down.

I find the discworld books have pretty well described action scenes when they have them. It's just they happen pretty infrequently