No central conflict - is this bad?

[superman skivvies]

This is my first question so I'm sorry if it's in the wrong forum or if it has already been asked before. My concern is that in the novel I am currently writing I have no set antagonist, no central force holding the characters back--escept for themselves. To give you the gist of it without boring you to death, it's about several characters from different backgrounds meeting up, findout out how they react when forced to stay together for a few days, and ultimately, learning from each other. There is much more than that, but that's the message.
I am about halfway through with this novel--I think, I'm not an outliner--and I think it is going well. The only problem I see is that there probably wont be any action-packed climax, not much of a climax at all, just seeing everyone go back home and finding out how their lives have changed. Is that too boring, as a reader, not to have a set climactic moment? Have you read any other novels that have this sort of format? Thanks.

[dawinsor]

There's space for novels that are character studies, I think. Lots of literary novels fall into this category.

[superman skivvies]

Let me say this: By no means does my novel have no plot. The characters do go places, they do run into trouble. For instance, three of the main characters are kids that have sort of accidentally run away from home. Eventually they will have to get back home, but I just don't see that as a central conflict, do you see what I mean? There are several different conflicts like this going on, but not one major goal that has to be overcome.

[MrWrite]

Not all conflict has to be external. Conflict is conflict and internal conflict when handled right can be just as dramatic as external. They know they will have to go back home one day but they keep fighting it. That's internal conflict. Sounds fine to me.

[DeleyanLee]

If you've got interesting things happening on every page, then I don't think it's a big problem. "Conflict" is the term (as far as I can tell) for what keeps the reader captivated in the story. As long as you got that going for you, call it whatever you want--the important thing is taken care of.

And, honestly, you probably have something going there that pulls the whole story together. Doesn't mean you have to be conscious of what it is before you're finished writing, especially if you don't outline.

Keep writing and discovering. I'll venture the guess that you'll surprise yourself quite pleasantly when you see what you've got when you're done.

Happy writing.

[dwellerofthedeep]

I think writing without pre-designated character roles is a great idea. It would definitely help as an excerise and I don't see why the book would be any worse for it. This is a reference to your lack of a set antagonist, of course. Still, a climax could be helpful in ending the story.

[Use Her Name]

Not all climaxes are about bombs blowing up. And most novelists do not publish every novel they write. Becoming a good writer is about practicing. Usually a novel is about a major event, or crisis in a person's life, but you can have a big, or little crisis. There are relationship novels, coming of age, novels about "friends," team work, sharing, and all sorts of novels.

[MrWrite]

Another way of looking at a climax of a story is making it a resolution.
The runaways have their adventures but in the end they have to go home. That's their resolution.

[maestrowork]

Not all conflicts are external. Internal conflicts are fine, but they have to somehow externalized (through character interactions, decisions made, consequences, etc.)

Still, without a central conflict (even if it's thematic), it'll be hard to anchor the readers. They'll ask, "So what exactly is this story about?" Just a few characters running around and doing things? Is there something to hold them together (such as the body in The Body)? What makes the readers care about what's going on?

Plot is about interesting people doing interesting things at interesting places. So if you have all that, I think you may be okay. Still, these characters should have strong motives and desires and they should have conflicts with each other based on these motives and desires. The stronger they are, the better the story.

Without reading your work, it's hard to tell if it's meandering and going nowhere or if it's a really good read.

[superman skivvies]

Not all conflicts are external. Internal conflicts are fine, but they have to somehow externalized (through character interactions, decisions made, consequences, etc.)

Still, without a central conflict (even if it's thematic), it'll be hard to anchor the readers. They'll ask, "So what exactly is this story about?" Just a few characters running around and doing things? Is there something to hold them together (such as the body in The Body)? What makes the readers care about what's going on?

Plot is about interesting people doing interesting things at interesting places. So if you have all that, I think you may be okay. Still, these characters should have strong motives and desires and they should have conflicts with each other based on these motives and desires. The stronger they are, the better the story.

Without reading your work, it's hard to tell if it's meandering and going nowhere or if it's a really good read.

Thanks to all of you. I feel better now bacause yes, I do have interesting things going on on every page and the chraracters aren't just running around for no reason. I realize this question is kind of vague, so I can see how it would be a little hard to tell if it is a good read or not.