The Role of Conflict

AlexSt. · Feb 15, 2017

Hey guys,

Recently—in no small part because of the challenges presented by my new novel—I decided to write on the issue of conflict and what it means for us fiction writers. Below is an excerpt on the topic, originally published on my blog. Any thoughts? Do you agree that conflict moves plot and builds characterisation?

Defining Conflict

In principle, the definition of conflict ought to be a simple one: it’s when a character’s aims are being frustrated, and they have to engage in a series of actions in order to resolve this. A romantic conflict may involve resolving relationship difficulties; a paranormal conflict may involve coming to terms with supernatural powers; a historical book would likely involve political conflict; a thriller can be about beating the bad guys.

Nevertheless, conflict in a book is not always so straightforward. For one, it varies by genre—as you can already see, some genres tend to employ different kinds of conflict from others. For two, a distinction can be made between internal conflict (such as doubts about a romantic partner) and external conflict, which usually involves more obvious things like ‘catching the serial killer’.

Where it gets especially complicated is when the multiple types of conflict mix and interact. A character may struggle with inner conflict about identity, romantic passion, or his past; while, at the same time, struggling against an external force. Genre crossing is especially prone to this: a book that combines fantasy, mystery and romance will often feature three distinct conflicts, one internal, two external. The former would be sexual feelings; the latter would be uncovering a mystery and fighting off supernatural beings.

Now that we’ve established the ground rules of what conflict is, let us turn our attention to what conflict does.

Conflict in Fiction

Conflict makes stories. To put it simply: without conflict, there would be no plot, and no reason to write (or read!) a book.

This is the reason why I (and many others) dislike the genre sometimes named ‘literary fiction’. Any work of fiction requires an aim: something to which the characters aspire to, something that makes the reader bite their fingernails and anticipate the next page. Aimless literature is pointless literature. I’m not interested in hearing excuses about ‘oh but my characters are so developed’ or ‘but the world is such an interesting exposition into X’ or—my personal favourite—‘but I’m making social commentary!’

No. Developing characters requires putting them through conflict, and convincing conflict at that; it’s what tests their mettle and shows the reader what kind of person they are. World building is just expositional word vomit without plot. And as for social commentary? Please, write an essay.

Anyway, I am digressing. My point is that conflict is the essential part of a story—it makes plot, it develops characters, it breathes life into unfamiliar worlds.

Conflict in Fallen Love

So far I have written a general account of what conflict is and what purpose it serves. But now, I wish to address the question that is most pertinent to me: conflict specifically in Fallen Love.

You may have inferred that I am of the opinion that conflicts needs to be powerful; it needs to reach into the reader’s heart, and speak to their soul. To that end, Fallen Love has several avenues of conflict. There’s the romance—a Fallen and an Upperclassman, an unlikely and forbidden union. There’s the Party: a malevolent power, its eyes seeing all and its arm as long as the country is wide. And finally, there’s the supernatural powers; the darkness within Casey, the force that animatest the mutants, and the source of Kaylin’s magic.

The trouble is, you see, having multiple avenues of plot also involves multiple avenues of difficulty. Romance is especially tricky: it’s meant to be gentle, and passionate, but also fraught and problematic. The Party is meant to be evil, but rational. And as for the supernatural, well—they have their own agenda.

Striking a balance is no easy task. The book needs to be edgy and dark; but it must also have love and devotion. The light, and the dark.

The Urban Spaceman · Feb 15, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Do you agree that conflict moves plot and builds characterisation?

Yes.

AlexSt. · Feb 15, 2017

The Urban Spaceman said:
Yes.

Sweet and to the point; I like it.

MythMonger · Feb 15, 2017

AlexSt. said:
This is the reason why I (and many others) dislike the genre sometimes named ‘literary fiction’. Any work of fiction requires an aim: something to which the characters aspire to, something that makes the reader bite their fingernails and anticipate the next page. Aimless literature is pointless literature.

This kind of sounds like you're saying literary fiction doesn't have conflict and is aimless. Is this what you meant to say?

AlexSt. · Feb 15, 2017

MythMonger said:
This kind of sounds like you're saying literary fiction doesn't have conflict and is aimless. Is this what you meant to say?

Not quite: the term ‘literary fiction’ is a pretty broad brush used to describe all sorts of books. I have found some books that are called literary fiction to be like that, though, yes.

Joseph Schmol · Feb 15, 2017

AlexSt. said:
I decided to write on the issue of conflict and what it means for us fiction writers.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Does this make you a spokesperson, of sort, for us fiction writers?

Do you agree that conflict moves plot and builds characterisation?

Click to expand...

I'd agree that it might.

.

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 16, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Not quite: the term ‘literary fiction’ is a pretty broad brush used to describe all sorts of books. I have found some books that are called literary fiction to be like that, though, yes.

Can you name some of them?

Conflict in lit fic can certainly be more subtle than in other genres. But even lit fic I've read that was slow-paced, or overly descriptive or downright boring still had conflict.

The Urban Spaceman · Feb 16, 2017

Joseph Schmol said:
I'd agree that it might.

That's a good point. Conflict for the sake of conflict may do nothing to further the plot if the writer can't find a way to have characters react to and be changed by conflict in a way that adds development.

ap123 · Feb 16, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Not quite: the term ‘literary fiction’ is a pretty broad brush used to describe all sorts of books. I have found some books that are called literary fiction to be like that, though, yes.

Stories that are slower paced, quieter, perhaps internal vs external might not be your thing, but that doesn't mean the conflict isn't there.

RYFW.

Helix · Feb 16, 2017

I'd say that we writers aren't of the one opinion when it comes to the nature of conflict in fiction. Having multiple types of conflict is good, but they have to integrate somehow, rather than being there to prolong a storyline.

As for lit fic -- conflict in lit fic might be subtle, but it's definitely there. Also social commentary is an important part of story telling in both lit fic and genre.

gtanders · Feb 16, 2017

The way I see it, conflict in lit fic is sometimes thematically deeper or more fully internal. This appeals to those of us who experience near-constant psychological anguish and/or cognitive dissonance.

Maybe genre *tends* to focus more on external conflict--things which are imposed on the character?

I think the best stories find integration between these types of conflict.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, lit fic doesn't get a pass when it starts rambling and indulging the author's preciousness!

blacbird · Feb 16, 2017

I've come to prefer the word "tension" over "conflict" in talking about how good fiction works. Too many people these days seem to equate "conflict" with bombs or guns or fistfights. This discussion topic (a good one) can perhaps be illuminated by looking at some older, famous "classic" novels*:

Lord Jim, by Joseph Conrad
Howards End, by E.M. Forster
Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton
The Song of the Lark. by Willa Cather
A Separate Peace, by John Knowles
The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, by Carson McCullers
The Moonstone, by Wilkie Collins
The Trial, by Franz Kafka
The Ox-Bow Incident, by Walter Van Tilburg Clark

caw

*There's a reason these are called "classics", and have remained in the literary consciousness continuously since their publication. They work, as stories, precisely because of the tension that energizes them.

Laer Carroll · Feb 17, 2017

There are four kinds of conflict: physical, emotional, mental, and social. Action-adventure stories have lots of physical conflict. Romances have more of the emotional and much less physical conflict. Detective stories may have almost no physical conflict, except maybe when apprehending bad guys, and lots of gathering information and making suppositions about means and motives. Political drama is all about conflict between people, with lots of dialogue or making of speeches or writing legal briefs or persuasive essays.

Most stories combine several kinds of conflict.

Literary fiction tends to focus on how we use words and sentences and unusual plot structures. It often experiments with the usual way of telling stories. But even the most experimental has some kind of conflict. It cannot break the one and only hard literary rule: keep the reader engaged. Or, in other words:

gtanders said:
... lit fic doesn't get a pass when it starts rambling and indulging the author's preciousness!

Helix · Feb 17, 2017

gtanders said:
EDIT: Forgot to mention, lit fic doesn't get a pass when it starts rambling and indulging the author's preciousness!

You never see that in genre fiction.

:sarcasm

Old Hack · Feb 17, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Hey guys,

Recently—in no small part because of the challenges presented by my new novel—I decided to write on the issue of conflict and what it means for us fiction writers. Below is an excerpt on the topic, originally published on my blog. Any thoughts? Do you agree that conflict moves plot and builds characterisation?

I got as far as the bit where you dismiss literary fiction and decided I'd had enough. It's reasonable for you to not enjoy a particular genre; but it's rude for you to dismiss it as aimless just because you don't understand its appeal.

AlexSt. · Feb 17, 2017

Hey guys,

I’ll just address some of the points that have been brought up in the discussion. Firstly, the definition of conflict: I agree with the Urban Spaceman in that conflict isn’t just action—you can have gunfights and magical duels that act as ‘plot filler’ so to speak. Conflict is something a bit more than that; it’s tension (as blackbird calls it) in the sense that it pervades the entire plot, and is always present in some way within the minds of the characters.

As for literary fiction, I am aware that my original statement was rather contentious. But I stand by it: too much literary fiction, in my view, lacks clear conflict. Part of it is indeed due to the fact that a lot of ‘conflict’ in lit fic is internal—a character suffering an identity crisis, or pontificating about their emotions. Nevertheless, I don’t think conflict can be purely internal; I think internal conflict is a response to external conflict. A character might be wondering who they really are, or might suffer feelings of guilt, because of something that’s happened to them. For me, literary fiction (and I do use this label in a very broad sense—not all lit fic is like this) doesn’t have convincing conflict. I don’t believe real human beings go about life in a sort of angst-ridden, put-about unhappiness. They don’t fabricate long-winded monologues out of thin air, or suffer from abstract existential quandries; we humans are more basic creatures than that. I suppose I could refer to the Aristotelian conception of the nous (the soul) as being composed of thee parts: the nutritive, emotional and reasoned parts. In my mind characters in literary fiction focus too much on the emotional part to the detriment of the other two, to the point that they no longer resemble human beings but mouthpieces and archetypes for the author to advance some sort of philosophy.

Finally, I agree with what Laer Carrol, Helix and gtanders have said: storytelling shouldn’t be about ‘indulging in the author’s preciousness’. But as I’ve explained above, I think too much lit fic does do exactly that. And yes, Helix, you don’t see that in genre fiction; in fact the only exception that I’ve ever found (in the hundreds of genre books I’ve read) has been Tolkien’s works.

Helix · Feb 17, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Hey guys,

I’ll just address some of the points that have been brought up in the discussion. Firstly, the definition of conflict: I agree with the Urban Spaceman in that conflict isn’t just action—you can have gunfights and magical duels that act as ‘plot filler’ so to speak. Conflict is something a bit more than that; it’s tension (as blackbird calls it) in the sense that it pervades the entire plot, and is always present in some way within the minds of the characters.

As for literary fiction, I am aware that my original statement was rather contentious. But I stand by it: too much literary fiction, in my view, lacks clear conflict. Part of it is indeed due to the fact that a lot of ‘conflict’ in lit fic is internal—a character suffering an identity crisis, or pontificating about their emotions. Nevertheless, I don’t think conflict can be purely internal; I think internal conflict is a response to external conflict. A character might be wondering who they really are, or might suffer feelings of guilt, because of something that’s happened to them. For me, literary fiction (and I do use this label in a very broad sense—not all lit fic is like this) doesn’t have convincing conflict. I don’t believe real human beings go about life in a sort of angst-ridden, put-about unhappiness. They don’t fabricate long-winded monologues out of thin air, or suffer from abstract existential quandries; we humans are more basic creatures than that. I suppose I could refer to the Aristotelian conception of the nous (the soul) as being composed of thee parts: the nutritive, emotional and reasoned parts. In my mind characters in literary fiction focus too much on the emotional part to the detriment of the other two, to the point that they no longer resemble human beings but mouthpieces and archetypes for the author to advance some sort of philosophy.

Finally, I agree with what Laer Carrol, Helix and gtanders have said: storytelling shouldn’t be about ‘indulging in the author’s preciousness’. But as I’ve explained above, I think too much lit fic does do exactly that. And yes, Helix, you don’t see that in genre fiction; in fact the only exception that I’ve ever found (in the hundreds of genre books I’ve read) has been Tolkien’s works.

I can only suggest you read more widely.

EMaree · Feb 17, 2017

AlexSt., personally I'd like to see you try a post like that that actually goes into detail about your feelings and why you have them. Your blog post seems to be following a sort of op-ed style, providing opinions with only vague claims to back them up, and I think that weakens your posts greatly.

If you want to take a potshot at literary fiction, provide your sources. Tell me what you've read and why you didn't enjoy it, what didn't resonate with you. Show me that you are reading widely and I will respect your hard work more.

The blog that results will still be all about your own opinion, but you'll make your thought process clearer to the audience and they will be more likely to understand and empathise with your particular feelings. As my old teachers used to say, show your work.

Being able to look at a piece of work critically, and examining why it didn't work for you (but why it sold well and why others enjoy it), is a hugely important skill for any writer. You need to know your own tastes and preferences, and understand that these are not the feelings of other readers. Knowing these things and being able to speak your preferences clearly will make you a much stronger writer and reader.

And yeah, don't make blanket statements. You can only ever speak for your own mind. Leave phrases like "us fiction writers" on the cutting-room floor where they belong.

The Urban Spaceman · Feb 17, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Nevertheless, I don’t think conflict can be purely internal; I think internal conflict is a response to external conflict.

I suppose that depends on which school of psychology you follow. I tend towards analytical psychology, in which the personal and collective unconscious play as large a part in an individual's psychological development as external stimuli. So, I would disagree with the way you think here. Causality is not that simple.

A character might be wondering who they really are, or might suffer feelings of guilt, because of something that’s happened to them.

They might.

There are also situations in which people may suffer emotional turmoil without any external trigger.

I don’t believe real human beings go about life in a sort of angst-ridden, put-about unhappiness.

It would seem reality is subjective.

AlexSt. · Feb 17, 2017

EMaree said:
AlexSt., personally I'd like to see you try a post like that that actually goes into detail about your feelings and why you have them. Your blog post seems to be following a sort of op-ed style, providing opinions with only vague claims to back them up, and I think that weakens your posts greatly.

If you want to take a potshot at literary fiction, provide your sources. Tell me what you've read and why you didn't enjoy it, what didn't resonate with you. Show me that you are reading widely and I will respect your hard work more.

The blog that results will still be all about your own opinion, but you'll make your thought process clearer to the audience and they will be more likely to understand and empathise with your particular feelings. As my old teachers used to say, show your work.

Being able to look at a piece of work critically, and examining why it didn't work for you (but why it sold well and why others enjoy it), is a hugely important skill for any writer. You need to know your own tastes and preferences, and understand that these are not the feelings of other readers. Knowing these things and being able to speak your preferences clearly will make you a much stronger writer and reader.

And yeah, don't make blanket statements. You can only ever speak for your own mind. Leave phrases like "us fiction writers" on the cutting-room floor where they belong.

Obviously blog-writing is not detailed literary analysis, and my thoughts about literary fiction were just an aside tangential to the main subject, in any case. Also, my use of the words ‘us writers’ was meant more casually—it was supposed to mean something like ‘and this is what I think conflict means for us writers, but it’s just my opinion’.

But since you ask about sources, I will provide some examples. The Great Gatbsy immediately comes to mind when I think of bad literary fiction. Dense, slow, and pointless. On the other hand, books such as Of Mice and Men don’t fall into this—it’s still a bit slow, but there’s a clear social conflict with Lennie’s disability and an emotional conflict between him and George. Another lit fic book I’ve read, Purple Hibiscus by Chimanda Adichie, also has clear conflict, though I wasn’t a huge fan of the book for other reasons.

Anyway, I didn’t intend this thread to turn into one big argument about the merits of literary fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts about conflict in storytelling that haven’t been raised?

DancingMaenid · Feb 17, 2017

blacbird said:
I've come to prefer the word "tension" over "conflict" in talking about how good fiction works. Too many people these days seem to equate "conflict" with bombs or guns or fistfights. This discussion topic (a good one) can perhaps be illuminated by looking at some older, famous "classic" novels*:

I think this can be helpful, because yes, I think it can be hard for people to get out of the rut of associating conflict with things like fistfights or even very plot and action-driven stories. It's easier to identify external conflict in something like Star Wars than, say, a movie like Ex Machina or the book The Handmaid's Tale. But the latter two examples definitely have tension and stakes and events that build on that.

On the topic of literary fiction, not only is it important to avoid generalizations, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the lines between genres can be malleable and subjective at times, particularly when it comes to literary fiction, which is often defined more by style and tone than content. And how books are classified is often more of a marketing thing.

Old Hack · Feb 17, 2017

AlexSt. said:
Hey guys,

I’ll just address some of the points that have been brought up in the discussion. Firstly, the definition of conflict: I agree with the Urban Spaceman in that conflict isn’t just action—you can have gunfights and magical duels that act as ‘plot filler’ so to speak. Conflict is something a bit more than that; it’s tension (as blackbird calls it) in the sense that it pervades the entire plot, and is always present in some way within the minds of the characters.

As for literary fiction, I am aware that my original statement was rather contentious. But I stand by it: too much literary fiction, in my view, lacks clear conflict. Part of it is indeed due to the fact that a lot of ‘conflict’ in lit fic is internal—a character suffering an identity crisis, or pontificating about their emotions. Nevertheless, I don’t think conflict can be purely internal; I think internal conflict is a response to external conflict. A character might be wondering who they really are, or might suffer feelings of guilt, because of something that’s happened to them. For me, literary fiction (and I do use this label in a very broad sense—not all lit fic is like this) doesn’t have convincing conflict. I don’t believe real human beings go about life in a sort of angst-ridden, put-about unhappiness. They don’t fabricate long-winded monologues out of thin air, or suffer from abstract existential quandries; we humans are more basic creatures than that. I suppose I could refer to the Aristotelian conception of the nous (the soul) as being composed of thee parts: the nutritive, emotional and reasoned parts. In my mind characters in literary fiction focus too much on the emotional part to the detriment of the other two, to the point that they no longer resemble human beings but mouthpieces and archetypes for the author to advance some sort of philosophy.

Finally, I agree with what Laer Carrol, Helix and gtanders have said: storytelling shouldn’t be about ‘indulging in the author’s preciousness’. But as I’ve explained above, I think too much lit fic does do exactly that. And yes, Helix, you don’t see that in genre fiction; in fact the only exception that I’ve ever found (in the hundreds of genre books I’ve read) has been Tolkien’s works.

When you're in a hole....

Helix said:
I can only suggest you read more widely.

That was my reaction too.

EMaree said:
AlexSt., personally I'd like to see you try a post like that that actually goes into detail about your feelings and why you have them. Your blog post seems to be following a sort of op-ed style, providing opinions with only vague claims to back them up, and I think that weakens your posts greatly.

If you want to take a potshot at literary fiction, provide your sources. Tell me what you've read and why you didn't enjoy it, what didn't resonate with you. Show me that you are reading widely and I will respect your hard work more.

The blog that results will still be all about your own opinion, but you'll make your thought process clearer to the audience and they will be more likely to understand and empathise with your particular feelings. As my old teachers used to say, show your work.

Being able to look at a piece of work critically, and examining why it didn't work for you (but why it sold well and why others enjoy it), is a hugely important skill for any writer. You need to know your own tastes and preferences, and understand that these are not the feelings of other readers. Knowing these things and being able to speak your preferences clearly will make you a much stronger writer and reader.

And yeah, don't make blanket statements. You can only ever speak for your own mind. Leave phrases like "us fiction writers" on the cutting-room floor where they belong.

Agreed. If AlexSt had referred to specific books I might have had more sympathy. I would definitely had more understanding.

AlexSt. said:
Obviously blog-writing is not detailed literary analysis, and my thoughts about literary fiction were just an aside tangential to the main subject, in any case. Also, my use of the words ‘us writers’ was meant more casually—it was supposed to mean something like ‘and this is what I think conflict means for us writers, but it’s just my opinion’.

But since you ask about sources, I will provide some examples. The Great Gatbsy immediately comes to mind when I think of bad literary fiction. Dense, slow, and pointless. On the other hand, books such as Of Mice and Men don’t fall into this—it’s still a bit slow, but there’s a clear social conflict with Lennie’s disability and an emotional conflict between him and George. Another lit fic book I’ve read, Purple Hibiscus by Chimanda Adichie, also has clear conflict, though I wasn’t a huge fan of the book for other reasons.

Anyway, I didn’t intend this thread to turn into one big argument about the merits of literary fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts about conflict in storytelling that haven’t been raised?

This isn't a blog, it's a discussion forum. But yep, if you're going to be so dismissive about books you really should tell us which books you're dismissing and why, because otherwise it just sounds like rudeness and griping.

And The Great Gatsby: dense and slow? Not the one I've read.

DancingMaenid said:
On the topic of literary fiction, not only is it important to avoid generalizations, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the lines between genres can be malleable and subjective at times, particularly when it comes to literary fiction, which is often defined more by style and tone than content. And how books are classified is often more of a marketing thing.

Yep. Also, there's an argument to be made that literary fiction isn't a genre on its own. Have you ever seen a shelf labeled "literary fiction" at a bookshop? I like some styles of writing and don't like others; some people might prefer the styles I don't like. That doesn't mean I like good books and they like bad books, or vice versa: just that we have different preferences, that's all.

amergina · Feb 17, 2017

I think this is a good place to end this particular discussion.

The Role of Conflict

AlexSt.

The Urban Spaceman

Existential quandary

AlexSt.

MythMonger

Willing to Learn

AlexSt.

Joseph Schmol

shaken & stirred

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

The Urban Spaceman

Existential quandary

ap123

Twitching

Helix

socially distancing

gtanders

blacbird

Laer Carroll

Aerospace engineer turned writer

Helix

socially distancing

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

AlexSt.

Helix

socially distancing

EMaree

a demon for tea

The Urban Spaceman

Existential quandary

AlexSt.

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong