Conflict and what the story is driven by

[Finchbearer]

As I’m writing my much planned and plotted book 1 of a fantasy series, I’m questioning what the plot is driven by - it is certainly character driven in a lot of respects, but my aim is to also try and create an underlying threat or series of threats.

The overarching conflict seems to be the convergence of both character driven and plot driven conflicts.

Im also writing it in a mixture of deep third and the occasional omniscient third, with multiple point of views - but the main point of view is from the character that is being focused on for book one. (The weight will change slightly as I get to book 2).

Essentially, there is a lot going on, or maybe there isn’t and it’s just my lack of experience that is making it feel like there isn’t enough focus.

Have any of you written like this where there are multiple points of view, and no solid overarching plot driven conflict, but more a mixture of character driven conflicts, underlying threats and less focus on one big plot driver?

 

[pmmg]

I think every story needs a conflict. In fact, that is one of the things that defines a story as a story, and not just--a day in the life of.

I think, it is important to be able to narrow down the conflict, such that it can be answered by finishing the sentence of 'My story is about....' And should be condensible into an elevator speech size.

If there is no identifiable conflict, I think the story will become a challenge to complete or keep interest in.

It could be, some characters are just fun to follow, but I suspect people will want to see them pushing towards some type of goal or conclusion.

I strongly suspect, that even if you begin with a story of just following characters, you will arrive at something is or becomes their conflict.

I can think of stories where conflict seems to take a back seat. Never-ending serials, historical pieces, sit coms, comic books, but ultimately, I think its important to look for conflict and find a way to articulate it, even if the reader does not know it.

 

[Prince of Spires]

As song of ice and fire sort of is this. There are 2 big, overarching conflicts (the civil war in the seven kingdoms, and the white walkers / winter is coming plot). However, both those plots play a surprisingly small role in the actual story as it moves from chapter to chapter. Each of the main viewpoint characters is on his/her own journey through the world. They bump into each other and the overarching plots on occasion, but that's more by accident than anything else.

I think these types of stories stand of fall based on how interesting you can make the characters, and how interesting you can make their individual plots.

On a personal note, I'm not a big fan of these types of stories. I keep wondering when the actual story is going to start and where it's going. And at the end I wonder what I've read. It's why I liked the first ASOIAF book (which has a fairly strong main storyline), but disliked the last one (A dance with dragons), which felt like a wandering mess to me. That's personal of course. Plenty of people think they're all wonderful. But it's a risk which is inherent in these types of stories.

 

[Finchbearer]

I certainly want to avoid it becoming a meandering mess. I’d say that it isn’t like ASOIAF, as in I don’t go from one POV to another in a way that feels disconnected (until later on in the story) - my POV’s are very connected.

I’ve set my story up so that we follow one ‘principle’ main character as they interact with those around them in their immediate vicinity for the vast majority of the time, but we see the world from some of the other character’s POV in shorter chapters along the way hopefully creating little extra hooks.

I just don’t want it to feel as though there is no plot. It’s probably more like a lot of subplots that converge every now and again.

I’d say it’s very character driven - I want the reader to follow each character and to want to know how they are going to overcome both internal and external conflicts.

I’m not setting up one big conflict right from the get go, maybe that’ll put a whole load of people off, but I’ve read plenty of stories that don’t have immediate and obvious conflict - I just don’t want it to feel like there’s no plot. At this moment in time I could summarise the overall plot of book 1 but it couldn’t convey all the complexities that I want to have at play. I think the idea that if you can’t create a short explanation of your story then there’s no solid plot is a little trite. Interestingly the blurb for GoT is decidedly ambiguous:

What sort of POV and style do you write your stories in Prince of Spires?

 

[pmmg]

I'm not sure Martin's back of book blurb is a good example what we can get away with. He has a lot of other factors as to why he has success. They could probably just put Martin on the cover and skip the title and it would still sell.

And...of course, if you take a story that was 100K words and condense it an elevator speech, your gonna lose a lot. Those things are not about story, they are about marketing it to get it out the door and into people's hands.

Who can say what is the magic formula for a story or not? Even if most fit into a category, some will be exceptions. But the probability is, if you are missing major story elements, like conflict, its going to hurt the chances of having a winner.

But you have said you do have a conflict....its subtle. Even subtle is enough, isn't it? I think it would be hard to write a story that had no conflict at all. In fact, I think if the goal was to write one with no conflict, you might find it a near impossible task. I've certainly read books where the conflict was subtle, and some where I thought it was weak, and plenty where the resolution was unsatisfying. I would not want to write for that.

Having compelling characters can take a story a long way.

Looking to the series, the Vikings. What is the conflict? I'd say the over arching one is subtle, defined loosely as 'how do they get settlements that can last somewhere else'. But a lot of the characters create their own conflicts. They look for revenge, pick fights with people who are not their enemies, let their hurt pride decide their course. Its done pretty well. But...its also historical. Historical does not really follow the path of moving towards a satisfying conclusion, just the one that kind of happened.

If the Vikings has been a fictional story, would it have been less interesting? In many ways, it is a fictional story, cause the historical record for them is kind of scant.

In my own story, I did not start it with a conflict in mind. It just kind of appeared as I was writing it. Once it showed up, I just enhanced it a bit. But it was actually an, oh...that changes everything kind of moment. Three books later and we are still good.

I dont think the form of your story will make much difference, deep third or omniscient, that seem outside of the frame work of the story itself. If you have good characters and good plot, and a good conflict, you'll probably get a winner. If I move the sliding scales around on some of those, I may be moving into a more risky category, but that does not mean its not the next best seller waiting to change the world

Why are you asking this anyway? Don't you have Nano to do? In Nano, you just write, conflict or not, good characters or not.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think that blurb is just fluff and words floating around the page - it’s not telling me a solid plot, which is why I cited it as an example of a successful story that can’t be summarised in blurb form due to it having so much going on you can’t really explain that in such a small space. With stories that have lots of subplots maybe that is inevitable?

I suppose I wanted to hear from anyone who has written or is writing in a similar way to what I outlined in the OP.

 

[pmmg]

Yes, I have not written such a story series.

The one I am writing might have started out that way, but it changed somewhere along the line. I had not intended that, but it happened.

Others will have to speak for themselves.

I wonder if the Belgaraid qualifies as this. I read it mostly for the characters, who I enjoyed. It did get the big conflict of beat the evil god, but mostly it was all the characters interactions that made it enjoyable.

I think it was War Breaker, that is kind of like this. Followed a lot of characters, and the conflict was kind of hidden.

I also suspect Battlestar Galactica is this way as well. The big goal is to find a peaceful planet to live on, but that is elusive. Mostly, its just characters trying to survive everyday and creating drama.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

One of the bits of advice pretty much everyone here has seen me hand out is Conflict = Story. We also write character-driven stories with multiple POV's (7 - 9 or so per book), with several subplots, a main plot, and a series metaplot to keep track of. Conflict is your story engine. Character is how its driven.

When we write back copy, blurbs, we keep to the main plot for our material. Language is short and punchy, in part because it catches and holds the reader's attention and in part because we write Urban Fantasy and the language style is in keeping with the genre. Our first two blurbs are a bit wordy, but for Book 3 I finally got the hang of it.

Beneath a Stone Sky: The Third Book of Binding

The English wizard Alerich Ashimar is settling into his new home and his new role as the leader of Seahaven's fledgling preternatural coalition, but his brand of politics isn't winning him many friends.

Winter Mulcahy is approached by a former enemy who needs her help to go home, but could the seemingly safe journey endanger the fragile twins she carries?

And a dwarven prince from Etienne Knight's past comes to him with a secret that could destroy everything the faerie knight has ever believed about himself.


With war looming on the horizon, to survive they must confront old enemies, older truths, and to find new friends in unexpected places.

This is a blurb for a 650 page book with three main plotlines that eventually merge. I'm even happier with it, looking at it alongside the blurb for A Game of Thrones. Distilling your plot down to its essence is doable. It's necessary. The blurb is a new reader's intro to your writing style and your story world. You don't want to confuse or bore them. You want to intrigue them and get them asking enough questions to trade time and money for the answers.

 

[Finchbearer]

One of the bits of advice pretty much everyone here has seen me hand out is Conflict = Story. We also write character-driven stories with multiple POV's (7 - 9 or so per book), with several subplots, a main plot, and a series metaplot to keep track of. Conflict is your story engine. Character is how its driven.

When we write back copy, blurbs, we keep to the main plot for our material. Language is short and punchy, in part because it catches and holds the reader's attention and in part because we write Urban Fantasy and the language style is in keeping with the genre. Our first two blurbs are a bit wordy, but for Book 3 I finally got the hang of it.

Beneath a Stone Sky: The Third Book of Binding

The English wizard Alerich Ashimar is settling into his new home and his new role as the leader of Seahaven's fledgling preternatural coalition, but his brand of politics isn't winning him many friends.

Winter Mulcahy is approached by a former enemy who needs her help to go home, but could the seemingly safe journey endanger the fragile twins she carries?

And a dwarven prince from Etienne Knight's past comes to him with a secret that could destroy everything the faerie knight has ever believed about himself.


With war looming on the horizon, to survive they must confront old enemies, older truths, and to find new friends in unexpected places.

This is a blurb for a 650 page book with three main plotlines that eventually merge. I'm even happier with it, looking at it alongside the blurb for A Game of Thrones. Distilling your plot down to its essence is doable. It's necessary. The blurb is a new reader's intro to your writing style and your story world. You don't want to confuse or bore them. You want to intrigue them and get them asking enough questions to trade time and money for the answers.

All of that is super helpful.

 

[Prince of Spires]

What sort of POV and style do you write your stories in Prince of Spires?

Overall I'd go with I write Epic Fantasy slightly similar to Brandon Sanderson but a lot shorter. It also has a bit of Raymond E. Feist. Something like that. I tend to go with Epic style conflicts, people with swords, etc, written in close 3rd. My previous book had multiple POV (4-ish). The current one has 1 main POV, with a few small interludes in different POV's. I like experimenting a bit to push myself...

I think an important thing to realize in terms of conflict, is that conflict can be anything where the character doesn't immediately get what they want. The word seems to suggest fighting, and world-ending stuff, and car-chases. And it can be all that. However, it very much doesn't have to be. 2 characters falling in love despite belonging to feuding families or coming from different social classes is very much a viable conflict. Or just trying to find food when you're stranded on an island. Or learning to fly a broomstick.

In many cases, the smaller conflict can be a lot more powerful since that actually matters to the character. The world ending is a nice conflict of course. But a mother trying to find her child while the world is ending is a much more powerful one.

Sanderson in his university lectures does touch on an important aspect in terms of conflict. And that is that for a reader the important thing is that a good conflict starts with a promise of what the conflict will be about, progress towards that goal (were negative progress still counts of course), and then the pay-off when you reach the end of the conflict. As long as you have those elements, then the reader should know what's going on, where we're going, and have a satisfactory end to that conflict.

 

[Finchbearer]

I heartily agree that conflict can be more powerful when character driven, maybe more along psychological lines compared to a literal battle or sword fight. I’m also using close third / deep third to bring the reader in (hopefully), and then zooming out at times. I think the challenge is definitely in bringing all of those smaller conflicts, such as personal character conflicts (wanting something they can’t have or is out of reach, or an underlying threat) and bringing them all together to converge at the same time as a larger more literal conflict.

I’ve watched a few Sanderson lectures and I generally like his teaching style. I can tell that he takes a very methodical approach almost to the point of exhaustion and obsession, and he’s probably a ‘writer’s writer’, his books have that methodical approach. I’ll probably revisit them soon.