Does a story really need a villain?

[Addison]

A story doesn't need a Villain. That's to say it doesn't need a physical person chasing your protagonist with a guns blazing and minions flocking behind him. A story needs conflict. Conflict drives the story, not a horned person with cliche dialogue of world dominance.

There are four types of conflict.
1. Person vs person. Ie. Harry Potter vs Voldemort, Sherlock vs Moriarty.
2. Person vs self. Hitchock's "Psycho" in a way, ...that Creepy good Stephen King one with the guy with all those different personalities.
3. Person vs nature. I haven't read many stories with this conflict, but just watch "I Can't Believe I Survived", or "Sanctuary".
4. Person vs supernatural/machine. "Terminator", "I Robot", "Jurassic Park" even.

What gets on my nerves with villains is when stories get turned into movies but the director and producer think "Oh this conflict is too weak, the viewers won't like it so let's rewrite it entirely!" That just ticks me off. Especially when my kid sister see what they did to her favorite book "Ella Enchanted". I read the story, I saw the movie. While the movie was good it was nothing like the book. The movie had Anne Hathaway versing a person in the end, Carey Elwis a.k.a the evil king. In the story she's versing herself and the curse of obedience she's under. The story was super strong and meaningful as it was, it didn't need a king trying to kill the prince after he killed the first king. Especially with a talking snake as a sidekick.

So the villain isn't as important as the conflict that drives the story. If a person can drive the conflict better than a poltergeist, dinosaur, second personality or extreme internal troubles, then go for it. Just remember to make the villain as real and dimensional as the protagonist.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Okay, so everyone's pointing out stories that didn't have a named antagonist, and I think those are valid points. However, there's a flip side to that coin and I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

I wrote a story in which a young man has a goal and a personality type, let's sum him up as a religious fanatic. The story is character-based, whereby this young man is doing things and taking actions to ultimately reach his imagined "goal". But the characters who have crossed paths with him have other goals and they are all trying to work together to each get to where they need to be. One of the companions is a blind priestess and she's questing to save her village. Another is a man with a troubled spirit, a werewolf that's being consumed by his affliction, but worse by far are the spirits of his ancestors, hunting him.

So, along this journey, they are beset upon by spirits, no one knows what the heck is happening, the journey continues until in the end, the young man has abandoned his fanaticism (I'm skipping like 16 chapters here), and he helps this priestess save her village.

The point is, that there are forces acting against the group, but there is no one antagonist. I was strongly cautioned that without an antagonist, the story was harder to keep interested in, because each encounter seems rather random.

NOW. I'm not an awesome writer. So I'm not saying EVERYONE would get back that review. I'm just saying, be careful, because if you aren't an awesome writer, it may come off as a similar thing, a series of events that may be interesting, well-written, and plot-driving, but they don't hold a reader's interest in the same way a connection to one antagonist does.

I prefer a sort of man vs. self struggle, but obviously my execution lacked something necessary to pull it off.

Unfortunately, since I've begun critting work, I've run into a fair amount of stories that start out in one of two ways that I'd strongly caution people against. Either the stories begin with an antagonist as the front and center goal, something like, "Oh, if only Doctor Bad didn't exist, we'd all be happy farmers and peasants" or the story comes off as a random series of events, and the antagonist is nonexistent or too small.

I guess my book I mentioned ended in that second category. An antagonist is a great concept to play with, but it's a piece of the structure of the story. If you go too big or too small, without striking the right kind of balance with the characters' personal conflicts, the characters' strengths, the story's other plot elements, etc. you run the risk of the whole thing becoming unstable.

So there's my caution. Keep it in perspective and proportion. Of course, if I'd figured out the correct formula, my own story would have fared better.

 

[Helen]

I believe, an analysis written by people who study literature. It is difficult for me to believe that after going on at length about how the literature doesn't require conflict, in contrast to western literature, the authors were just so clumsy and ill-informed that they didn't understand their subject. It's possible, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely. I'll have to seek out that article and see if they cite to some examples, since I can't really make up my mind until I read some of the work for myself. I don't think they were saying all [/COLOR]Kishōtenketsu is without conflict, but they were pointing out that some of it has no conflict and their thesis was that conflict as a necessary part of a story is a western concept, which has since come to dominate most of literature but isn't the only way to look at things.

When they try to extend it to film and fiction novels, and cite obviously conflict-ridden examples like Rashomon and Inception, then they are being clumsy.

 

[Steerpike]

When they try to extend it to film and fiction novels, and cite obviously conflict-ridden examples like Rashomon and Inception, then they are being clumsy.

Except that wasn't from the article I was talking about but from someone else's post.

 

[Mythopoet]

I like to think that story is possible without conflict, "conflict" being two or more forces in opposition to each other. I don't think you need to have opposition to have a story. When I first read about Kishoutenketsu it emphasized contrast over conflict. I think it is possible to have contrast without conflict. Contrast is about differences, but differences don't have to lead to opposition. I think what's really at the heart of a story is change and I don't think that change has to come about because of confict. If things at the end of a story are exactly the same as they were at the beginning, that offends my sense of story. (And this is why, despite all the epicness in the middle, I cannot like The Worm Ouroboros.)

I've been watching the anime Monthly Girls' Nozaki-kun lately and I think it's a good example of a story that isn't structured around conflict. But it is filled with brilliant contrast. (That doesn't mean there's NEVER conflict, but there is no central conflict.) All of the characters contrast dramatically with each other, even when they're good friends, and much of the "drama" comes about through a contrast in expectations, but usually not an outright opposition. And let me say, I LOVE this anime so far.

Perhaps one could say that the "comedy of errors" format is structured much more around such contrasts than it is about conflict. If it was about conflict, it wouldn't be so funny.

 

[Steerpike]

Here's an interesting post on the topic:

The significance of plot without conflict - still eating oranges

 

[Mythopoet]

Here's an interesting post on the topic:

The significance of plot without conflict - still eating oranges

Yeah, that's the post I linked in the thread I started a while back about whether conflict was necessary. But everyone argued with me that the article was wrong. *shrug*

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, that's the post I linked in the thread I started a while back about whether conflict was necessary. But everyone argued with me that the article was wrong. *shrug*

Thanks, Mythopoet. I either missed that post or have completely forgotten it. Either one is equally probable

I think, as argued in the post, we've got a western way of looking at things, and particularly in the west there seems to be a common desire to frame our way of doing things as THE way of doing them, and that what is most popular or best here is most popular or best in the world (which is why, in the U.S. in particular, we like to have "World Champions" in sports, even though the teams only play within the U.S.).

 

[Helen]

I like to think that story is possible without conflict, "conflict" being two or more forces in opposition to each other. I don't think you need to have opposition to have a story. When I first read about Kishoutenketsu it emphasized contrast over conflict. I think it is possible to have contrast without conflict. Contrast is about differences, but differences don't have to lead to opposition. I think what's really at the heart of a story is change and I don't think that change has to come about because of confict. If things at the end of a story are exactly the same as they were at the beginning, that offends my sense of story. (And this is why, despite all the epicness in the middle, I cannot like The Worm Ouroboros.)

I've been watching the anime Monthly Girls' Nozaki-kun lately and I think it's a good example of a story that isn't structured around conflict. But it is filled with brilliant contrast. (That doesn't mean there's NEVER conflict, but there is no central conflict.) All of the characters contrast dramatically with each other, even when they're good friends, and much of the "drama" comes about through a contrast in expectations, but usually not an outright opposition. And let me say, I LOVE this anime so far.

Perhaps one could say that the "comedy of errors" format is structured much more around such contrasts than it is about conflict. If it was about conflict, it wouldn't be so funny.

The important thing is that there are two sides which cannot overlap.

Beyond that, "contrast" or "compare" or "contradictions" or "weighing up" or whatever, all work within the context of story conflict.

I think, as argued in the post, we've got a western way of looking at things, and particularly in the west there seems to be a common desire to frame our way of doing things as THE way of doing them, and that what is most popular or best here is most popular or best in the world (which is why, in the U.S. in particular, we like to have "World Champions" in sports, even though the teams only play within the U.S.).

If the "West" is guilty of anything here, it's in assuming the "East" is different.

The "East" has been writing conflict-riddled stories since waaay before the "West" began to emerge. A cursory glance at their stories will show you it's the dominant form there. Besides that, there is no hidden genre of conflict-free stories hidden under a Buddha statue somewhere.

It's not that the "West" thinks there's one way of doing it. It's that, if you did away with all the other causes of conflict, there has to be two sides.

But everyone argued with me that the article was wrong. *shrug*

Kishōtenketsu really is meant for something else and is being taken out of context in that article and being made to incorrectly apply to larger stories, which are far more complex.

 

[Mythopoet]

The important thing is that there are two sides which cannot overlap.

Beyond that, "contrast" or "compare" or "contradictions" or "weighing up" or whatever, all work within the context of story conflict.

Certainly they usually do, but the question is do they have to? My opinion is that no, contrast does not have to happen within the context of a conflict, which is two forces in opposition to each other.

If the "West" is guilty of anything here, it's in assuming the "East" is different.

The "East" has been writing conflict-riddled stories since waaay before the "West" began to emerge. A cursory glance at their stories will show you it's the dominant form there. Besides that, there is no hidden genre of conflict-free stories hidden under a Buddha statue somewhere.

It's not that the "West" thinks there's one way of doing it. It's that, if you did away with all the other causes of conflict, there has to be two sides.

The cultures of the "west" and the "east", by which people generally mean "european/american" and "chinese/japanese/korean", are very different from each other. That is not something you can just wave away. The only real questions are how different and in what ways?

However, NO ONE here or in the thread I started (certainly not myself anyway) has suggested that stories in eastern cultures do not have conflict. At most it has been suggested that perhaps eastern storytellers are more open to stories structured around something other than conflict. (Note: again, conflict being two or more forces in opposition to each other.)

Given the reaction that even suggesting that conflict is not necessary for storytelling has garnered on this website, I'm inclined to think that the answer is a resounding "yes".

Kishōtenketsu really is meant for something else and is being taken out of context in that article and being made to incorrectly apply to larger stories, which are far more complex.

I don't actually care if that article was accurate or not. I was merely trying to use it as a jumping off point for the discussion, but people kept on harping on the article rather than the subject in general.

 

[Helen]

contrast does not have to happen within the context of a conflict

Contrast is conflict, because it recognizes two sides / POVs. Just like "debate" recognizes two sides and is, in essence, conflict.

It's all semantics here, but when you expand it into characters and worlds, you end up creating distinctly separate entities that really are battling for dominance.

The cultures of the "west" and the "east", by which people generally mean "european/american" and "chinese/japanese/korean", are very different from each other. That is not something you can just wave away. The only real questions are how different and in what ways?

Human nature is pretty consistent the world over and stories reflect that. You only have to look at the murals on their monasteries and temples to see that their storytelling techniques are the same as ours.

However, NO ONE here or in the thread I started (certainly not myself anyway) has suggested that stories in eastern cultures do not have conflict. At most it has been suggested that perhaps eastern storytellers are more open to stories structured around something other than conflict.

There's been a link between "Kishōtenketsu" and "conflict-free." And "Kishōtenketsu describes the structure and development of Chinese and Japanese narratives" was mentioned earlier in the thread and even on the Kishōtenketsu wiki page.

I don't think anyone's looking for conflict-filled stories; I think the argument is just that conflict will be there in some form or another, which it will be.