IMAGINE THIS SCENE FROM A MOVIE:
It’s 1983. A woman sits behind a typewriter, finishing up a page. When she’s done, she types THE END, pulls the page out and adds it to a large stack next to her on the desk.
She smiles, then goes to a liquor cabinet, pulls out a bottle, and pours a drink to toast a job well done.
All is good in her world.
NOW IMAGINE THIS ONE INSTEAD:
It’s 1983. A woman sits behind a typewriter, crying her eyes out as she finishes up a page and types THE END. She pulls the page out, adds it to the stack on her desk, but she’s crying so hard that she has to blow her nose. She reaches for a tissue, but the box is empty. So she gets up, still sobbing, and goes to the bathroom, looking for some toilet paper. The roll is empty.
Moving about the house, she steps into the kitchen and grabs a note off the refrigerator — one that says BUY TOILET PAPER — and uses it as a makeshift kleenex. Then, moving back into her living room, she opens a cabinet, pulls out a tiny bottle of “airplane” liquor, intending to use it for a toast, but when she tries to get the cap off, it won’t budge. It takes all of her strength to get the cap loose and she finally makes her toast.
And it’s quite obvious that this woman is a complete mess.
Okay.
Now, tell me, which of these scenes would you rather watch?
Me, I’ll go with the second one. In fact I have, in a wonderful movie called Romancing the Stone. And I think most people would be much less inclined to fall asleep during version two than they would if subjected to version one.
Version one just sits there. LAYS there, in fact.
Why?
Because it has no conflict.
Conflict is the cornerstone of good storytelling. Conflict is what grabs our interest, makes us want to continue watching or reading. And this isn’t just limited to movies and novels.
How many of us would watch the news if all we saw were happy, feel-good stories? People THRIVE on conflict, and anyone who thinks a story doesn’t need it, is completely out of touch with what good, solid storytelling is all about.
Your basic plotline — no matter what kind of book you’re writing — always centers around characters in conflict. There’s usually both an internal conflict AND an external one. And the external conflict should challenge or contribute to the character’s internal conflict (and probably vice versa).
Otherwise what is the point? If you give me a story about two people sailing through life without a care in the world, then I might as well watch paint dry. I need something in that story to grab me by the heart or the throat, to give rise to my emotions. To make me laugh and cry and root for the hero. And if all the hero is doing is contemplating his or her navel, then, please, get me the hell out of there.
There is a writer/teacher, now dead, whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment (maybe someone can remind me), who likened a story to a basketball game.
You have opposing characters. Two teams. Each of those teams has a goal: to make as many points as possible by putting a ball through a small “basket” at the opposite end of the court.
But because these teams are both determined to get the most points, one side puts up all kinds of obstacles to try to prevent the other side from reaching their goal.
This is conflict at its finest. Its most compelling. And if you have a vested interest in one of those teams, you will scream and cheer and jump up and down whenever they encounter and, hopefully, overcome those obstacles.
If all you had was a single team bouncing a ball down the court with no one to challenge them–
–nobody would watch.
And it’s no different for storytelling. Your characters must have a goal — no matter how trivial it might seem — and they must have strong opposition to that goal.
Conflict is one of the most essential elements of telling a good story. Sharing that moment when a character overcomes conflict is what lifts us. What thrills us. What sends us soaring.
As Hamilton Mabie once said, “A kite rises against, not with, the wind.”
a random visitor on 28 June, 2009 at 2:49 am said:
For real? I’d pick the first one to watch. I know conflict is a major player in stories, but seriously, would you enjoy watching this woman with her running nose suffering through all this, her search for a simple tissue turned so melodramatic and it would blow up Lucas’ Death Star? (Or, from another pov, so sadly and blackly comic that it’d put American Pie to shame, not making anyone but the most cruel laugh?) Come on. People don’t always suck in life, at every action, each minute. Make your conflicts and their suffering matter. It’s not enough to go with the cliche “make it wrong that can go wrong.”
a random visitor on 28 June, 2009 at 2:59 am said:
@a random visitor
melodramatic _that_ it would. not _and_. gotta learn to write, sorry.
Rob on 28 June, 2009 at 3:25 am said:
Something you have to remember is that fiction is not real life. It’s a dramatization of life, with all the boring parts cut out. Conflict is essential to drama. And all conflict matters to the story, and the reader’s (or viewer’s) interest in that story. Whether or not it’s cliche is another matter entirely.
a random visitor on 28 June, 2009 at 6:53 am said:
@Rob
Sure. Yet I’d recommend finding a healthy balance. If you cut _all_ the boring parts out, your supposedly exciting parts will soon become boring: if there’s no norm to deviate from (and not just in the beginning of your story), the twists become horribly predictable. A carefully measured amount of the ordinary is necessary to keep your readers their toes, and to make your piece plausible. Sometimes the biggest surprise is that there’s no surprise.
She was glad to have finished her piece, and had a quiet drink to celebrate it. Wait! Didn’t she start crying? Didn’t she have to fumble through her whole flat for a simple piece of tissue? What’s wrong with this story? ;] Okay, have her shed a single tear with an unknowable smile before having that happy drink. That’s fine. But don’t overdo it. Keep her believable.
a random visitor on 28 June, 2009 at 6:56 am said:
Rob on 28 June, 2009 at 9:34 am said:
@a random visitor
I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean by boring. The opposite of boring is not “exciting.” You can avoid excitement in a story and still be “interesting.”
Any story must have an ebb and flow of scenes, from quiet to action filled. But even the quiet scenes must have conflict of some kind to keep them interesting. The level and intensity of the conflict may vary, but it should always be there to some degree.
As for the scene in question, I’d suggest you take a look at Romancing the Stone and you’ll see that the scene works great as is. Not only is it full of conflict, it goes a long way toward revealing character.
Could it have been written differently? Sure. Every writer will take a different approach to a scene. But even in your version there’s conflict — and that’s the important thing.
Franziska on 8 September, 2009 at 10:30 am said:
Does there have to be conflict in every single scene of a novel?
What would be a good balance?
Rob on 8 September, 2009 at 11:26 am said:
Franziska, the short answer would be yes. Does it have to be life and death conflict? No. But, in my estimation, there should always be some small struggle that your characters are going through, even if it’s only the overall, major conflict weighing on their minds.
Don’t make it easy for them.
Franziska on 8 September, 2009 at 12:29 pm said:
So, can I break down every scene into ‘mini’ stories with subgoals that might be reached or not and where characters have internal and/or external conflicts?
If so, that would help me a lot with planning and structuring my story.
I am a total beginner and still struggle with certain parts of writing…
I have another question regarding the screenplay vs. novel structure:
The classic screenplay structure says that after approx. 10min the first turning point happens (where the characters is sent on a journey so to speak or a door is opened or however you wanna call it).
Then there is a middle plot point etc.
Can this structure be transferred from screenplay to novel?
Where would the plot after 10min happen in a novel?
admin on 9 September, 2009 at 11:27 am said:
10 mins into the story for your first turning point is a little early. Most come about a fourth of the way into the story. So if you’re writing a 400 page novel, the first major turning point would come at about 100 pages.
Herald on 5 October, 2009 at 6:36 pm said:
Your posts are the best! Always helpful!
James on 25 January, 2010 at 10:30 am said:
hey, i am a senior in highshcool looking for some tips on writing a lengthy 400 page sci-fi horror story, it’s for my senior project. I really need to work on “fleshing” out the story to make it come alive, any good ideas?
Kne on 29 August, 2010 at 1:08 am said:
I chose the second one since it’s detailed
Tashi on 19 March, 2011 at 12:15 am said:
I read the first part and instantly knew it was Romancing the Stone! But I also realized it was missing the good stuff. I love that scene and that movie is the. Best. Movie. Ever.
I definitely agree about conflict, though that isn’t what I’ve ever called it. I always used the term drama. Every scene needs some dramatic flair, a little taste of that soap opera feel to keep your reader’s attention. Don’t like the soap opera tendency for the overdramatic? Too bad, it’s made them billions, and kept fans watching in rapt attention for quite literally generations in some cases (Days of Our Lives comes to mind). You say all books are mysteries, I say all books and tv shows are soap operas in today’s modern world. Simply because the soap opera recipe keeps people coming back for more. How do you argue with success?
Ravenclaw Borg on 27 May, 2011 at 12:52 am said:
My comment, by your definition, should make this blog post interesting.
Please forgive any run-on sentences.
I both agree and disagree. Here are several points I thought of while reading your article, in no particular order:
1. Conflict keeps things interesting, but this conflict must come to a satisfactory end in order to be interesting and good throughout. I believe this is what makes conflict worth both reading and writing. But overcoming conflict can be done by the character(s) in many different ways that some endings are still not satisfactory to the reader/viewer. If the end isn’t good, then no matter the amount of conflict, the work as a whole simply doesn’t work.
2. There is a distinct difference between boringness and happiness which you failed to mention. One can be in conflict without being emotionally distressed or upset. In your example of a game of basketball, it’s likely that at least one person on the court is having a good time while competing.
3. The two scenes at the beginning of the article aren’t the best example to prove your point. A. Without context, neither scene is appealing because we don’t know who this woman is, or what she wrote, etc. B. The second scene is what I think of as the boring scene because it’s so unrealistically sad for no particular reason as well as about too everyday of occurrences which I could simply replicate at home.
4. Too much conflict can make a story hard to follow. Stable moments are needed to make the excitement more exciting.
5. As a writer, I’d like to know how to make conflict interesting. Not all conflict is interesting, at least to the majority of people who are the market for a given work.
Despite my comments on your article, I think you did a very good job in summing up why conflict is essential to a good, or great, story.
R. A. B.
Ravenclaw Borg on 27 May, 2011 at 12:59 am said:
@Kne
That makes sense. But what if the first was longer and filled with details of how hard it was to write what she wrote,and how much it meant to her to have finished it?