Thread: What do READERS think?

For some years I’ve been hearing from wannabe writers that a good story MUST include tension or, as some describe it, conflict.

These wannabes say this ingredient’s essential, if the reader is to keep turning the pages.

Here’s one reader’s take on this:

I mostly experience a sense of frustration with situations where characters find themselves in confrontations. I find myself saying stuff like, "How could he/she/they be so stupid as to allow this to occur?"

Put another way, it seems to me that many of those situations are wholly artificial or unrealistic, that is, it’s obvious they’ve been created by the author specifically to build in tension where none need exist.

It’s a different matter if the story is about someone who came out of the womb aggressive, or who grows up fighting inner demons, however to me as a reader, to put conflict on the page simply for conflict’s sake is ridiculous.

This reader prefers a story that has its characters getting on with doing the job in the simplest way possible. Perhaps that’s no more than a reflection of how I am in real life, as it's in my nature to find the easiest way to do anything and, additionally, as I avoid conflict like the plague; whatever, I believe a great many READERS would agree with me.

So, if your writing style includes the avoidance of conflict, I say go for it. You’ll find an agent, and a publisher, and a whole raft of readers, who are of the same opinion.

This is actually a very good question Ox and I'm tempted to write about it which if I do however, I won't post as I'm chary of you simply baiting me here. If you're serious I doubt you'll get very far if you continue to conflate tension and conflict, the latter being a term of literary analytical jargon at some remove from it's literal definition, which is most odd you don't already know, and wherein lies the ambush probably. Good hunting, pp.

pp

Tension

Encarta Dictionary: English (U.K.)

5. Sense of conflict

LITERATURE: the way that opposing characters clash or interact in an interesting (their word, not mine) way with each other in a literary work.

pp

It’s also fairly obvious, from a reading of my post in toto, that I use the terms, along with the word confrontation, interchangeably.

Slipped the hook.

I don't agree with that definition, though, not unless nature can be considered a 'character'. I was taught that there is external conflict and internal conflict.

External conflict:
Man against man
Man against nature

Internal conflict:
Man against himself

This reader prefers a story that has its characters getting on with doing the job in the simplest way possible.

With no conflict there is no 'job' for the character to get on with.

It doesn't have to be an epic struggle or a fierce internal battle. Even humor usually centers around some kind of problem, glitch, difficulty, need...in other words conflict.

There has to be a conflict or there's no story. Plain and simple.

But as I've said a million times before, this is the age of self-publishing. You can publish a story where no one does anything, just two guys on a porch drinking beer:

"Yep," Bill said.
"Yep," John replied.
A moment passed.
"Yep," Bill reiterated.
"Yep," John responded in kind.

Get my point? Everything hangs on the story's central conflict and its ultimate resolution.

Originally Posted by Edward G

There has to be a conflict or there's no story. Plain and simple.

In your opinion, that is.

Have you ever watched a soap, drama, or movie that hasn't had conflict in it, OX? If everything was all roses in the garden, everyone lived happily ever after, and nothing bad ever happened to anyone, no one would watch it -- or read it. What would be the point? Everyday life isn't entertaining -- for the most part. That's why reality-TV shows like Big Brother are mind-numbingly boring. The only thing which makes them bearable is the conflict between the people in the house.

A novel without conflict is like a romance novel without romance. It just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

In your opinion, that is.

Well, yes, my opinion, but it's one shared by the literary community throughout history. But like I said, it's the era of self-publishing. You can write whatever you want and slap it up on Kindle.

xO - Conflict, and its ultimate resolution, makes the story. That's one point on which successful novelists and journalists can agree.

Why is everyone reading about Libya? Conflict. When everything was peaceful in Libya no one was interested. Today there's a full scale revolution. We all want to read the latest bulletins. Will the protests lead to the downfall of the government? What will happen if it does? What will happen if it does not?

Libya? Has Mussolini been toppled, then?

It is possible not to have conflict. I distinctly remember long passages of Life of Pi by Yann Martel having none. But it was fascinating and absorbing so I read on. For instance Pi's full first name was Piscine, pronounced 'Pissin' and he was worried about his new bi-lingual fellow students taking the mickey, so he called himself Pi. Is this conflict? Tension perhaps. And it had pages and pages of zoomorphology - no tension even, but fascinating.

But 99% of the time, no news is good news so I need a bit of tension. Even just a teeny amount.

Originally Posted by spider8

But 99% of the time, no news is good news so I need a bit of tension. Even just a teeny amount.

I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps the best way to put it.

Foxee has it right. But I think people with any talent for writing instinctively include conflict in their stories. Readers respond to it and require some level of it even if they don't know what "conflict" is in terms of writing. This one has always seemed like a no-brainer to me.