Does every scene need a conflict?

Every scene needs to move the story forward is a more commonly heard mantra. I can't imagine conflict in every scene, it could be tedious.

I would think everything needs to contribute something to the story. Plot, character development, subplot introduction. It might be different if you were writing a thriller for example.

It depends on how you define conflict. Conflict can be a person mentally weighing out a few opposing choices as they decide what they'll do next. It can be contemplative and take place when they're alone.

I think yes, you should have conflict in every scene, but you should vary the type and intensity of conflict. Have an external conflict and passion in one scene, then an internal conflict featuring thoughtfulness in the next.

IMO,every scene needs a purpose to move the story along. But not necessarily conflict. jjdebenedictis makes great points!!

That's a great question, and one I think about a lot. Good writers want to challenge their MC's in every possible way. Characters can't rise to meet trouble if they don't have any; they can't grow and change without conflict, and change is what makes a novel a novel. Characterization and advancing the plot are essentials for every scene, IMO. So is tension; without that, readers stop turning pages. Tension arises from conflict, but can also result from questions that are raised but not answered. Why did that man attack Jem in the opening scene of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD? That one's answered in the final chapter.

But do we need overt conflict in every scene? I'd frame the answer in different terms. The savviest writers look for the conflict inherent in every scene. Take Game of Thrones, for example. There was a minor scene in which Cersei visits her brother Tyrion in his much diminished quarters to suss out what he plans to tell their father. Tyrian, in turn, wants to know precisely what she’s afraid he’ll say. The dialogue between them shows each one trying to elicit information from the other while concealing his/her own intentions and concerns. Each character had a strong agenda, and those agendas were at odds.

The same could be said of nearly all Martin’s scenes. The man seems incapable of framing any scene that is not full of conflict and hidden agendas. In scene after scene, his characters use manipulation, intimidation, flattery, seduction and every other means of persuasion to impose their will. Pretty much the same is true of the Harry Potter books. Try to find a scene with no conflict---it's not easy! It might not be overt conflict; it might be internal, on occasion. But it's always there.

celticroots said:

Does every scene in a novel need a conflict? If the scene reveals something about character, moves plot along, etc? I really try to not make things easy on my characters in each chapter, but I don't know if that would be considered conflict?

Like the MC gets frustrated that she can't/or is having trouble doing something that was once simple?

Click to expand...

The subtext of pretty much every scene should include "yes" from one party, and "no" from another. Whether that's the PoV character debating an issue or trying to solve a problem themself or two characters arguing or even a conversation. When you don't have that back and forth the scene usually doesn't hold attention. (This includes scenes where there is an interplay between a character doing something successfully and not successfully - dangerous situation that creates tension.)

So, in that sense, I would say that every scene needs conflict. That doesn't mean that every scene has to be a fight or an argument.

Does one character glaring at another count as conflict? I think yes, because otherwise they'd be hugging each other.

...or uninterested in each other.

I am definitely not an expert on any level, but in my mind something that keeps things going with purpose is more important. I think it would feel awkward to force conflict into a scene rather than allowing it to fit with the flow you had already created.

celticroots said:

Does every scene in a novel need a conflict?

Click to expand...

Purpose, not necessarily conflict.

Like the MC gets frustrated that she can't/or is having trouble doing something that was once simple?

Click to expand...

If you show conflict this way in every scene, and have 2 or 3 scenes per chapter, and 15 or 20 chapters in your novel, then I will not have got any further than chapter 3. If you do the same thing over and over again, people will get bored and/or frustrated. Mix it up.

I would say no. Every scene needs a purpose, and sometimes that purpose is giving the character (and reader) a break from tension, or setting up later conflict, a sort of calm before the storm.

Barbara R. said:

But do we need overt conflict in every scene? I'd frame the answer in different terms. The savviest writers look for the conflict inherent in every scene.

Click to expand...

Just for the heck of it, I pulled out a children's book, Ramona and Her Father. Here's the conflict in the first chapter :

1. Ramona makes a not-very-realistic list of presents she hopes to get for Christmas.
2. Mrs. Quimby says they're going to have leftover pot roast and creamed cauliflower for supper. Ugh, say the girls, and Ramona suggests they go out for hamburgers. Mrs. Quimby says maybe, since it's their father's payday.
3. Mr. Quimby comes home. The girls are in their room when they hear their parents talking in low voices, like something is wrong.
4. Mrs. Quimby tells the girls their father has just lost his job, and they don't have much money. This means no Christmas presents. And creamed cauliflower for supper.

That's a lot of conflict, and it's only the first chapter. I agree with what others have said, there needs to be conflict in each scene. This doesn't mean every scene needs a fight or an argument, or that the conflict has to be intense and ever-present. But IMO not many scenes do well without it.

The only principle I can think of, from the standpoint of a reader, is that every scene needs a reason for being there. My biggest gripe, in this regard, are needless "transitions". Too many writers seem to think they need to write some kind of "bridge" to carry from scene to scene, and those are usually deadly dull and superfluous. Scene breaks are among a writer's best friends.

caw

I think that the main conflict should consistently affect the MC throughout the story even if he/she isn't directly involved with resolving it at that time. The MC's biggest challenge can still impact their actions and thoughts even if they're doing something mundane like eating cereal.

A scene without conflict is a sequel. They are important, because that's when the character processes things, makes decisions ect.
But after that decision is made, if there is no conflict when the character sets out to fulfil a goal? Then your story is finished because character are human, and humans don't generally take a difficult path if a perfectly serviceable easy one is already there.

I'm not sure every scene requires conflict - but then I think most scenes are conflict in some way whether you define them that way or not.

It doesn't have to be a fistfight on a canvas of explosions, it might just be the protagonist realising that the thing she has to do to move on is something she doesn't think she can do.

celticroots said:

Like the MC gets frustrated that she can't/or is having trouble doing something that was once simple?

Click to expand...

That sounds like conflict to me. Conflict can be internal as well as external.

I like the term "tension" better than conflict because it's easier to see how tension fits into the larger conflict in the plot. The strict definition of conflict (a character wants something and faces some sort of impediment) can be difficult to apply to some scenes, especially if a scene is resolving conflict that was started in a previous scene. But there should generally be some sort of tension that drives the story forward.

There are occasions when a scene serves another purpose, like worldbuilding or setting up the plot. This can work if it's done in small doses and works for the book, but even then, there's often going to be some room for tension and happenings that are relevant to the story. I think this is something people overthink a lot. If you have a scene where a character is just eating breakfast and talking about routine stuff, then that's a scene that doesn't have much conflict and you'll probably want to keep it brief. If they're eating breakfast and talking about how weird it is that the neighbors haven't been around for days, or they're making passive-aggressive comments to their spouse, that's conflict.

I'm not sure if every scene needs conflict. Sometimes the characters need a bit of a rest, and during that rest the reader can see how the character is processing what had happened recently. Also, the author can show how vastly different down time can be. In the beginning, the character may be carefree, at the middle the character may be guarded, at the end, accepting. All of that can be shown without conflict, but instead how the character reacts to down time.

Every scene does not need a conflict.
If each scene needed a conflict, it would be hard to do. Most people have a different idea of what a scene is.
It appears here that it's thought of as being a scene in a play.
Also if everything written just right, the story or novel would be like all other, just right writings, and it would not be read by many since it's like all the others.
What is needed is for the writer to not be so rigid in writing.
The story or novel needs to be more in the direction of creative writing compared to correct writing.
Because correct writing is all the same, since there is only one way to be correct.
Creative writing is written in many ways and the reader prefers this.

Thinking about this. All of my scenes have conflict on some level. Whether its a fight to the last in the finale, or putting off using a disgusting portaloo in the first scene. The only exception I can think of are the heavy revelations, where big answers are given and bigger questions raised, but conflict is then inevitable. I think conflict is the driver for character motivation and the heart of the story.

Conflict... You could redefine it as "purpose". Whether that purpose involves the protagonist going up against an antagonist, or includes a plant, or straight up hits the reader over the head with essential information, depends on the needs of the story. That was quite the run-on.

TL;DR: I prefer "purpose" instead of "conflict". Removes any invisible pressure from creating a scene that doesn't involve "drama" of some sort, no?

ETA: I also need to pay attention to the dates of the most recent post(s).

Some great points made here. I think of conflict as linked to desire: the MC wants something or wants desperately to avoid something. Sometimes the apparent absence of conflict in a scene -- the loved one has just proposed, the danger has been averted, the threat is revealed as not really a threat, all good! -- works as a breathing space for reader and character. Sometimes the reader suspects that the MC is too naive and optimistic and begins to understand the MC as flawed, an unreliable narrator. Can she be trusted? The author can use this tension to heighten suspense. Moving forward, the MC's desire deepens or changes, is thwarted in unexpected ways: she accepts the marriage proposal but the relationship fails, she thinks she has escaped danger only to find herself in a scarier place. She doesn't know her own heart, she doesn't want to see what is really going on. The reader engages more closely with the MC because the conflict is not just externalised in narrative drama but has an interior aspect, the struggle going on within the MC.

My first thought was yes, but the more I think about it, no.

My thrillers will often have a scene or two where characters piece together new information and figure out the next thing they need to do. Although, now I think about it, that new information usually sets up new conflict for them.

So... I don't know.