Action is the result of a conflict. You only have a conflict when you have characters enough developed to the point of antagonizing each other. I'm particularly in favor of a slow burn kind of narrative. Find out a clever way to introduce the characters and then build up tension ( the reader is watching all this, powerlessly knowing- or not knowing- where it's leading up to) to reach your climax in a credible way.
Dropping an action scene in the middle of a story only because you're counting the pages- and after 3 pages of dialogue you gotta give the reader his adrenaline pills- you'll be on the verge of blowing up not only entire fictional cities, but your narrative structure as well.
Even an untrained eye can spot something wrong when you force things to happen. Though it all depends on your intentions as a writer, I'd only include action sequences when and if I really need then. I could easily go with a actionless story if I'd have my homework done and brought to the table some interesting characters. If you get it right, the readers will stick with you for the ride.
Dropping an action scene in the middle of a story only because you're counting the pages- and after 3 pages of dialogue you gotta give the reader his adrenaline pills- you'll be on the verge of blowing up not only entire fictional cities, but your narrative structure as well.
Even an untrained eye can spot something wrong when you force things to happen. Though it all depends on your intentions as a writer, I'd only include action sequences when and if I really need then. I could easily go with a actionless story if I'd have my homework done and brought to the table some interesting characters. If you get it right, the readers will stick with you for the ride.