Interest without Conflict?

[Warp9]

We have a thread about "Interesting Conflict" here: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246325

So what about interest without conflict? Or, to put it another way, is conflict (in some form) always necessary to get the readers interest?

I'm creating this thread because I'm still trying to figure this "writing stuff" out, and from some of my research I got the impression that you always do need conflict to create interest. However, at least from my own perspective, I can think of a few examples of interesting scenes in stories which did not involve conflict (of course it is possible that there was simply a form of conflict that I was not aware of).

One specific example of a scene which had what I'd call "interest without conflict" would be in Roger Zelazny's book "Guns of Avalon." In the scene I'm considering, Corwin (the MC) takes Dara's hand, and walks through Shadow to a different world where there is a Colossal Water Wheel turning under a massive, 1000 foot, waterfall. That was a scene which stood out in my mind, even though it didn't involve conflict.

IMO if a story presents an image of something fantastic enough, it can take the place of conflict (although I am not really suggesting that you'd do a whole book with no conflict).

But, to get even more specific about my motivation for starting this thread, I'd have to mention my own work. In my writing, I recently managed to create some scenes which I realized didn't have any real conflict, so this matter of "interest without conflict" became a concern.

I should add that I do have conflict in most of my story, but there are a few scenes which do not. One case is a scene which I added in order to explain my world without resorting to a direct info dump.

In what is currently my opening scene, the caravan which the characters are traveling with stops for the evening, and they go out onto a fantastic meadow and play frisbee. The meadow is perched up on top of a cliff, and one of the characters demonstrates a power she has when the frisbee accidentally gets thrown off the edge of the cliff. The girl flies out, over the 300 foot drop, to catch it. They keep on playing, but that event sparks conversation, and through the discussion which follows, introduces some some important information.

The scene is pretty short, and I like how it plays out (although I may be biased because I'm already invested in the characters). Yet it doesn't have any real conflict, and the POV character doesn't really have any major goal in the scene, other than to have fun playing frisbee. I picked her because she is ignorant about what is going on, and, as she learns about the basic situation, so will the reader.

So really specifically, I'd like to know if it is possible to successfully pull something like that meadow scene off. And then there is the more general question about "interest without conflict."

 

[RobJ]

So what about interest without conflict? Or, to put it another way, is conflict (in some form) always necessary to get the readers interest?

Technically, conflict isn't necessary to generate interest. I read a short story once that maintained my interest all the way through, as much as any other that I've read, but had no conflict that I could put my finger on (can't remember what the story was now, sorry). But in my reading experience, it's exceedingly rare to find a piece of fiction that's interesting and that doesn't include conflict.

 

[Mutive]

I think an entire novel without conflict would be so dull that I'd fall asleep. So in agreement there.

I have read scenes though without conflict that I've loved. The Mars books had huge chunks of exposition with no conflict, no story just...exposition (which helped build the world). But it was well written and technically interesting so I read them.

A beautifully written meadow scene might also be fun to read.

The one concern I'd have about the Frisbee scene is whether it's necessary to the novel as a whole. I've seen a lot of novels (notably unpublished slush) that include huge amounts of stuff that isn't relevant to the story. I think it's supposed to be "world building" or "character building" or something...but generally, it's really not needed and would be better off cut.

But if it's a scene that genuinely needs to be in the story (and advances it) and is well written, I think that it can be conflict free or low conflict. Since there are times when it works. (Just not many.)

 

[Jamesaritchie]

I believe conflict is story, and every page should have conflict, whether that conflict is front and center, or simply a background threat that the characters know is present.

 

[Lissibith]

I'm not sure there has to be conflict in every scene, but I think most, and especially opening scenes, would probably be better off with at least tension, if not outright conflict. And it sounds like the scene you described probably has at least some tension (Unless her ability to fly is already known to all characters and the reader and is considered unremarkable by all involved?)

 

[sunandshadow]

There is a failed subgenre of science fiction called "Trip To The Zoo" which is basically a tour of one awesome thing after another with no conflict. It is a failed subgenre specifically because of its lack of story, caused by its lack of conflict, in what is supposedly a novel. On the other hand this sort of thing can work as creative nonfiction such as faux encyclopedias about dragons or faeries, and books like The Silmarillion which is a faux lore connection associated with a fictional world.

 

[Warp9]

A beautifully written meadow scene might also be fun to read.

The one concern I'd have about the Frisbee scene is whether it's necessary to the novel as a whole. I've seen a lot of novels (notably unpublished slush) that include huge amounts of stuff that isn't relevant to the story. I think it's supposed to be "world building" or "character building" or something...but generally, it's really not needed and would be better off cut.

But if it's a scene that genuinely needs to be in the story (and advances it) and is well written, I think that it can be conflict free or low conflict. Since there are times when it works. (Just not many.)

I guess that depends on your definition of "needs to be in the story."

The main point of including that intro scene was to explain some basics of the setting without using an info-dump. But I suppose one could ask whether there are other methods would could achieve the same results (and I have considered a number of other options).

I'm not sure there has to be conflict in every scene, but I think most, and especially opening scenes, would probably be better off with at least tension, if not outright conflict. And it sounds like the scene you described probably has at least some tension (Unless her ability to fly is already known to all characters and the reader and is considered unremarkable by all involved?)

Yes, that would be correct. The event was considered remarkable by those involved. In fact, the term "remarkable" fits perfectly, because they did remark on the incident, which in turn led to further discussion.

 

[Mutive]

I guess that depends on your definition of "needs to be in the story."

The main point of including that intro scene was to explain some basics of the setting without using an info-dump. But I suppose one could ask whether there are other methods would could achieve the same results (and I have considered a number of other options).

It's a hard call then. Based on my experience reading slush fiction, about 90% of the time, a scene that doesn't push the story forward is a scene that isn't needed. But there's the other 10%. I've read scenes that do nothing but advance the world and are brilliant. (I've also read brilliant info dumps for all that.) So if it feels like it enriches the story (and this is a serious, "I've thought about it long and hard, this isn't just me being so attached to my beloved words that I can't touch them!" kind of thing), I could see it working just fine.

 

[Warp9]

I believe conflict is story, and every page should have conflict, whether that conflict is front and center, or simply a background threat that the characters know is present.

That is an interesting point about the idea of a background threat.

In the scene I mentioned with the meadow, the characters are bringing an alien princess (the flying girl) to their town, so that she can get married, and start a new life. However, as they've gotten to know the princess, they have become concerned that this marriage, which arranged when she was a child, would be a mistake. So that impending mistake becomes kind of a background threat.

And I've considered making that more of an issue in the meadow scene, it's just that I didn't see it becoming a bit deal right at first. But the conversation they have in the meadow does start planting the seeds of doubt in the mind of the princess. And, in a later scene, those initial seeds of doubt do grow into a larger reaction.

 

[BethS]

Big, sprawling, epic kinds of books sometimes have scenes with no overt conflict, but they do serve a purpose: to show character or to reveal something about the world. Shorter, tighter novels don't have room for these sorts of scenes to exist conflict-free. And in both cases, the best way to handle it is to have the scene do more than thing, so that the conflict ball is never entirely dropped.

Opening scenes, however, should always have conflict. The first pages are not the place to show off the world. They are the place where the story begins, and to have a story, you must have conflict.

 

[Warp9]

Opening scenes, however, should always have conflict. The first pages are not the place to show off the world. They are the place where the story begins, and to have a story, you must have conflict.

In terms of the idea that "opening scenes are not the place to show off the world," that is a fair point. And I don't think you'd want to run that water-wheel example from the OP right at the start of a story.

The meadow example is a bit different. Yes, I really try to make the meadow an interesting place, but the scene is more about introducing the characters. It sets the stage for what is to come later. I wouldn't say that there is conflict there, but the seeds of the conflict are there.

Yet, if I understand what you are saying above, simply "setting the stage" is not enough for the opening scene. Instead, the opening scene has to actually get into the meat of the conflict that drives the story.

But, what if the elements of the conflict are involved enough that you have to have a bit of background to understand what is going on?

Looking at the Lord of the Rings as an example: yeah, we can say that a midget with hairy feet is trying to throw a ring into a lava pit. But to understand the situation, it might be nice to know a bit about hobbits, Sauron, and the forging of the One Ring.

I'm suggesting that perhaps you'd want to establish all that first, and then move into the conflict part.

 

[thothguard51]

One specific example of a scene which had what I'd call "interest without conflict" would be in Roger Zelazny's book "Guns of Avalon." In the scene I'm considering, Corwin (the MC) takes Dara's hand, and walks through Shadow to a different world where there is a Colossal Water Wheel turning under a massive, 1000 foot, waterfall. That was a scene which stood out in my mind, even though it didn't involve conflict.

And you don't think there is not conflict in that scene? Not all conflict is physical, or overly obvious.

IMO if a story presents an image of something fantastic enough, it can take the place of conflict (although I am not really suggesting that you'd do a whole book with no conflict).

A scene does not have to have conflict. An image here, and there without conflict is far different that a whole story that does not show some form of conflict, even if its only internally.

In what is currently my opening scene, the caravan which the characters are traveling with stops for the evening, and they go out onto a fantastic meadow and play frisbee. The meadow is perched up on top of a cliff, and one of the characters demonstrates a power she has when the frisbee accidentally gets thrown off the edge of the cliff. The girl flies out, over the 300 foot drop, to catch it. They keep on playing, but that event sparks conversation, and through the discussion which follows, introduces some some important information.

So the event sparks conversation? The girl flying out to catch the frisbee obviously sparked a form of conflict for someone, if a conversation followed about her ability.

I think you are confusing the various forms of conflict with more action related themes, or those in which the conflict is obvious. There are forms of conflict that are less obvious, such as beliefs.

To me, a book without some form of conflict is a travel log...

 

[blacbird]

So what about interest without conflict? Or, to put it another way, is conflict (in some form) always necessary to get the readers interest?

I'm not a big fan of the term "conflict", as it gets applied here, because too many people take it as meaning slashy stuff with swords, or something similar. I prefer the word "tension".

So, show me a major work of fiction which has no "tension". I can't think of one, nor would I be likely to enjoy reading such a thing.

caw

 

[Warp9]

I think you are confusing the various forms of conflict with more action related themes, or those in which the conflict is obvious. There are forms of conflict that are less obvious, such as beliefs.

I would define "conflict" as meaning that a character (probably the POV character) wants something, and there is some opposition to that desire from some other character/group/thing/force. And it doesn't have to be a physical opposition.

In terms of beliefs, they can be a source of conflict, if the characters have an emotional investment in them. But if the characters don't care that much, then differing beliefs don't matter as much because there is nothing at stake.

To use the example of my meadow scene. . . . the POV character simply wants (in the short term) to have fun playing frisbee. And (in the long term) to get back to town safely, with the princess, while keeping her out of trouble, and not offending her in any major way. That was the job she was given to do. No threats to any of those desires appear in the scene, so I'd say that there is no conflict.

I guess you could say that there is a minor conflict in that there is a difference in the way different characters in the scene view the guy the princess in planning to marry. The princess views him positively, and the POV character has a negative view of him. But the POV character is not willing to make a major issue of it, because it just doesn't matter to her that much, at that point in the story (and even more, she would be concerned that by pushing that issue, she might offend the princess).

Now, if it did matter to her at that point, then that definitely would be a source of conflict.

 

[JKRowley]

Donald Maass, who wrote "The Breakout Novel," says there needs to be tension on every page. Every page!

That said, there can be scenes with character development, maybe world building, which sounds extremely boring, but they have to move the story forward. There has to be something in there interesting enough to turn pages. In some novels, this can be voice. Some compelling voices keep me turning pages even if they are reading recipes.

 

[blacbird]

Donald Maass, who wrote "The Breakout Novel," says there needs to be tension on every page. Every page!

That said, there can be scenes with character development, maybe world building, which sounds extremely boring, but they have to move the story forward. There has to be something in there interesting enough to turn pages. In some novels, this can be voice. Some compelling voices keep me turning pages even if they are reading recipes.

Once established, tension has inertial momentum. If you know a situation exists in which Character X has a significant problem, that adds atmosphere to anything relevant that follows.

This is one of the major reasons many prologues fail: no tension established, only background explanation.

caw

 

[tko]

what about mystery?

Do you count mystery? Mystery really draws me in. Big stakes science fiction where we don't know the answer. A puzzle that must be solved. Something strange that is happening in the town of Mudville.

I'd have to say mystery is a bigger pull than conflict for me. I've read science fiction that is maybe 80% mystery, only a little conflict, and it was great.

Open a story with a man walking through a wall, an impossible crime, an alien spacecraft with no occupants, and I'm hooked.

Conflict is fine. But enough conflict can get boring. Mystery, never.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_wonder

 

[Architectus]

Sometimes a scene needs pre-conflict to get to the conflict, but to have a whole scene with no conflict? I wouldn't try to do that.

It isn't hard to have conflict in every scene. This doesn't mean that every paragraph has conflict.

 

[vivalalauren]

This thread is really interesting. I'm a huge fan of character development, so initially I wanted to say that of course, a tension free story is possible. However, can that really be called a story?

I think tension is a big part of the intrigue of a plot, but I also want payoff. If we have to sit through the last third of a novel with the central characters fighting and refusing to speak to one another, I'm expecting a damn good reunion. Hmmm, I think i'm giving way too much away about my comfort reads.

Basically, I do think a story needs conflict. But there can be too much of a good thing.

 

[Warp9]

Do you count mystery? Mystery really draws me in. Big stakes science fiction where we don't know the answer. A puzzle that must be solved. Something strange that is happening in the town of Mudville.

I'd have to say mystery is a bigger pull than conflict for me. I've read science fiction that is maybe 80% mystery, only a little conflict, and it was great.

Open a story with a man walking through a wall, an impossible crime, an alien spacecraft with no occupants, and I'm hooked.

Conflict is fine. But enough conflict can get boring. Mystery, never.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_wonder

Mystery is very cool!

In some ways, I could place mystery into the category of conflict (using a broad definition of the term). Because we want something, in this case, to know the truth behind the mystery, but that knowledge is denied to us (thus a kind of conflict).

Or maybe that could be turned around the other way, maybe all the other conflicts are a kind of mystery. The main character wants something, but we don't know if he'll get it or not (thus a kind of mystery), so we keep on reading to find out what happens.

 

[Little Ming]

We have a thread about "Interesting Conflict" here: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246325

So what about interest without conflict? Or, to put it another way, is conflict (in some form) always necessary to get the readers interest?

I'm creating this thread because I'm still trying to figure this "writing stuff" out, and from some of my research I got the impression that you always do need conflict to create interest. However, at least from my own perspective, I can think of a few examples of interesting scenes in stories which did not involve conflict (of course it is possible that there was simply a form of conflict that I was not aware of).

One specific example of a scene which had what I'd call "interest without conflict" would be in Roger Zelazny's book "Guns of Avalon." In the scene I'm considering, Corwin (the MC) takes Dara's hand, and walks through Shadow to a different world where there is a Colossal Water Wheel turning under a massive, 1000 foot, waterfall. That was a scene which stood out in my mind, even though it didn't involve conflict.

IMO if a story presents an image of something fantastic enough, it can take the place of conflict (although I am not really suggesting that you'd do a whole book with no conflict).

...

If you stare too hard at only one aspect of the scene you begin to see only what you want to see.

I just pulled my Great Book of Amber from the shelf and found the scene you are referring to. The context of the bigger scene is that Corwin has just met Dara and he is both trying to impress her and warn her about his family's powers. But Dara does not understand just how their powers work or how powerful they are. Corwin demonstrates by taking her through Shadows.

To use your own definition:

I would define "conflict" as meaning that a character (probably the POV character) wants something, and there is some opposition to that desire from some other character/group/thing/force. And it doesn't have to be a physical opposition.

Corwin wants to impress and warn Dara.

The opposition is that she does not understand his and his family's power. Thus, she cannot be properly warned or impressed.

Solution: Corwin shows her his powers. Hence the waterwheel.

***

Don't over think this. If you start staring too hard any at one point you're going to miss the bigger story.

 

[jaksen]

There can be interest without conflict. Tension is good, as in you don't know, you don't know, you don't know what's going to happen next. I've recently read some short story collections in which a story or two is written this way.

Conflict is better as it gives the MC and other characters something to overcome. It can be a simple conflict - "How do I convince Mother to allow Jonathan Pierbottom to visit in the parlor tonight? I do think if Cecilia sits in the next room it will be quite all right."

Or biggly, hugely: "How the hell do we control these damn marauding Huns? They keep charging in, raping all the women and scaring the bloody horses."

But tension will work, little fingers of tension, of not knowing, not seeing, wondering always what makes that funny squeak in the closet when she passes by, or if the phone rings three times then stops, who is it? Who keeps calling me?

 

[Warp9]

First off, let me say thanks for all the responses I've gotten so far. It seems that I probably need to go in a different direction with the scene (meaning I need to create a bit more opening conflict/tension).

If you stare too hard at only one aspect of the scene you begin to see only what you want to see.

I just pulled my Great Book of Amber from the shelf and found the scene you are referring to. The context of the bigger scene is that Corwin has just met Dara and he is both trying to impress her and warn her about his family's powers. But Dara does not understand just how their powers work or how powerful they are. Corwin demonstrates by taking her through Shadows.

To use your own definition:



Corwin wants to impress and warn Dara.

The opposition is that she does not understand his and his family's power. Thus, she cannot be properly warned or impressed.

Solution: Corwin shows her his powers. Hence the waterwheel.

***

Don't over think this. If you start staring too hard any at one point you're going to miss the bigger story.

I don't disagree with those points. However, even if one accepts that there was conflict in the scene, I'd say that my basic point still stands. For me, the key issue is that the scene was memorable (and interesting) not because of conflict/tension between Corwin and Dara, but because of the walk through Shadow and the giant water-wheel.

 

[Little Ming]

...

I don't disagree with those points. However, even if one accepts that there was conflict in the scene, I'd say that my basic point still stands. For me, the key issue is that the scene was memorable (and interesting) not because of conflict/tension between Corwin and Dara, but because of the walk through Shadow and the giant water-wheel.

You are missing the point.

The original question was not "Does the conflict have to be the most interesting part of the scene?" The question was "Can you have interest without conflict?"

You can say that the most interesting part of the scene was the waterwheel. I can say that it was the fact that Corwin was such a bastard he was semi-flirting with his own niece. But neither of these things negates the fact that there was conflict in the scene, and it was that conflict that led to the interesting parts. Without the conflict there would be no waterwheel. Without the conflict there would be no semi-flirting with a family member. The conflict moved the scene along, it made the scene exist in the first place.

Again, I think you are focusing too narrowly at only one aspect of the scene and failing to see the bigger story. You do not get to strip away the rest of the scene and only focus on the waterwheel, because without the rest of the scene there would be no waterwheel.

 

[Orchestra]

Conflict isn't really part of my active writing vocabulary. I write about people with problems. Sometimes those problems stem from characters having trouble getting what they want, sometimes from difficulties they have with other people.

Ursula LeGuin in Steering the Craft and in Sandra Scofield in The Scene Book both argue that the obsession with conflict in narratives reflects the surrounding culture and its values. LeGuin is right in pointing out that conflict is just one interesting behaviour among many others such as exploration, negotiation, loss and change. Describing a conflict is one way of making a story interesting and meaningful but it's certainly not the only one.

I have no idea why so many writers wish to extend the meaning of the word far beyond its common usage. I don't think many non-writers would call wanting a glass of water and not getting it conflict.