Is Conflict Necessary?

[Mythopoet]

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]

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]

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.

con·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


con·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]

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]

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]

@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]

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.

con·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,

con·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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kayd_mon]

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]

@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.

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.

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.

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.

Nor did I suggest otherwise. Note that a state of contrast is an "antagonistic" or opposing state, though. Conflict is, by nature, an opposition, whereas while contrast CAN involve an opposition, it does not need to by nature. That is the difference. Not all contrast is a conflict. But all conflict is an opposition.

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.

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.

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.

You're welcome. But I think you're wrong.

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.

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

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.