Do you need conflict?

[Steerpike]

Is the conflict the story? Do you need a plot?

Some thoughts on those questions, by Ursula K. LeGuin: Ursula K. Le Guin: from Steering the Craft

 

[Feo Takahari]

I started a thread about this once. I was told that I misunderstood what "conflict" meant in a literary sense. I think Le Guin is making the same mistake.

I once read a story about two gardeners, one of whom gardened in the other's place when the other grew ill. The two never directly argued, and there wasn't much of a plot per se. But the focus of the story was the difference in how they gardened, and through that, the difference in how they lived. That dissonance, that contradiction, is what writers call conflict, and I believe it's an essential part of a story's meaning. What value is there in describing an idea in a vacuum? It must be compared to other ideas to illuminate its faults and its virtues.

 

[Guy]

I was always taught there were three types of conflict in a story: man v man, man v nature, and man v himself. I don't see how you can have a plot and not have at least one of these types of conflict. The article seemed... I don't know... scattered? Unfocused? I'm not really sure what her point is.

 

[Ireth]

I was always taught there were three types of conflict in a story: man v man, man v nature, and man v himself. I don't see how you can have a plot and not have at least one of these types of conflict. The article seemed... I don't know... scattered? Unfocused? I'm not really sure what her point is.

There's also man vs. society and man vs. fate, and possibly others.

 

[Ankari]

Those would be rolled into the man vs. nature category.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Aye, that was a rather confusing piece. Admittedly, it's very late and I've had some drink, but it still felt a bit like she was rambling on the components of story rather than trying to make a point. I think what she's trying to say is that a story is more than the plot, but she goes about it in a very roundabout way.

To answer the question "do you need conflict in your story?" I'll answer a hesitant and doubtful no. I'll add the reservation that a lot of it is about how you define conflict.
Conflict requires two sides in some form of opposition. It needn't be very heavy opposition, and the two sides can be pretty much anything so the comment about man vs. world is definitely valid. I still believe that it might be possible to write a story with no conflict whatsoever, but it probably won't be a very good one.

 

[Ireth]

Those would be rolled into the man vs. nature category.

I was taught that "man vs. nature" was its own category: the character against the natural world, apart from society; e.g. the movie Twister. Man vs. fate could also be called man vs. God, and God/gods are not always part of the created world, but beyond it.

 

[buyjupiter]

Aye, that was a rather confusing piece. Admittedly, it's very late and I've had some drink, but it still felt a bit like she was rambling on the components of story rather than trying to make a point. I think what she's trying to say is that a story is more than the plot, but she goes about it in a very roundabout way.

I think the passage is an excerpt from a longer essay in the book pictured above the text. It would have been nice if that was the case to see that made more explicit.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I was taught that "man vs. nature" was its own category: the character against the natural world, apart from society; e.g. the movie Twister. Man vs. fate could also be called man vs. God, and God/gods are not always part of the created world, but beyond it.

Again, I think this is mainly about definitions. The way I see it you can split it into three main categories:
- Man vs self (internal conflict)
- Man vs Man (active conflict)
- Man vs Circumstance (passive conflict) - this is the "everything else" category, including things like nature, fate, time etc

 

[Ankari]

You can have a story without conflict or plot. Not all genres can do without those two elements. I think romance could work, but fantasy couldn't Not unless you're trying to write a "day in the life of..." story.

Even then, there will be instances of conflict. When the main character stubs their toe, that's conflict. When hunger strikes, that's conflict. Are we talking about major conflict, or all conflicts?

 

[BWFoster78]

I think that, for a work of fiction to do its job, it has to entertain. For each scene, something has to drive that entertainment.

By far, the easiest way to engage and entertain a reader is to show conflict (tension). I don't think it is the only way. The more an author tries to drive a scene without tension, the more difficult, imo, it is to pull off. It would then seem to me that the more scenes you try to string together without using tension, the more difficult it would be to keep a reader's attention. Again, not to say it can't be done, however; I don't think I could do it.

I think the second easiest way to entertain is what I would call "getting inside the character's head." Perhaps Steerpike would refer to it as voice. I have read scenes that contain little to no tension but are still entertaining. These, for the most part first person POV, typically consist of a character sounding like he's talking directly to me. Again, though, it seems like that's a lot harder to pull off well than to simply add a bit of tension.

Lately, I've really been working hard at combining the two. I like the results a lot.

 

[wordwalker]

I'd say the root of it is: uncertainty. Or even below that, just getting the reader to care enough about what's at stake, so that any uncertainty is enough.

 

[Mythopoet]

I was taught 5 types of conflict in school.

Man vs. Man
Man vs. Himself
Man vs. Society
Man vs. Nature
Man vs. the Supernatural

Here's the Merriam Webster definition of conflict:

1: fight, battle, war <an armed conflict>
2a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)
b : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands
3: the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction

The key seems to be two factors that are incompatible or in active opposition to each other as the root of conflict. I would say that, as such, conflict is definitely not necessary for story. I think there are really only 3 basic necessities for story: plot, character and setting. Something has to happen (plot), it has to happen to someone/thing (character) and it has to happen somewhere (setting). The something that happens does not necessarily have to involve a conflict. Though modern audiences certainly do expect it.

 

[Helen]

You can have a story without conflict or plot.

Lets leave conflict aside.

How on Earth are you going to have a story without plot?

 

[JCFarnham]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted this all my life but there is always conflict in a story. It all boils down to decisions, however far down that is buried in the characters head. Doesn't have to be explicit, but whenever something is chosen over something else that's conflict the way I talk about it (a dissonance someone said, but in this case between protagonist and his own discourse (the sum total of his experiences, opinions, etc used to make choices). This is especially the case when something hapoens as a consequence, but not a requirement.

Absence of conflict and plot is character a talking about ... the colour brown... or something.

Summary: to me conflict means so much more than two or more people/forces fighting, arguing, antagonising.

 

[Philip Overby]

The only way I could see a story not have conflict or plot if it was just two people agreeing about things over and over. Conflict can be any minor thing: a disagreement about coffee, a person lost in an airport, a man deciding if he should buy ice cream.

I don't see how a story can be devoid of this. However, a plot, from my imagining, is a series of conflicts that ultimately result in a resolution of some sort. So maybe if there is only one conflict in a story, you can get away with no plot?

I don't know. That's just what I'm thinking. I tend to not to try re-invent the wheel too much when it comes to structure, so this isn't an issue I'd considered before.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm going to agree with JC here.

Story is conflict. I don't see anyway around that while still being able to execute an interesting tale. Why else would I care what happens if there isn't some form of struggle, at any level?

 

[Penpilot]

I'm reminded of a collection of short "stories" by John Berger called Photocopies. The "stories" in the collection really don't have any conflict or plot. They're a collection of captured moments that are written so they are engaging, draw emotion, and bring to life encounters from his life. Going by the definition of how we generally think of stories, this book has no stories in it. But it's interesting how he can draw you into the moment as he writes and keep your attention. He's an award winning author, so I would assume he kind of knows what he's doing. It's literary fiction, so I guess mileage may vary on what is considered interesting and engaging.

 

[JCFarnham]

I'm reminded of a collection of short "stories" by John Berger called Photocopies. The "stories" in the collection really don't have any conflict or plot. They're a collection of captured moments that are written so they are engaging, draw emotion, and bring to life encounters from his life.

[Emphasis added to illustrate my point.]

I haven't read this book, but the term "encounters" suggests one or more people meeting and doing something. That in and of itself (while not particularly interesting to me at least) is plot, aka a series of things happening. Just because its a single happening, in isolation, doesn't mean any less that its a plot. Lets assume a piece of writing is "one guy meets another guy and they agree on everything". That is the piece's plot as I've always understood the definition.

If a piece of writing is devoid of plot (the progression of happenings from one moment to the next throughout time) then that would suggest a individual in a void outside of time and logical progression there in.

I believe what you mean to say is that the book has no over arching story. That I can agree with. Story is something that happens as a sum total of plot (as discussed here), character and setting over time. Snapshot writing probably cannot have this. That is true.

Going by the definition of how we generally think of stories, this book has no stories in it. But it's interesting how he can draw you into the moment as he writes and keep your attention. He's an award winning author, so I would assume he kind of knows what he's doing. It's literary fiction, so I guess mileage may vary on what is considered interesting and engaging.

You're not wrong there on the interesting and engaging part. Snapshots don't usually interest me unless there's a reason for their existance (to highlight a thing being advocated, for example, or perhaps give an overview of a setting.)

 

[Ophiucha]

A story can certainly be told without an over-arching conflict, and I think it can be told without explicit minor conflicts as well. I don't know that a story could be told with no minor conflicts without the readers clinging to every dichotomy and finding a conflict in it, even if none is presented by the author. One storytelling technique that is used a lot in non-Western literature is obfuscation, keeping the reader in the dark on the situation. In these stories, there is no conflict for the characters but the book itself is in something of a conflict with the reader, never revealing the whole situation until the 'climax' of sorts. For a rather simple example, here's a comic.

As for plot, I would tend to agree with JC. I define a plot as a series of things happening, so even without a conflict any sequential events are a 'plot'. I could argue that thematically arranged snapshots still count as a plot, in a way, if it serves even the loosest purpose. A series of complete non-sequitors with no relation to one another, I suppose, would be plotless, but as JC says if any of those non-sequitors were as long as a sentence, they could each have individual plots. Certainly, plot needn't be defined by the Freytag pyramid, there are hundreds of different plot structures, and many stories thrive with flimsy 'excuse' plots, but no plot... at best, you'd accomplish it only to have the readers make one up. They'd find a reason for each event to be related, make two characters the same through symbolic justification.