Do stories need conflict?
In school we teach kids that good stories have conflict and have them fill out plot diagrams, analyzing the different parts relative to the conflict of the story.
Every time this comes up, I always wonder about its universality. As it's taught to kids, this is "how stories are" and conflict itself is considered essential to storytelling. The conventional wisdom goes that a story without conflict is "boring".
Is this the case, though? It's always felt to me like a very limited way of looking at stories -- fine for children but something that doesn't necessarily scale up past the early stages of literary analysis -- but I don't have anything to back that up. I don't have enough in my repertoire/expertise to really go beyond it, and I'm left with just a sort of empty suspicion that may or may not be justified.
- Is conflict essential to storytelling?
- Are there examples of good stories without conflict?
- Is teaching narrative in this way effective, or limiting?
I don't know if I agree with your point 2. There are usually multiple conflicts in slice of life dramas, and even those with no external conflicts, there are usually internal character conflicts, e.g. "I want to grow up, but I don't want to change".
I think "Slice of Life" as a subgenre of anime/manga/light novel/webserial has a different meaning than the literary or cinematic definition of "Slice of Life". The former generally does have conflict, it's just usually interpersonal or lower-stakes than typical in other subgenres. The wiki article linked above seems to define the latter as a term for Naturalist works that depict a "seemingly arbitrary sample of a character's life, which often lacks a coherent plot, conflict, or ending."
I feel like every "Slice of Life" story I've read or watched has left me feeling like, "Yes, and...?" or "Why do I care what this random group of people are doing?"
I've heard of Kishotenketsu before, but every example I've seen of it (and I haven't seen many, so take this for what it's worth) sounds like the story a 5 years old tells. "... and then we went to the store... and they had eggs... and there was a lady there who didn't comb her hair... and..." It's just a bunch of events that happened. I'm sure when done well it's better than that, but I don't think I've ever seen it done well.
I'm sorry, but what the heck is going on in the man-vs-reality panel?
I'm surprised you asked this, as it's clearly a humdrum everyday scene of a man avoiding stepping on sentient hills living among the strata of the earth underneath a coral reef skyline lit by the jeweled heavens of suspended polyhedra. You know, commonplace stuff. Is that not what reality looks like where you are? :)
There's too much light pollution to see the polyhedra where I live, unfortunately.
I think the crux of this issue, which is well worth diving into, relates to drama. In order for a story to be "good," which is usually just a synonym for "popular and widely acclaimed," it usually contains some drama that drives the story forward. I would even go so far as to say that any "good" story that doesn't contain conflict would almost certainly be non-fiction. I'll illustrate this with an example:
While this story is factually true (or is it? ooOooOooOOOoo) it is unequivocally uninteresting outside of its factual value. Whether a bit of drama would make the story "good" or "interesting" is obviously subjective, but I think it's clearly the easiest path to engage the best potential portion of a general audience.
The thing about that, though, is that it depends on the ability of the reader to read between the lines.
For instance:
You risked COVID-19! Whatever could have made you want to take that risk? Also you should be applauded for how well you are fighting the pandemic's malaise.
Ah, so this was for essentials. And since you're getting these wholesome foods, you probably did it to feed your kids! How selfless!
You got home safely to provide your family nutrition for days to come.
Whether the reader can generate their own drama is outside the scope of the author's intent, though. I certainly could have made the story more interesting, but such extravagancies were dispensed with in an effort to effectively convey information. Now, the question I would pose to you: Would my story be more interesting with your additions, or would it finally be made a "story," via your addition of explicit conflict?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
If you're asking if the story would be better if my extrapolations were made explicit, then my answer would be 'maybe' but leaning towards no. Some things are simply better left unsaid. That's why foreshadowing is a popular literary device - it gives hints about what's about to happen and gives the reader an ego boost when they find out they are right. Inductive ideas have power - that's why the scariest monsters are the ones who are ill-defined and unknowable.
So I think, if I'm reading your response correctly, you do consider what I wrote a story. Is that right? Are you therefore trying to imply that the extrapolations you pointed out create a sort of "innate, contextual conflict" that makes my story more interesting than I intended?
Sorry if I wasn't asking very clearly, it's hard to articulate these things sometimes. I too believe what I wrote is a story, but I think what I wrote is a story without conflict. Whether such stories can exist in such a state was the topic of discussion, so if you're dissenting I'm genuinely curious to know more about your viewpoint. :)
First of all, you say your story (yes, of course it's a story, however short it is) was written to avoid conflict. It does if you avoid all context. Note that in my interpretation I insert my own assumed context. This is possible because your story was too short to imply any specific setting so the reader is forced to assume that it matches their own. That part where I mentioned malaise was in part because I was feeling depressed at the time.
Secondly, conflict is everywhere. People are multifaceted and those facets often oppose one another. So even if you don't bring other people into the story, there is still plenty of room to find conflict.
And then of course there is death of the author, which essentially lets me choose to interpret your text the way I choose to regardless of what you actually intended.
The timbre of drama doesn't need explicit conflict. Not for me, at least.
Conflict abounds, however. Sometimes, that conflict manifests internally. At least, it does with good stories.
Also, the mundane can be made beautiful via the artistry of a writer. That's worthy of appreciation in-and-of itself, despite any apparent lack of plot.
I have a half-baked theory that rather than conflict, there needs to be an interesting problem (or problems) that the reader can understand and relate to. A problem doesn’t need to be solved, exactly, but the characters’ ways of responding to it should provide some insight about it. (Some problems aren’t solved, only managed.) But a problem needs to be taken seriously enough to hold the reader’s interest.
Which problems are of real interest and which are background depends on the situation and the audience. For a cooking show, a lot of stuff can be faked but the recipe should be real or it’s not going to appeal to cooks or would-be cooks. In a novel, maybe the cooking is faked or barely described but the relationships are interesting. (But it would add interest for cooks if the recipes were real as well.)
It might be interesting to see how well this theory works for different stories?
I think this is more a problem of definition than anything else. I think the way you're using the word "problem" is really the same as the literary definition of conflict. Conflict in the literary sense doesn't have to be between two characters, and it doesn't have to be external. It can be between a Character and itself, or a character and reality or nature or god (or the lack thereof) or really anything. It also doesn't have to be resolved positively, it could be resolved negatively (the character attempts to solve the problem but fails) or resolved internally (the character "solves" the problem through a change of perspective, etc). I'm sure there are examples of stories that experiment with story form by lacking a resolution, and there are a few other story forms that are less prevalent that lack or have very little conflict, but I think generally most stories do follow the conflict>resolution form.
Sure, but “problem” seems like a better word than “conflict” since it emphasizes peaceful solutions rather than fighting.
Yeah, fair enough. I think even with git, though, the reason using "conflict" works as metaphor is that there are two sides and they are incompatible, so something has to be done.
I think for a problem to be interesting, it can't be trivial to solve. There must be some resistance to solving it, something you need to learn that you don't already know. (Though whether it's routine depends on perspective. There's a first time for everyone.) But learning something doesn't necessarily mean there are two (or more) sides to somehow resolve.
(This suggests a strategy for making a story more interesting: make it their first time doing something, and go into some detail about the beginner's thought process and what they had to figure out.)
Yeah I think that's just an issue with the common definition of conflict vs. the more specialized literary definition.
I think that by conflict, a lot of people understand visceral conflict, i.e. a visible clash of people, but quite often conflict can be better hidden (the comic that @CALICO posted works great for this), for example the conflict of Man vs. Self does not have to be as overt as Man vs. Man.
However, your question got me thinking if conflict really is integral, and what the answer to the question What makes a good story? really is. At first, I was going to go with character growth, as conflict is often really a means to an end, a way to force people to adapt to a new situation and change for better or worse. But then, the entirety of thriller and crime novels exist, where people often times do not change, but the drive which keeps people reading isn't that they want to see the characters change or grow in some fashion, but they want to see the mystery revealed, whatever that may be (often it's the identity of the killer). But then you can blend genres together and use mystery as a way to carry a story that actually isn't all that myserious. The Harry Potter novels are a great example for this, as they look like fantasy novels, they feel like fantasy novels, but at their core is mystery, a single mystery that carries every single book, upon which you have greater mysteries that carry on through the overall story and keep the reader engaged, upon which you have the entire YA growing-up stuff.
So I think that the answer to your question is really more complicated than you or I might think. I'm not a professional writer, although I do write things for my own leisure, and I think the question may just have multiple answers. My favourite movie is My Neighbour Totoro and although my last rewatch is about a year or so away, I cannot identify a source of conflict in that movie. Tension is not carried through the entire plot, it is very neatly placed at the end of the movie, giving it an adventerous feel, as if you would live your life and suddenly this thing just happens, you solve it, and the next day is calm again, because that's what life really is, just ups and downs. Most of the film consist the main characters (children) exploring the magical countryside in a post-WWII Japan.
So the close this all up, I think you can, but it depends on what kind of story you want to tell.
On a different level, moving into a new house in a new neighborhood and learning about your surroundings and neighbors is itself an interesting problem for many people but especially from a kid's point of view, and Totoro takes its time showing us vivid scenes of this happening, with magic thrown in to make it extra interesting.
Pixar's Inside Out is another movie based on the problem of moving to a new place from a kid's point of view, though with a lot more angst.
Adapting to a new environment is interesting from an adult point of view as well. I'm thinking of stories of immigration like The Arrival.
I'm reminded of a well-known quote:
I don't think it's true that these are the only two plots, but they seem to be good ways to set up problems of discovery and adaptation.
You're much better at this than I am. Or smarter. Or both.
Stories require an interconnected sequence of events. Those are the pieces it cannot go without. So, yes, there can be stories without conflict. The question is: are they any good?
Most screenwriting gurus seem to think no. So does Aristotle.
But there are many kinds of conflict, like Robert McKee argues in his influential book Story. There’s external conflict, the kind you see in John Wick and Marvel Avengers. And there’s internal conflict, like you see in Kramer vs Kramer and Bergman’s Persona.
External conflict usually comes with hints of internal conflict, and internal conflict is usually accompanied by some external conflict (sometimes they’re split in the middle, like in Thelma and Louise).
Some stories have an understated conflict, like Jim Jarsmuch’s Broken Flowers. Some have a conflict that is vague, absurd or undefined, like Waiting for Godot and some films by David Lynch.
All of those can work very well.
Some stories actually have no encompassing conflict at all, like Happy Go Lucky, by Mike Leigh. That movie sucks, though.
Conflict works by making us cheer for a desirable outcome and playing with our expectations. Without it, the story loses a powerful source of engagement.
For my money, I’d say a story can succeed without a conflict as long as it is very very short.
And no, teaching narrative that way is not limiting at all. Conflict is a basic tool of storytelling, and a writer would be quite incompetent going forward without a deep knowledge of its use and implications.
You may be interested in Joseph Campbell's monomyth, outlined in his Hero with a Thousand Faces. Also colourfully summarized by Dan Harmon.
This model is essentially the basis for the student exercises you mention (plot diagrams &c). Point being that though conflict is presented as an essential narrative device—this being the part you take issue with—it is not (or, at least, should not be) presented as total. Because the idea is to give an introduction to structured ways of thinking about narrative which can then naturally extend to more complex structures. Not to comprise the totality of such structure.
But, on to the issue of conflict itself. I expect you would agree that, in stories, things tend to happen, and it is characters—people, generally, but when the characters are not people, they are generally anthropomorphized, at least implicitly—who make some of these things to happen. A detailed description of the surface of a rock formation; or, even, of an avalanche (which occurred in the middle of nowhere and was seen by no one) may be interesting, but it's hardly good storytelling.
And, I would argue, the basic event of a person making a decision and causing something to happen almost necessarily implicates a conflict. A decision suggests its alternative. Even inaction, in response to an event's occurrence, suggests the possibility of action (unless action is impossible, which is reason enough to suspect conflict).
So, a person has to choose between two conflicting alternatives. Is this not conflict? Sure, most conflicts we see in stories are not on the level of 'I woke up, now I decide to get up'. But there's no fundamental difference between that and 'the witch-king will ride by the next full moon to raze my village'; the latter is just easier to pep up.
This doesn't mean that the core focus of a story need be its conflict. But it does mean that conflict is almost universally useful in analyzing stories, because they always have some.