Thread: How important is conflict in fiction?

Can a writer create a narrative with a strong hero without a strong antagonist? Are other characters always the best dramatic obstacles for a protagonist to encounter in a narrative or can places and things be just as effective? I think time is a great obstacle, particularly in a thriller, what are some others? What is a possible nemesis, from the headlines, for a famous people who is generally viewed negatively? For example, elements of the financial markets made the growth and influence of News Corp. possible. In a roman a clef about Murdoch could he be portrayed heroically if money was portrayed as his nemesis?

Many types of conflict -- person v person, person v self, person v nature, person v fate, person v machine, etc.

If you want to read a book with almost no conflict and definitely no clear protagonist (which is still surprisingly good) try reading "The Country of the Pointed Firs" by Sarah Orne Jewett. It's mostly about a place (and has inspired me to write several short stories that are more just... sketches of places, rather than full plots).

Does it have to be a conflict for it to be.?

Critical - It provides the dynamic that drives the story. Whether it by physical conflict or mental conflict, social conflict or the endless conflict of love, the protagonist/antagonist interaction is what keeps the pot on the boil, holds the reader's interest. No conflict? Dull, dull, dull...

Absolutely imperative. Fiction cannot exist without conflict. I wrote an article on this for the WF newsletter a few months ago. Check the archives and you might find it.

To summarise, though: Even when you think conflict is not present, it is. It doesn't have to be arguments, fighting, or physical. Conflict can be an internal struggle with morality and conscience. Nevertheless, without conflict you practically don't have a story. Imagine your favourite television show bereft of the day-to-day or week-to-week drama. Would it be worth watching?

So does conflict the only way to enjoying a story?

Which is more important the conflict as such or the charcters?

I would say the conflict. Without some form of that, you have no story. I had one that had no characters, long ago, but there was still a conflict (I wanted to see if I could do it as an exercise). Conflict doesn't need to be melodramatic, it can be subtle (as said previously), but it has to be there.

Originally Posted by Jack Strange

Can a writer create a narrative with a strong hero without a strong antagonist?

Not necessarily. There are stories without antagonists and lots and lots of conflict.

Are other characters always the best dramatic obstacles for a protagonist to encounter in a narrative or can places and things be just as effective?

Anything can cause conflict. Conflict is anything that gets between your main cast and their objectives. I myself are a fan of inner struggles and the realization that sacrifices are needed to reach our goals.

I think time is a great obstacle, particularly in a thriller, what are some others?

People thinking differently, consequences of a character's actions, economic and social problems, lack of sufficient ability to solve their problems, etc.

What is a possible nemesis, from the headlines, for a famous people who is generally viewed negatively? For example, elements of the financial markets made the growth and influence of News Corp. possible. In a roman a clef about Murdoch could he be portrayed heroically if money was portrayed as his nemesis?

Using money as an antagonist is the same as using a hammer as your arch-nemesis. A tool has no emotion, no intent, thus it fails at being an opposing force. People with or without money, on the other hand, are an entirely different business. The antagonistic force in this case is not the money in itself but the situation that rises by it's presence or lack of thereof. Same thing happens with natural disasters: the antagonist here is not nature itself, but the disaster that it has brought upon the characters.

Headlines work as an antagonistic force because it has every intent of being harmful to the character's reputation. It was written by humans for the sake of making news of someone's disgrace.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Fiction cannot exist without conflict. I wrote an article on this for the WF newsletter a few months ago. Check the archives and you might find it.

It didn't occur to you to find it yourself and post a link?

The article was in the April issue, available for download here. Sam developed the article after a lengthy discussion in the Writing Discussion board.

Sycophant

Just trying to be helpful. In the September issue will be found the definition of 'Site Mentor', which sounds like a good kind of person to be.

Edit - And after all, as editor of the Newsletter, I'm supposed to know what's in it.

Originally Posted by elite

Not necessarily. There are stories without antagonists and lots and lots of conflict.

If you meant not always, I agree although in popular fiction it would be the exception that proves the rule.


Anything can cause conflict. Conflict is anything that gets between your main cast and their objectives. I myself are a fan of inner struggles and the realization that sacrifices are needed to reach our goals.

Certainly, depending on what type of fiction you're writing. An inability to write an effective villain is a common failing of weak thrillers in both novel and film script form. Some writers can't get past wanting to see themselves as the hero in their own life.


People thinking differently, consequences of a character's actions, economic and social problems, lack of sufficient ability to solve their problems, etc.

I'm more interested in money than the Booker List.


Using money as an antagonist is the same as using a hammer as your arch-nemesis. A tool has no emotion, no intent, thus it fails at being an opposing force. People with or without money, on the other hand, are an entirely different business. The antagonistic force in this case is not the money in itself but the situation that rises by it's presence or lack of thereof. Same thing happens with natural disasters: the antagonist here is not nature itself, but the disaster that it has brought upon the characters.

Like most, the hammers in my home don't disturb my sleep. On the other hand, emotions like greed and fear around money are close to universal. Suggest looking a little closer at what causes currency volatility, and inflation and deflation. Money is nothing but emotion although it can also be used as a tool.

The example I mentioned could be a comedy in screenplay form with no hero’s, at least for acts one and two. Say Murdoch is weakened by the recent scandals and the ruler of Qatar (owner of Al Jazeera) decides to take a run at New Corp.. Obviously the British and American governments, in all their corrupt glory, would be the third and fourth villains of my conceit.

I'm still learning how to use a lot of the great functionality on this site so please bear with me as I re-post my last post in an attempt to eliminate the mistakes I made with my quoting.

Originally Posted by elite

Not necessarily. There are stories without antagonists and lots and lots of conflict.

If you meant not always, I agree although in popular fiction it would be the exception that proves the rule.

Originally Posted by elite

Anything can cause conflict. Conflict is anything that gets between your main cast and their objectives. I myself are a fan of inner struggles and the realization that sacrifices are needed to reach our goals.

Certainly, depending on what type of fiction you're writing. An inability to write an effective villain is a common failing of weak thrillers in both novel and film script form. Some writers can't get past wanting to see themselves as the hero in their own life.

Originally Posted by elite

People thinking differently, consequences of a character's actions, economic and social problems, lack of sufficient ability to solve their problems, etc.

I'm more interested in money than the Booker List.

Originally Posted by elite

Using money as an antagonist is the same as using a hammer as your arch-nemesis. A tool has no emotion, no intent, thus it fails at being an opposing force. People with or without money, on the other hand, are an entirely different business. The antagonistic force in this case is not the money in itself but the situation that rises by it's presence or lack of thereof. Same thing happens with natural disasters: the antagonist here is not nature itself, but the disaster that it has brought upon the characters.

Like most, the hammers in my home don't disturb my sleep. On the other hand, emotions like greed and fear around money are close to universal. Suggest looking a little closer at what causes currency volatility, and inflation and deflation. Money is nothing but emotion although it can also be use as a tool.

The example I mentioned could be a comedy in screenplay form with no hero’s, at least for acts one and two. Say Murdoch is weakened by the recent scandals and the ruler of Qatar (owner of Al Jazeera) decides to take a run at New Corp.. Obviously the British and American governments, in all their corrupt glory, would be the third and fourth villains of my conceit.

PS: Fingers crossed.