: Re: Does a novel require a conflict? Unless a better writer can dissuade me I am minded to say no. The 'essential' 'conflict' is cultural. It is part of the western 'Human Condition' - Eastern

@Barnes643

Vote Up Vote Down

The defence of the argument seems to be to broaden the definition of conflict.

This might be true, and the defence (or offence, perhaps) of the opposing view might be to broaden the definition of story.

It could be said that a chronological list of events:

is not in itself a story, unless there is conflict.
will nonetheless contain conflict, even if none is put there consciously by the writer, and is therefore (according to the "conflict = story" view of things) a story.
is a story, but does not contain conflict (thus invalidating the "conflict=story" view of things).

Any of these things can be claimed, because the definitions of the words (like most definitions) aren't strictly defined, but the reason the "conflict = story" idea tends to stick around is that it's proven to be a useful (at least to some people) in describing the differences between things they intuitively regard as story and things they intuitively don't.

Of course, there are other ways to make that distinction. I prefer to think of stories as being about the interplay of a character's inner model of the world and the world as it actually is (for example: the detective changes their inner model to fit the reality of what actually happened, the superhero changes the world around them to fit their inner model of a world in which justice prevails, etc.).

In any case, you can, if you like, write things that you regard as stories, which you regard to be devoid of conflict. If you like writing that sort of thing, and you think other people will want to read it (or else, don't care that they won't), then go for it. Expect, however, that some people won't regard them as stories, or will see them as full of conflict.

(0)

Login to post a comment!