# Stories without central conflict? Could it work?



## AdrianBraysy (Dec 26, 2017)

I have, not so long ago, had the opportunity to enjoy some spare time for reading and watching films. I decided to give Ishiguro a try. Can't remember the exact title, but the book is basically about a butler exploring life on a kind of roadtrip. There is no central conflict in the story, yet it kept me hooked just because the character was fascinating.

I also just got done watching a swedish movie called "a man named Ove", which is about an old grumpy guy wanting to kill himself, who feels like he has a need to control everything in his neighbourhood. During his suicide attempts, we get flashbacks from his life.

My point with all this is: is it possible that we, as writers, sometimes become too focused on the actual CENTRAL conflict (I say central, because there are sort of mini-conflicts going on. It's just not the main driving force of the story). I have noticed that with a lot of comedy, for example, the main driving force is: funny things are said, and funny things happen. It's not: character has to either achieve or not achieve goal x, or the story fails. Often, a good comedy can be funny even if there is no true conflict resolution, because we just care about having a fun time.

Same thing with a lot of these 'slice of life'-stories. What do we really look for when reading these? Characters living interesting lives worth exploring (such as the everyday life of a butler with autistic tendencies).

By elevating conflict to the point of it being the most important thing (as I've heard in some writing classes), are we risking overlooking the possibility of writing a story that is just about interesting people going through life?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 26, 2017)

Joshilyn Jackson writes that way. There is a very tense scene for the first 1/4 of her book -- then it gets resolved and we move on to something else coming out of the first scene. I like reading her books. I would not call them "slice of life" though. She has central conflicts, they just don't last very long.

Is there a central conflict for the first Harry Potter book? The Odyssey? Anne of Green Gables?


----------



## AdrianBraysy (Dec 27, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Joshilyn Jackson writes that way. There is a very tense scene for the first 1/4 of her book -- then it gets resolved and we move on to something else coming out of the first scene. I like reading her books. I would not call them "slice of life" though. She has central conflicts, they just don't last very long.
> 
> Is there a central conflict for the first Harry Potter book? The Odyssey? Anne of Green Gables?



That's exactly what I mean! I see a lot of writing instructors focusing so much on the central conflict, and how once the central conflict is resolved, the story is over.

That just never felt true to me. Take harry potter. Sure, there's the conflict of trying to fight voldemort as a sort of ultimate goal, but the real driving force that pushes the plot forward is 'interesting magical things happen, causing harry to find out more about himself and the school'. So yeah, Voldemort is kind of the conflict always in the back of our heads, but one could just as well say the conflict is 'harry knows too little about his history and needs to investigate to find out more'. What is the central driving force falls into the eye of the beholder in some sense.

Another example are episodic sitcoms. There is no overall conflict/goal for the big bang theory, as it changes from episode to episode.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 27, 2017)

My novel was based on an episodic TV series that wasn't actually broadcast until after I wrote it. How that was even possible must remain a mystery to many people. However, the result was that there was no clear central conflict but rather each chapter had a minor conflict. If there was an overarching theme then it was the question of how we decide what is real and what imaginary in our lives and whether the distinction actually matters. In itself that reflected the circumstances under which I wrote the story. Was I really drawing on knowledge that I would acquire in the future or was there another explanation, or doesn't it matter? Sometimes the purpose of a story is not to present the resolution of a central conflict but to construct a plausible conflict within the complacent mind of the reader which they must resolve to their own satisfaction. 

When I prepared to write my novel I didn't read about the conventions of novel writing but about the psychology of reading. Therefore I incorporated into my novel the elements that I needed to achieve my purpose with respect to the reader, not ones that were prescribed by others. As it has no central conflict around which the plot revolves it is impractical to write a synopsis and I haven't been successful in doing that despite trying. As busy publishers expect a synopsis to assist them in making a rapid assessment, that may be the real reason for the need for a central conflict and plot rather than its value to the person who eventually reads the work in its entirety. Perhaps there's a fundamental conflict for the writer here, whether one is writing a story to be read or to be published.


----------



## AdrianBraysy (Dec 27, 2017)

JustRob said:


> My novel was based on an episodic TV series that wasn't actually broadcast until after I wrote it. How that was even possible must remain a mystery to many people. However, the result was that there was no clear central conflict but rather each chapter had a minor conflict. If there was an overarching theme then it was the question of how we decide what is real and what imaginary in our lives and whether the distinction actually matters. In itself that reflected the circumstances under which I wrote the story. Was I really drawing on knowledge that I would acquire in the future or was there another explanation, or doesn't it matter? Sometimes the purpose of a story is not to present the resolution of a central conflict but to construct a plausible conflict within the complacent mind of the reader which they must resolve to their own satisfaction.
> 
> When I prepared to write my novel I didn't read about the conventions of novel writing but about the psychology of reading. Therefore I incorporated into my novel the elements that I needed to achieve my purpose with respect to the reader, not ones that were prescribed by others. As it has no central conflict around which the plot revolves it is impractical to write a synopsis and I haven't been successful in doing that despite trying. As busy publishers expect a synopsis to assist them in making a rapid assessment, that may be the real reason for the need for a central conflict and plot rather than its value to the person who eventually reads the work in its entirety. Perhaps there's a fundamental conflict for the writer here, whether one is writing a story to be read or to be published.



Kind of off topic, but do you know of any good articles on the psychology of reading? Would love to learn more about it


----------



## Sam (Dec 27, 2017)

A novel without conflict is like a ship without a rudder.


----------



## Book Cook (Dec 27, 2017)

Conflict is always there. If you want your character to enter a house, he'll have a conflict with the door.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 27, 2017)

Harry Potter is a good example. Is there a CENTRAL conflict? Not exactly. Not in the first book. He was solving a mystery, I guess, and learning about the magical world. But is that conflict?  There were little conflicts scattered throughout.  But I don't know about a CENTRAL one.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 27, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Harry Potter is a good example. Is there a CENTRAL conflict? Not exactly. Not in the first book. He was solving a mystery, I guess, and learning about the magical world. But is that conflict?  There were little conflicts scattered throughout.  But I don't know about a CENTRAL one.



Sure there is. Resolving the mystery is the central conflict of that book, just as it's the central conflict in most mysteries. The book also introduces the conflict that is central to the entire series -- that being Harry coming to terms with who he really is and understanding his destiny.

As to the question in the OP, all stories have conflict. Every one of them. If they don't, then they are not stories. Conflict doesn't have to be dramatic and high-stakes, it can be subtle, internal, and very personal, but without it there's no reason for the story to exist.


----------



## ppsage (Dec 27, 2017)

> As to the question in the OP, all stories have conflict. Every one of them. If they don't, then they are not stories. Conflict doesn't have to be dramatic and high-stakes, it can be subtle, internal, and very personal, but without it there's no reason for the story to exist.


 In literature conflict doesn't have to be conflict, it just has to be. But seriously, I feel like what literature has to have, if it can be boiled down so much, is interest. Whether interest requires conflict becomes somewhat a matter of slightly squishy definition. Like, is trying to find out what you don't know (mystery) really a form of conflict anywhere but in literary theory?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 28, 2017)

Terry D said:


> As to the question in the OP, all stories have conflict.



The OP asked if all stories have to have a central conflict.



Terry D said:


> Resolving the mystery is the central conflict of that book, just as it's the central conflict in most mysteries.



When you say the central conflict in the first Harry Potter book is resolving "the mystery", what mystery are you talking about? Harry Potter is a mystery?



> 5. Climax:  the critical point at which the central character is about to win or lose all.  When the probable outcome of the main conflict is finally revealed (i.e. the turning point), the story has reached its climax.



So the climax to the first Harry Potter book is when he solves the mystery? The battle afterwards is denouement?

It seems like the OP asked an excellent question, about central conflict as that is normally understood. If this is your best attempt at answering yes, the answer is probably no.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 29, 2017)

The mystery in the first Harry Potter book is the sorcerer's / philosopher's stone. Actually, it was a kind of changing mystery. First it was finding out that the mysterious object was the stone, then it became finding out if He Who Must Not Be Named would get his evil hands on it.

But I question that being a "conflict". Certainly it was the central idea or theme, or maybe focus is a better word. But conflict? No. It just doesn't seem like a conflict to me.


Does a book need a central conflict? No. The James Herriot books did not have a central conflict. They did have a central theme, but no conflict. They were collections of short stories, though, and memoirs. So maybe that's different?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 29, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Does a book need a central conflict? No. The James Herriot books did not have a central conflict. They did have a central theme, but no conflict. They were collections of short stories, though, and memoirs. So maybe that's different?



I recently read a book that did feel like a collection of short stories. They left out the early death of the father, all of the weddings, and just did slices of life. To me, that didn't work well at all.

That's opposed to books that feel coherent. _The Fault in Our Stars_ basically starts with Hazel meeting Augustus, and ends with her finding his last message for her, and describes all of the important events in between.

Some books flip half way. It's not a jarring discontinuity, but the ending to Ender's Game is suddenly new goals, new setting, and even in a sense new characters for Ender to interact with.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Dec 29, 2017)

I've read several stories without a central conflict, and I have also written a few. If done correctly, they can work very well, and the reader can enjoy them immensely. My advice to anyone wanting to write a story like this to plan it out carefully. The plot as it is will have to be intricate and well thought out to make the story work.

-JJB


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 31, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> I recently read a book that did feel like a collection of short stories. They left out the early death of the father, all of the weddings, and just did slices of life. To me, that didn't work well at all.



One book could be a bad book or inexperienced writer.

I really enjoyed the James Herriot books. So have thousands of other readers. Last I checked, they were still on the shelf in the bookstore, years after his death. Like Agatha Christie's, they remain popular. It took the author years to get published, though. Many manuscripts were returned before he learned how to write the stories in an engaging way.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 31, 2017)

'Conflict' in fiction is anything which gets in the way of the protagonist and hinders him/her from achieving their goals. It doesn't mean an adversarial relationship with another character necessarily, or some major obstacle. Conflict can be internal -- the struggle of an addict with their disease -- or it can be external, but it is always there. If you can't recognize it, it's not because it's not there, it's because you don't recognize it.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jan 1, 2018)

I disagree with the idea that there's always a central conflict, even using Terry's definition of 'conflict'.


In the first Harry Potter, the mystery can't be the central conflict because there's more than one. First, what was in the vault. Then, who at the school is after it. Near the end of the book, it becomes will Harry survive, but it's rather late in the book before Harry learns that he's in danger.

Those mysteries don't really hinder Harry from learn magic, so the term 'conflict' doesn't fit well. 

There is, however, a central *focus*. The stone. But Harry's not really fighting the stone, nor hindered by it. Distracted a little, perhaps. But not enough for me to call it a conflict. 


The second example is the James Herriot books. These are collections of short stories about his life. Sure, they were full of difficult people and challenging situations, but there was no *central* conflict. There was the central *theme* or focus -- life in a particular rural part of England as a veterinary surgeon.


You can argue that I'm being nitpicky. Perhaps I am. But 'central conflict' is too imprecise a term for me.

So to answer the original question, I say there needs to be a unifying feature, focus or theme, but it doesn't have to be a 'conflict'.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jan 1, 2018)

I think the original post actually answered itself.  If you were entertained by the Butler story (which had no central conflict) then the answer is: Yes, you can have a good story without central conflict.

This is not really that surprising. In modern media it's all about the characters and their interactions.  What was Seinfeld about?  Nothing.  It was a buncha quirky characters interacting in clever ways.  What about Cheers, or Frazier, or Big Bang...these are all top rated shows in their era, and they're about nothing but a buncha fun characters interacting against a variety of stage props.

People buy books because of the storyline on the jacket cover, but they ENJOY books because of the characters.  I know I've posted this before, but it bears reminding:

Priorities for a modern character driven novel
1: Characters
2: Characters
3: Characters
4 Fun interactions between those characters
5:
6:
7: A good storyline for the jacket cover


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 1, 2018)

2-0 up at half-time would do me...


----------



## Terry D (Jan 1, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I disagree with the idea that there's always a central conflict, even using Terry's definition of 'conflict'.
> 
> 
> In the first Harry Potter, the mystery can't be the central conflict because there's more than one. First, what was in the vault. Then, who at the school is after it. Near the end of the book, it becomes will Harry survive, but it's rather late in the book before Harry learns that he's in danger.
> ...



Since the Herriot books aren't fiction, they don't really apply to a discussion of conflict in fiction -- although I'd be willing to bet there is some sort of conflict (Not my definition BTW, the generally accepted industry standard definition of conflict) in every anecdote. Think of conflict as the challenges faced by the characters.

Fiction is about characters changing from the beginning to the end of the story. If there is nothing for them to overcome, there is no need for change. I suppose it is possible to write a story where the characters face no obstacles, have no unfulfilled desires, and need, or want, nothing , but that would be a damned poor story in my opinion.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 1, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Think of conflict as the challenges faced by the characters.



Why can't we call those challenges? And use _conflict _to describe conflicts, normal definition. Then we could all communicate a lot better and talk about the role of conflict in writing.

This has no conflict as people would normally define it. Or challenge, actually. But it has other good things, including intrigue.



> What they're saying," she pressed on, "is that last night Voldemort turned up in Godric's Hollow. He went to find the Potters. The rumor is that Lily and James Potter are -- are -- that they're dead.
> 
> Dumbledore bowed his head. Professor McGonagall gasped.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terry D (Jan 1, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Why can't we call those challenges? And use _conflict _to describe conflicts, normal definition. Then we could all communicate a lot better and talk about the role of conflict in writing.
> 
> This has no conflict as people would normally define it. Or challenge, actually. But it has other good things, including intrigue.



Because I'm using the terminology generally used when talking about fiction writing and not trying to create a new language for our craft. We'd all communicate a lot better if people spent a little time learning what they are talking about.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jan 2, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Because I'm using the terminology generally used when talking about fiction writing and not trying to create a new language for our craft. We'd all communicate a lot better if people spent a little time learning what they are talking about.



Language is fluid. It evolves; changes.

I used to stubbornly hold onto old terms, but some have changed whether I liked it or not. This is one that I think should be changed. You may disagree. But I won't be arguing about the validity of the change here.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 2, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Language is fluid. It evolves; changes.
> 
> I used to stubbornly hold onto old terms, but some have changed whether I liked it or not. This is one that I think should be changed. You may disagree. But I won't be arguing about the validity of the change here.



It's not about the evolution of language, it's about people being too lazy to learn the terminology associated with the craft they are trying to master. Just like not understanding the difference between an 'MC' and a protagonist, or not knowing what standard manuscript format is. I realize there are many people who join forums like this without knowing a thing about the craft of writing and that's fine; it can be a good introduction for them. But, when members who seem to actually consider themselves 'writers' start misusing, or ignoring, basic writing terms, it creates confusion.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jan 2, 2018)

This thread took a turn for the worst...


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 2, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Because I'm using the terminology generally used when talking about fiction writing and not trying to create a new language for our craft. We'd all communicate a lot better if people spent a little time learning what they are talking about.



I don't understand. Can you explain? It seems we agree that, in informal discourse, "challenge" and "conflict" are two different things. Someone running an obstacle course faces a challenge. In informal discourse, I don't think people would call that as a conflict.

Are you saying that "conflict" is defined differently in writing? If so, why?

And then are you saying that's useful? If running home quickly because it's raining is a conflict, then isn't about anything any character faces a conflict? The conversation from Harry Potter is a conflict? The detective trying to solve a crime has, I don't know, an internal conflict?

I can't imagine how that's now a useful term. Example?


----------



## Sam (Jan 2, 2018)

Anything that stands in front of your character achieving his/her goals is _conflict. 

_It seems that people are misunderstanding the word, seeing how 'conflict' is generally used as a euphemism for 'war'. Conflict does not have to be in _any w_ay violent. A border patrol stopping a vehicle containing an organ due to arrive in a location in five hours for a heart transplant is conflict. A rival employee fighting our MC for a promotion is conflict. An MC unsure of themselves and fighting against the negative voice in their head that says they can't succeed is conflict. An MC stuck in traffic and late for a meeting that could change their life is conflict. 

Conflict is _anything _that can or will prevent our character from achieving a goal. It really is that simple. Therefore, there is no such thing as a novel without conflict, because that would essentially be a story in which our character achieves everything s/he could ever want without any resistance whatsoever -- and that is boring beyond the telling of it.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 2, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't understand. Can you explain? It seems we agree that, in informal discourse, "challenge" and "conflict" are two different things. Someone running an obstacle course faces a challenge. In informal discourse, I don't think people would call that as a conflict.
> 
> Are you saying that "conflict" is defined differently in writing? If so, why?
> 
> ...



No. I'm not going get dragged into a pointless, circular discussion about semantics. If you are really interested in learning about how conflict is defined in fiction writing then do some research. A quick Google search for 'conflict in fiction' or 'the elements of fiction' will give you all the basics.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 6, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> By elevating conflict to the point of it being the most important thing (as I've heard in some writing classes), are we risking overlooking the possibility of writing a story that is just about interesting people going through life?



Great question.

In one book, the main character has a series of incidents that slide her into depression. Will she save herself? Will someone save her? Actually, that's not an issue, we learn around page 5 that she has already committed suicide. So the author *deliberately destroyed *what would normally be the main point of interest. He wanted us to read A Story About - about her slide to suicide.

In another book, a main character's cancer returns. We can imagine an exciting story about advances and regressions and him almost dying and finally recovering. But the author makes more clear than is realistic that he is going to die. So it's just a story about him getting treatment and facing death and then dying.

These are two of my favorite books (_13 Reasons Why_, _The Fault in Our Stars_). But it's a conventional writing technique - killing any possible suspense and interest for some problem or issue. _The Martian_ -- will the MC die that day, or will he live to write the log entry we are now reading? The author wanted the reader focusing on _how _the MC survives, which is always interesting.

And that changes everything.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 6, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> In another book, a main character's cancer returns. We can imagine an exciting story about advances and regressions and him almost dying and finally recovering. But the author makes more clear than is realistic that he is going to die. So it's just a story about him getting treatment and facing death and then dying.



TFOS is not "just story about him getting treatment and facing death and then dying." It's a story about two people desperately trying to find love and some sort of 'normal' life while dealing with the looming specter of death. It's a story filled with obstacles to overcome (conflicts) and also a story which shows that some obstacles can't be overcome.

The same goes for _13 Reasons_. Just because we know the resolution of the conflict early on, doesn't mean that the protagonist isn't struggling throughout the story.


----------

