# ... but are there explosions?



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 16, 2018)

How hard would it be to write a book with zero action sequences, no climax, and no danger whatsoever and still make it entertaining? 

ZERO CONFLICT.

I'm keeping every genre in mind here.


----------



## Von_Mitchell (Jan 16, 2018)

No conflict of any sort?


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 16, 2018)

Child-books often have no conflict.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 16, 2018)

Conflict isn't just physical challenges and actions; it can be emotions, decisions, relationships, etc.. Conflict is more like interaction on any level. Take that out and you've got nothing of interest.

John gets chased by a monster/killer/tax collector.
John cooks a boiled egg but it's a bit too hard for his liking.
John wakes up but still feels tired.
John disagrees with the opinion presented by the man on the news.
John thinks he needs a haircut.
John misses the bus and feels pissed off.

All have conflict, in the literary sense.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 16, 2018)

I am reading _Very British Problems_. There, the biggest conflict is how to manage seeing the same acquaintance in two consecutive supermarket aisles.

My wife is reading _Why Mummy Drinks_, whose stakes centre around the congitive dissonance that occurs when Trixie and Lulubelle brutually savage another soft toy before a secret cabal of PTA top brass, spouting the sorts of verbiage only ever heard in _Animal Jam 13+_, while a little voice in your head whispers _at least ~hic!~ they're getting along._

So yeah - embrace Essential Silliness and you can get away with all sorts of gwunk. Failing that, write a book of facts.


----------



## aj47 (Jan 16, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> How hard would it be to write a book with zero action sequences, no climax, and no danger whatsoever and still make it entertaining?
> 
> ZERO CONFLICT.



Unless you totally broaden the idea of "conflict" to cover things not generally meant.... it's not inconceivable.  



> I'm keeping every genre in mind here.



No, no you're not.  Cookbooks don't tend to have conflict.


----------



## Garvan (Jan 16, 2018)

Why would you want to write something so lacking in everything? 

I mean... you can come close in flash fiction, due to the limited word count in most flash fiction competitions and just the whole genre often you find yourself leaving out big events or writing about the set up of events leaving the story on a cliffhanger. These pieces are ok if well done and they do lack the more traditional conflict arcs of longer short stories or novels. 

Although I would say always try and have and resolve conflict however short the tale.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 16, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> How hard would it be to write a book with zero action sequences, no climax, and no danger whatsoever and still make it entertaining?
> 
> ZERO CONFLICT.
> 
> I'm keeping every genre in mind here.



Zero action and zero danger shouldn't be an issue at all. But zero conflict? Zero climax? What's the story about?

This may depend on length. A vignette or something, a purely descriptive passage that paints a lovely picture? Sure. But anything longer than a few hundred words and I'm going to want something to happen, and the reason behind that happening will likely be some form of conflict...


----------



## Terry D (Jan 16, 2018)

If you have a story, you have conflict. Even if that conflict is as minor seeming as a kid getting ready for prom and finding a zit on the end of his/her nose. A story is the telling of changes that happen to characters as they overcome obstacles.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 16, 2018)

My thought here falls upon an idea I had to create a fictional autobiography-like story a long time ago, but I stopped writing because I couldn't find a single smidgen of conflict in it. The writing and dialogue was great, but the story was just boring.

Thinking about that I wondered to myself, what would it take to make a person hooked on a story without a hook in the first place?

The characters? The dialogue? The circumstances?

By taking the concept of conflict in its broadest sense, you're opening your mind to a myriad of potential situations (like many of you have said) where a person might face defeat or danger of some type.

If nothing else, have you ever READ a book that didn't have a major conflict propelling the plot?

Also, as the title suggests, CAN a book be great without danger/explosions to propel it to a climax?


----------



## Terry D (Jan 16, 2018)

Sure. There are lots of great books that aren't centered around dire conflicts. What you are describing is, in general, the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction. Literary fiction is often more character-centric, or more stylistic, than genre fiction. When character development, or the author's use of language are more important than the plot, it's a good bet you are reading literary fiction. There will still be conflict, but it will often be conflict within the characters (internal conflict) rather than conflict caused by outside events (external conflict).


----------



## Bayview (Jan 16, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Sure. There are lots of great books that aren't centered around dire conflicts. What you are describing is, in general, the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction. Literary fiction is often more character-centric, or more stylistic, than genre fiction. When character development, or the author's use of language are more important than the plot, it's a good bet you are reading literary fiction. There will still be conflict, but it will often be conflict within the characters (internal conflict) rather than conflict caused by outside events (external conflict).



Ironically for the romance-bashers out there, it tends to be closer to the "literary" standard of character-based conflicts. Actually, a lot of YA also focuses on internal conflicts.

I read a book yesterday that was centred around external conflict and physical danger. Before that? I can't remember the last time I read a story structured that way.

So, yes, I agree, it's more than possible to write books without danger and explosions - most of the books I read don't have either.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 17, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> How hard would it be to write a book with zero action sequences, no climax, and no danger whatsoever and still make it entertaining?
> 
> ZERO CONFLICT.
> 
> I'm keeping every genre in mind here.



I once wrote a short story that was all (or almost all) dialogue, so no action is possible though not practical. I think, as everyone has answered, danger is not needed. Identifiable climax is not needed (_The Fault in Our Stars_).

Terry has explained that he uses "conflict" as a technical term in writing. It does not correspond to, say, the dictionary definition. You need to know that to understand his answer.

You're speaking hypothetically, right? There's no reason to avoid action sequences, and conflict (as ordinarily defined) is another nice way of adding interest.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 17, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Terry has explained that he uses "conflict" as a technical term in writing. *It does not correspond to, say, the dictionary definition*. You need to know that to understand his answer.



It doesn't?

From Miriam-Webster:

*Definition of conflict*

[FONT=&Verdana]1: fight, battle, war 

an armed _conflict_


2a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) 

a _conflict_ of principles

b : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands 

His conscience was in _conflict_ with his duty.


3: the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction 

The _conflict_ in the play is between the king and the archbishop.


[/FONT]


I think what I, and others, have been saying fit #2 and #3 perfectly. You might want to try learning before teaching.


----------



## Sam (Jan 17, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> How hard would it be to write a book with zero action sequences, no climax, and no danger whatsoever and still make it entertaining?
> 
> ZERO CONFLICT.
> 
> I'm keeping every genre in mind here.



Conflict in what sense? As in war? 

Because if you're talking about the other sort of conflict, what we writers call conflict, then it wouldn't be hard -- it would be impossible. 

Every novel needs conflict.


----------



## Smith (Jan 21, 2018)

astroannie said:


> Cookbooks don't tend to have conflict.



What about conflicting tastes and textures?

What about the struggle for survival that necessitates our satiation of hunger?


----------



## J Anfinson (Jan 21, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> If nothing else, have you ever READ a book that didn't have a major conflict propelling the plot?




I've read plenty of nonfiction books that weren't all that exciting. Humor books written by comedians don't have a lot of explosions or gunplay either. I'm sure fiction doesn't necessarily require exciting conflict to keep people entertained either, but when I'm writing I get a kick out of cutting throats and throwing people off buildings.


----------



## bookmasta (Jan 21, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> How hard would it be to write a book with zero action sequences, no climax, and no danger whatsoever and still make it entertaining?
> 
> ZERO CONFLICT.
> 
> I'm keeping every genre in mind here.



Sounds like trying to paint without any actual colors.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 22, 2018)

J Anfinson said:


> [/COLOR]I've read plenty of nonfiction books that weren't all that exciting. Humor books written by comedians don't have a lot of explosions or gunplay either. I'm sure fiction doesn't necessarily require exciting conflict to keep people entertained either, but when I'm writing I get a kick out of cutting throats and throwing people off buildings.



Again, though, "conflict" in a writing-theory sense doesn't mean explosions or gunplay. Obviously loads of books are written that don't have explosions or gunplay. But there should be something the characters need, and something standing in the way of them getting what they need, unless you're writing _really_ experimental fiction.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 22, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Again, though, "conflict" in a writing-theory sense doesn't mean explosions or gunplay. Obviously loads of books are written that don't have explosions or gunplay. But there should be something the characters need, and something standing in the way of them getting what they need, unless you're writing _really_ experimental fiction.



See I imagine that there are stories with artificial conflict that's only there to pad the word count all of the time. I also see in some works that all of the conflict is immediately nullified with little to no difficulty from the protagonist. 

Imagine if there was no conflict for the protagonist to react to; what then would be required to drive the story forward?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jan 22, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> See I imagine that there are stories with artificial conflict that's only there to pad the word count all of the time. I also see in some works that all of the conflict is immediately nullified with little to no difficulty from the protagonist.
> 
> Imagine if there was no conflict for the protagonist to react to; what then would be required to drive the story forward?



Without conflict of at least one definition, you don't actually have a story. You might have a vignette, a slice-of-life, a documentary, a cookbook, a lab manual. 

Conflict doesn't have to be well-written, well-executed, believable, original. It doesn't have to involve characters you care about. It doesn't have to involve breathtaking scenery or ratcheting tension. It can be conflict without all of that.


----------



## Sheijkoop (Jan 22, 2018)

I would hardly call that a book, and I'm not sure if there is a possible way to exile everything that makes an interesting read, and still have a target audience. While a lot of people like books about nothing, there still has to have conflict.

Stephanieheijkoopedition.com


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 22, 2018)

Sheijkoop said:


> I would hardly call that a book, and I'm not sure if there is a possible way to exile everything that makes an interesting read, and still have a target audience. While a lot of people like books about nothing, there still has to have conflict.
> 
> Stephanieheijkoopedition.com



I'm starting to think that maybe the answer lies in subject matter.

If you remove a central conflict, you have to fill the void; this could be done with *fanservice*.

The problem lies in removing smaller conflicts from the story; how can you weave a story worth telling on an educated level without involving drama or tension of any kind?

A story like that would need a hook from the gate to even interest someone after the first 100 pages. The subject matter is the key.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 23, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> I'm starting to think that maybe the answer lies in subject matter.
> 
> If you remove a central conflict, you have to fill the void; this could be done with *fanservice*.
> 
> ...



I wonder if you could write a book that was so good, whose words were so perfect, that a reader would be instantly hooked. But then you have the tension of craving the next hit of irresistable letterspace. Too many words are made great(er) by the ones that go before it. Even the phrase "I am" comes loaded with tension between the two components, so all the amazing needs to be delivered up front and throughout. You'd need a book of one word, a single beautifully inchoate howl, enapsulating all the terrible chaos and divine symmetry of existence.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 23, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I wonder if you could write a book that was so good, whose words were so perfect, that a reader would be instantly hooked. But then you have the tension of craving the next hit of irresistable letterspace. Too many words are made great(er) by the ones that go before it. Even the phrase "I am" comes loaded with tension between the two components, so all the amazing needs to be delivered up front and throughout. You'd need a book of one word, a single beautifully inchoate howl, enapsulating all the terrible chaos and divine symmetry of existence.



Absolutely phenomenal response.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 23, 2018)

^ It's 6am here - working all day, working all night, rinse and repeat. Such a singular, formless phoneme is, quite literally, all I could manage.



> Hhhhhghghghhyyyeeaahhhhwwwwrrrrooooouououououghghghghgh!


(for 300 pages or more)

Instant bestseller.

EDIT: Whoa, there's a space there that I didn't add. I can't edit it out. Clearly such perfection is being denied me.


----------



## FireofDarkness (May 9, 2018)

There are different kinds of conflict: man against man, man against nature, man against himself. We innately want a conflict so that we can have a victor. ​Many young adult books have internal conflict (man against self) as they struggle with growing up. Even in a "self-help book" we want it to make us feel victorious over our problem & give a pep-talk for motivation.
There is internal conflict in deciding what to buy vs the money we have, trying to keep up with the "johnsons," deciding how to spend our time or which hobbies to pursue, choosing the right house or job, even deciding when to change lanes in traffic. 
So you certainly don't have to have action or danger...
The goal is making the character relatable (to the target group), give them some struggles to over come, & then resolution= basic plot line.

A relatable conflict can be simple:
For me it might be surviving a shopping mall- not dangerous, but large groups of people, over priced stuff, no open air, and gaudy trinkets all around me. But what if the person were Autistic or something?
For another it might be surviving a day without power: normally not dangerous, but no internet, no microwave, no AC, no TV. 
Hope this helps


----------

