# Is Conflict Necessary?



## Mythopoet (Apr 27, 2014)

I vaguely remember a discussion here that touched on whether or not conflict is necessary in fiction. I think that most everyone thought it was. Some, I think, thought it was the basis of a story. My own thoughts on the matter are not clear. I had an intuition that conflict is not wholly necessary, but could not myself think of how one would compose a story without it. 

The other day, I came across an article called "The significance of plot without conflict" which examined the differences between the traditional Western plot structures and a certain type of plot structure found in China and Japan called kishōtenketsu. Kishōtenketsu apparently does not have conflict built into it the way a 3 act or a 5 act plot relies on conflict. Instead it uses contrast. 



> Kishōtenketsu contains four acts: introduction, development, twist and reconciliation. The basics of the story–characters, setting, etc.–are established in the first act and developed in the second. No major changes occur until the third act, in which a new, often surprising element is introduced. The third act is the core of the plot, and it may be thought of as a kind of structural non sequitur. The fourth act draws a conclusion from the contrast between the first two “straight” acts and the disconnected third, thereby reconciling them into a coherent whole.



I find this approach fascinating. It opens up whole new vistas of storytelling that need not conform to the Western conflict-centric approach. And it makes me wonder what other ways, besides conflict and contrast, one could find for crafting a compelling story. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 27, 2014)

I think contrast, as a concept, can be considered a form of conflict according to the definition _literary critics_ use for conflict. The reason this is confusing is that contrast is not inherently a form of conflict according to the definition _normal people_ use for conflict. Viewed in the light of literary criticism, kishotenketsu is not inherently free of conflict, because audience expectations of what's going on or what will happen conflict with what's actually going on or will happen. Viewed in terms of normal conversation, plenty of stories that follow conventional Western structures don't have what a normal person would call a conflict.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 27, 2014)

Well, I don't know what definitions literary critics use, but in general I don't give a fig for what literary critics think anyway. I generally go by dictionary definitions. 

conÂ·flict

1
:  fight, battle, war <an armed conflict>
2
a :  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 


conÂ·trast



: to be different especially in a way that is very obvious

: to compare (two people or things) to show how they are different

 :  to set off in contrast :  compare or appraise in respect to differences <contrast European and American manners> —often used with to or with <contrasting her with other women — Victoria Sackville-West> 

I could see how contrast could sometimes be used to form a conflict, but according to the definitions, it doesn't seem to me that the nature of contrast is one of conflict since there isn't any inherent opposition or struggle. They seem to me to be two very different concepts (they can be contrast) but not opposing concepts (there is no conflict between them).


----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 27, 2014)

I've seen that article before, but now I think it could better argue its point by citing examples of Asian literature that don't feature conflict. Right now all it does is name a generic plot structure and give us a highly simplified cartoon example. Furthermore I am uneasy about the implicit (racist?) stereotype that Asian cultures are inherently less conflict-driven or warlike than European ones, and I'm getting a whiff of that here when it talks about the conflict-driven Western narrative structure.


----------



## Malik (Apr 27, 2014)

Without struggle of some sort, you don't have drama, and you don't have tension. Therefore, you don't have my interest.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 27, 2014)

@Mythopoet: what I'm trying to say is that a lot of western stories don't fit any of those common, dictionary definitions of conflict. Seriously, try reading some of the stories that get published in the New Yorker. They have formal literary "conflicts," but in normal language, those would simply be contrasts. In other words, there isn't nearly as much difference between those stories and kishotenketsu as the article claims.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Well, I don't know what definitions literary critics use, but in general I don't give a fig for what literary critics think anyway. I generally go by dictionary definitions.



As an individual trained in the fine arts of literary criticism, I will strive to forgive you for this statement.   Going by definitions is a good way to go.  When it comes to definitions, though, remember the difference between denotation and connotation.  Denotation is the literal meaning of the word--the dictionary definition.  Connotation is implied or suggested meaning.  Also, there are huge dictionaries that have _pages_ of definitions per entry--combing over the OED or some of other massive volumes in the library will offer more subtle nuances than a standard College edition or reference site.  They will tend to get into the nitty-gritty connotations.  The literary definition of conflict is included in these. 

Technically, conflict as a concept in the literary world doesn't necessarily mean people duking it out or an active antagonist action.   Even the dictionary denotation acknowledges this, as you cited. 



> conÂ·flict...
> 2
> a :  competitive or opposing action of incompatibles :  antagonistic *state* or action (as of *divergent ideas*, interests, or persons)


 [emphasis added]

Notice that it is not just an _action_ that can be a conflict, but a _state_ or as well.  Thus, 



> conÂ·trast
> 
> : to be different especially in a way that is very obvious



can be an _antagonistic state of being._ 




> I could see how contrast could sometimes be used to form a conflict, but according to the definitions, it doesn't seem to me that the nature of contrast is one of conflict since there isn't any inherent opposition or struggle. They seem to me to be two very different concepts (they can be contrast) but not opposing concepts (there is no conflict between them).



While "contrast" and "conflict" are not opposing _concepts_, there might be an ideological struggle between two specific ideas--the ideas are in conflict with each other by their nature.  Kishōtenketsu (I've read several of them, for a class where we used widely accepted modern literary theory to analyze them) place the two ideas in conflict with each other via juxtaposition rather than interaction.  A common theme is a character in one act living according to Buddhist ideas and embracing evanescence, while the next act shows the effects of not holding to those ideas.  There is not active conflict--but the ideas themselves are in conflict, which is demonstrated by the contrast of the play.  We even actually had this "contrast as conflict" conversation.  

It's fascinating stuff and I love it! There are, of course, varying camps even in the lit crit world.  Thanks for starting this thread--it is so fun to talk about this. 

Oh, and yeah, fiction has to have conflict. Totes McGoats.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 27, 2014)

Supposedly stories are supposed to be about 'change'.

If that is so, then it should be possible to have a story featuring 'change' without 'conflict'.

The question is... 'how interesting would such a tale be?'


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 27, 2014)

ThinkerX said:


> Supposedly stories are supposed to be about 'change'.
> 
> If that is so, then it should be possible to have a story featuring 'change' without 'conflict'.
> 
> The question is... 'how interesting would such a tale be?'



Is there conflict inherent in that, between the status quo or the before state, and the post-transformation state?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 27, 2014)

ThinkerX said:


> Supposedly stories are supposed to be about 'change'.
> 
> If that is so, then it should be possible to have a story featuring 'change' without 'conflict'.
> 
> The question is... 'how interesting would such a tale be?'



From physics we learn that every action has an equal and opposite reaction (or something like that). Viewing change as an action there would have to be a resistance to the change and from that you get the conflict. I don't think you can have change without conflict.


----------



## stephenspower (Apr 27, 2014)

@deilaitha do you have any papers or examples you could point to?


----------



## kayd_mon (Apr 27, 2014)

No conflict? Just characters changing? Ok. Well, if I'm being honest, you might wrote something good with that idea, and you might get a few critics and a few lit majors to say so, but good luck getting anyone else to read it.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 27, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> @Mythopoet: what I'm trying to say is that a lot of western stories don't fit any of those common, dictionary definitions of conflict. Seriously, try reading some of the stories that get published in the New Yorker. They have formal literary "conflicts," but in normal language, those would simply be contrasts. In other words, there isn't nearly as much difference between those stories and kishotenketsu as the article claims.



Well, let me clarify a few things. I referenced that article simply because it was the first time I had heard of the name "Kishotenketsu". I am not trying to suggest that all the claims the article makes are valid. I would not myself make any claims that "all Western stories" are built on conflict. Though I do think you could successfully argue that "most" Western media is built on conflict. Certainly anything that uses the classic 3 or 5 act structure is and that includes nearly all movies and tv and nearly all genre fiction as well as nearly all video games. Conflict dominates western media. 



deilaitha said:


> As an individual trained in the fine arts of literary criticism, I will strive to forgive you for this statement.



I am very sorry for you. 



deilaitha said:


> Going by definitions is a good way to go.  When it comes to definitions, though, remember the difference between denotation and connotation.  Denotation is the literal meaning of the word--the dictionary definition.  Connotation is implied or suggested meaning.  Also, there are huge dictionaries that have _pages_ of definitions per entry--combing over the OED or some of other massive volumes in the library will offer more subtle nuances than a standard College edition or reference site.  They will tend to get into the nitty-gritty connotations.  The literary definition of conflict is included in these.



If one wants to make a scientific study of a thing, one needs to be able to define one's terms. I have defined my terms. If anyone would like to present a different definition for study, be my guest. Until then, I will proceed to use the definitions I found in Merriam Webster because one cannot have an intelligent discussion if one cannot establish what one is talking about. 



deilaitha said:


> Technically, conflict as a concept in the literary world doesn't necessarily mean people duking it out or an active antagonist action.   Even the dictionary denotation acknowledges this, as you cited.
> 
> Notice that it is not just an _action_ that can be a conflict, but a _state_ or as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 27, 2014)

Even if there is no resistance to change, there is generally a reason for it. Something, A, tends to maintain the character in the status quo; Something, B, brings about the change. There seems to me to be some conflict inherent there, even if the character isn't resistant to the transformation. It's still a conflict of states between the beginning and end of the story.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 27, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Even if there is no resistance to change, there is generally a reason for it. Something, A, tends to maintain the character in the status quo; Something, B, brings about the change. There seems to me to be some conflict inherent there, even if the character isn't resistant to the transformation. It's still a conflict of states between the beginning and end of the story.



But are the two states necessarily in opposition to each other? If not, then where is the conflict coming from? Differences do not inherently lead to conflict. That's the whole reason contrast and conflict are two different things.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> But are the two states necessarily in opposition to each other? If not, then where is the conflict coming from? Differences do not inherently lead to conflict. That's the whole reason contrast and conflict are two different things.



Hmmm...I see what you're saying. I suppose the way I'm thinking of it, unless the two states could potentially exist at the same time, there is inherently conflict between them. One precludes the other. It's not just that you're contrasting the two, it's that you can't have them both. But maybe that's getting too far afield with the definition of conflict.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 27, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Hmmm...I see what you're saying. I suppose the way I'm thinking of it, unless the two states could potentially exist at the same time, there is inherently conflict between them. One precludes the other. It's not just that you're contrasting the two, it's that you can't have them both. But maybe that's getting too far afield with the definition of conflict.



I see what you're saying, but when it comes to character I don't think that just because two states can't exist together means they are in conflict. For instance, I cannot both be a teenage high school student and a 32 year old mother. That doesn't mean those two versions of me are in conflict since one lead naturally to the other. The change didn't involve any real opposition.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> I see what you're saying, but when it comes to character I don't think that just because two states can't exist together means they are in conflict. For instance, I cannot both be a teenage high school student and a 32 year old mother. That doesn't mean those two versions of me are in conflict since one lead naturally to the other. The change didn't involve any real opposition.



Opposition?  Perhaps not.  Internal conflict?  I can't think of an adolescent not in a coma who doesn't suffer from that.  And, in terms of fiction, how interesting would a story about a person who went from teenager to 32 year-old mother without any conflict be?  Is conflict _required_?  Jury's still out.  Is it more interesting then no conflict of any kind?  Yes.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> I see what you're saying, but when it comes to character I don't think that just because two states can't exist together means they are in conflict. For instance, I cannot both be a teenage high school student and a 32 year old mother. That doesn't mean those two versions of me are in conflict since one lead naturally to the other. The change didn't involve any real opposition.



The states themselves may lead naturally into each other, but the values associated with them can still contrast. If you have different thoughts and beliefs when you're 32 than when you're 16, those states of being contrast. Regardless of whether you want to call that "conflict" or not, stories of that nature are very popular in Western literature. (A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is a good example of this sort of progression.)


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 27, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> The states themselves may lead naturally into each other, but the values associated with them can still contrast. If you have different thoughts and beliefs when you're 32 than when you're 16, those states of being contrast. Regardless of whether you want to call that "conflict" or not, stories of that nature are very popular in Western literature. (A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is a good example of this sort of progression.)



But again, I'm saying that contrast is different from conflict. Contrast MAY involve conflict but doesn't have to.


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 27, 2014)

"Conflict" is when contrast leads to change (or possible change; it can still turn out to not change) and the process is intense enough to... well, sound like conflict, or sell traditional stories.

Non-conflict is slowing and softening the same effect, but still using the same pattern as conflict if you look closely enough. Works if you've got certain kinds of Japanese or New Yorker tastes, but it's too mild for most of us.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> But again, I'm saying that contrast is different from conflict. Contrast MAY involve conflict but doesn't have to.



I'll say what I always say in this context: if you don't like calling it [x], call it fweeb.

Kishōtenketsu does not have conflict as you're defining it. But it has a distinction between states, which we will here refer to as fweeb. Many Western stories do not have conflict as you're defining it. Instead, they have a distinction between states, which we will again refer to as fweeb. If there are stories in both the West and the East that have fweeb and do not have conflict as you're defining it, it would seem to follow that conflict as you're defining it is not necessary for a story. However, there is a thing that does seem to be necessary, fweeb, because those stories that do not have conflict have it instead.

I'll note that at one point you said that conflict dominates Western media, not that all Western media has conflict. But conflict dominates Eastern media, too--just look at anime. The precise proportion of Western media with conflict versus Eastern media with conflict isn't really relevant, since in both media, the same kinds of stories are told using conflict. (And while I'm not particularly familiar with k-forget-it-I'm-not-spelling-that-again, it sounds like the kinds of stories it tells using fweeb are the kinds of stories Western stories tell using fweeb.)

I'm not really sure what point there is left to make here. Is there anything you're saying that I didn't include in the post I just made?


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 27, 2014)

Fweeb, the distinction between states. Yes.

"Conflict" plays up the consequences and drama of What Might Happen As They Mesh. Other stories soft-pedal it, but if it isn't there at all there's very little to follow-- or the reader's eye with Rorshach it *into* fweeb and even conflict.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> You're assuming that a reaction to change has to be a resistance, but that does not seem logical to me.



Yes. If change is an action and if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then the opposite and equal reaction to change would be a resistance to that change. This from the perspective of the laws of physics.

For storytelling purposes, the above may not be obviously relevant. It may not even be relevant at all, but I like to think it helps to keep it in mind. Another way of thinking of it is to relate it to balance. Whenever something changes, the balance of things is upset and something else needs to change as well in order to maintain balance. The more things change, the more other things need to change in order to regain balance or everything risks falling over.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 27, 2014)

stephenspower said:


> @deilaitha do you have any papers or examples you could point to?



Sadly, the paper I chose to write in that class was on the _Tale of the Heike_ rather than the plays.  However, I might be able to dig up my Norton Anthology of Non-Western Literature and re-read the explanation of conflict through contrast in Japanese literature.  It's been boxed away in storage for a while.  I will have to get back to you on that. 

Very sadly, I do not have any of the research in question currently in hand.  Just memories of the class that I took.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 27, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Juxtaposition does not assume conflict. Two different, contrasting things can be juxtaposed without coming into conflict. I'm frankly surprised you could discuss the concepts without seeing that.



Juxtaposition does not assume conflict, but does not preclude it.  The conflict in the Japanese plays takes place in the viewers' minds, where the two ideologies are set up against each other.


----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 27, 2014)

Ultimately I believe what stories need more than anything else is a means of catching people's attention and holding their interest. I'll hazard a guess that novelties outside most of our day-to-day experiences will draw in more interest. For a lot of us in modern society, novelty includes conflict, especially the kind of conflict that is more intense than what we know from our everyday lives.

Is there a way to attract and hold interest without conflict? Maybe, as long as you can find some other way of creating novelty that stands out to your audience. Though come to think of it, novelty is by definition in conflict or contrast with established patterns.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 28, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> I'll say what I always say in this context: if you don't like calling it [x], call it fweeb.



If you are accusing me of doing such then I respectfully ask that you withdraw that assertion. Note that I am, so far, the only person in this thread who has actually made an attempt to define conflict and contrast and that I used actual documented definitions. I invited others to provide definitions with differ from mine, but no one has yet done so. If you think the definitions I provided are wrong then please cite sources that demonstrate my error. 

Since the big disagreement here seems to be about what exactly conflict and contrast are within the scope of literature, I've looked up the terms within specifically literary contexts. Here's what I found...

From the website Literary Devices:



> Definition of Conflict
> 
> In literature, a conflict is a literary element that involves a struggle between two opposing forces usually a protagonist and an antagonist.
> 
> ...



There is more on the page I linked, including some examples from literature. 

That website did not have a page for contrast so instead here's wikipedia's page on Contrast (literary): 



> In literature, an author uses contrast when he or she describes the difference(s) between two or more entities. For example, in the first four lines of William Shakespeare's Sonnet 130, Shakespeare contrasts a mistress to the sun, coral, snow, and wire.
> 
> Contrast is the antonym of simile. In poetic compositions, it is common for poets to set out an elaborate contrast or elaborate simile as the argument. For example, John Donne and the metaphysical poets developed the conceit as a literary device, where an elaborate, implausible, and surprising analogy was demonstrated. In Renaissance poetry, and particularly in sonnets, the contrast was similarly used as a poetic argument. In such verse, the entire poem argues that two seemingly alike or identical items are, in fact, quite separate and paradoxically different. These may take the form of my love is unlike all other women or I am unlike her other loves.
> 
> In the early 18th century, a theory of wit developed by English writers (particularly John Locke) held that judgement sees the differences in like things, imagination or fancy sees the likeness in different things, and wit operates properly by employing judgement and fancy to form sound propositions. In lyric poetry, the author is often attempting to show how what seems to be solely an exercise of judgement or fancy is, in fact, wit.



That was the most detailed explanation of contrast in literary terms I could find easily. (I care about this subject, but not enough to waste all day researching it.)

Again, if anyone can cite sources showing other definitions which contrast or conflict (heh) with the ones I have provided, I ask you to please do so. Especially if you can cite sources which give Chinese or Japanese definitions. I would be very interested in that. 

Now, I have been saying ALL ALONG that contrast CAN lead to conflict. I am NOT saying that contrast and conflict are mutually exclusive. But I am saying that contrast does not HAVE TO lead to conflict, it can stand alone without it. Most plot structures in, let us say, the English speaking world are built around points of conflict. We use conflict as the foundation of a story most of the time.

My understanding of Kishotenketsu is that conflict is not precluded from a story but that the structure does not use conflict as its foundation. Instead, contrast is the foundation. Elements that are different from each other and usually unexpectedly so and thus form a "twist" in the third act which is resolved in the fourth. My understanding of the fourth act resolution was that it shows how the contrasting elements are actually connected. 

Here's a page I found discussing the Kishotenketsu structure. (It was actually hard to find anything that seemed like a reliable source about this concept.) Here's an excerpt:



> Stories using the Kishōtenketsu structure convey seemingly disconnected events that are tied together by the conclusion of the story. The distinguishing feature of Kishōtenketsu is the element of surprise brought on by the twist. The twist seems disconnected from the introduction and development of the story until the conclusion, at which point the audience begins to make connections to the crux of the story, often reframing earlier interpretations of the events.



This seems clearly to me to be a structure that, thus, does not rely on conflict as essential, nor does it preclude it. Conflict just isn't the foundation of this structure. And if one wanted to explore a story which does not have a conflict as its central problem, this may be a good way to do it.


----------



## stephenspower (Apr 28, 2014)

Here's Kate Chopin's _The Story of an Hour_, which that site notes is a Western version, if accidentally, of Kishotenketsu.


----------



## kayd_mon (Apr 28, 2014)

I don't think The Story of an Hour fits the article in the OP. Although, Story of an Hour feels a lot like a character sketch with a couple of happenings rather than a traditional short story. 

Responding directly to the article, it seems like the author doesn't quite get the concept of conflict.


----------

