marycatelli (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
marycatelli) wrote2022-07-18 08:57 pm
marycatelli) wrote2022-07-18 08:57 pm
Entry tags:
a question of hair at war
Was looking at some stuff to inspire more specific ideas for some characters. Notice one movie still of a guy, a fighter, looking all soulful and brooding, and all I could think was
That's a stupid length of hair.
There are only two lengths of hair suitable for fighting. One is short. Too short to get into the eyes. The other is long enough to be tied back so that it doesn't get into your eyes.
The disadvantages of the second is that strands can work free, and the tied back hair, unless barely long enough to be tied, might be awkward or even something a foe can grab. The disadvantage of the first is that it spontaneously turns into awkwardly long, whereas the second never does.
Therefore the first is wise whenever you can rely on getting your hair cut whenever you need, and the second, when not. (For instance, sailors famously had ponytails. Imagine getting something sharp next to your head on rough water.) But pick one.
That's a stupid length of hair.
There are only two lengths of hair suitable for fighting. One is short. Too short to get into the eyes. The other is long enough to be tied back so that it doesn't get into your eyes.
The disadvantages of the second is that strands can work free, and the tied back hair, unless barely long enough to be tied, might be awkward or even something a foe can grab. The disadvantage of the first is that it spontaneously turns into awkwardly long, whereas the second never does.
Therefore the first is wise whenever you can rely on getting your hair cut whenever you need, and the second, when not. (For instance, sailors famously had ponytails. Imagine getting something sharp next to your head on rough water.) But pick one.