I'm reading some stuff about fanfiction when a lot of writers bring up the fact they like to have their characters to do some kind of mistake but found many "readers" gotten very upset with them and reviewed bombed them into submission. It eventually gone into the topic of "no conflict, no villain, no mistakes", and this got me thinking about how there is a huge flood of slice of life media out there that fulfil these requirements, and my honest hate for those things.
But I am going to spare everything a huge rant, and admit I am curious on how others think of these kinds of stories.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
What's your take on a "no conflict, no mistake, no villain," story?
You are aware that much of that "slice of life " media has manufactured conflict and villains to make it into a story? Most reality shows have manufactured events to create conflicts and villains.
They might not be written or plotted well but there is effort put into it to create these so called missing elements in nearly all "slice of life reality" programming. Even something as stupid as Home and Garden TV renovation shows will have conflict and the occasional antagonist.
Shawn Koyne, from Storygrid, pointed out that Infinity War could have been done without a villain, but what made it relatable was that the heroes had someone they could punch.
The high-concept story rarely works. The only time I think it has ever been effective is Donnie Darko. Where Donnie at least had some mysterious Phantoms to challenge him.
I thought the Battlestar Galactica reboot was boring, and even damaging to the genre. Let's make a show where nothing happens, and there is no one to fight. We will tell anyone who notices that they are just too stupid for our highly intelligent show. For a few years after there were a lot of copycat shows, V reboot, Fallen Skies, Caprica. Even lost in Space and Andor are following suit. Rogue One told the same story in the span of two episodes of Andor.
It's a thing that's hard to do well. You really need some sort of conflict, even if it's not "person vs. person", it's still going to be "person vs. nature/circumstances/the universe/etc".
I actually gave it some thought, in the "why don't people write about something nice for a change", and realized pretty quickly that in 99% of cases, the answer is going to be "because it's going to be pretty boring".
People can still write about something nice, while also still invoking some sort of conflict - the conflict doesn't have to be bad or antagonistic . . . it could be something as simple and wholesome as, say, John goes to the ends of the world to get a specific present for Jane, only to find that no matter where he goes, nobody has that present he wants to get her, and in the end, he learns that Jane didn't really want the present, but she appreciated all of the trouble that John went through, because it shows he cares about her and wanted to do something to make her happy . . . which he already did with such a gesture.
You can have interesting stories that are just about a person making coffee. It's really easy- just put drama and worry in there. No need for a villain, mistakes or conflict. It's just about how you write it.
You can even have huge stakes in a story like that because it all depends on how much concern this person has about their tea.
-I'm DYING for a cup of tea, this morning in the office has been SO dull… I need my tea or my brain will implode.
Oh god I hope there's milk today! And sugar… I know there're enough teabags at least.
What! No teaspoons? OMG what am I doing to do? How will I measure the sugar, how will I stir it? Damn it!
Need to improvise… What is there…? A couple of knives and come cups. OK, I'll measure out a small portion of sugar into a cup and then use the knife handle to stir it. Phew!
Now the milk…
WHAT! What's that?
White floaters?
HOW! It doesn't smell sour, how could this be? My tea it ruined! NOOO! UGH, I'm going to hurl, just looking at that stuff makes me sick.
Just have to tip it all out and start again… I'll have to drink it black.
-Not a great example, but with comic visuals you could make that good enough.
That's right, conflict can be something as simple as having a bad day. Can't make the tea, car won't start and a hellish commute on public transportation, and so on.
Even such villainless pieces as the Battlestar Galactica reboot had human conflict. People can even be their own antagonist in stories about personal conflict. But that actually requires something there's not much of in this world: good writing.
But then show me someone crying about poor writing and I'll show you someone who can't write either.
The no conflict, no mistake, no villain story is usually a part of a series to establish relationships or character.
I think back to a comic i read years ago called "the kid that loved spiderman". It was simply peter as spiderman visiting a kid who was big fan of his. Peter talks to him and hangs out…he even reveals his secret identity to the kid. In the end we find out the kid is terminally ill
Every now and then downtime stories are good for a comic or series heavy in action.
Yeah, those kinds of stories can be great "resting" moments to ease tension if it's part of a more dramatic series- As long as the change in tone isn't a massive neck-breaking whiplash!
i.e. anime about the world ending, riding in giant robots, death, depression… Then a beach episode where characters compare breast size T_T
urrrgh!!!!
——
Though the idea that you NEED conflict or an antagonist for a story to be interesting isn't correct. I just think it's a lot easier to conceive of so we think a story without them is unthinkable. Conflict and antagonists are the MacDonald's happy meal of story writing.
You can make interesting and amazing stories that mainly focus on people learning and discovering new things. Exploration and invention make some of the best stories I've read.
You can faff and say "ah but exploration is a sort of conflict about mas VS environment… blah blah" and you'd be WRONG because that isn't where the interest comes from, it's possibly one aspect of that sort of story, by FAR the weakest (ones that rely on it are not the good ones), and not actually needed.
You can say that learning and invention are about "ignorance VS knowledge conflict" but that would be silly sophistry. In fact when conflict or love stories are injected into those stories they turn out AWFUL.
Finally a whole trilogy of movies without conflict or antagonists: the Before Midnight trilogy of films.
They're REALLY good too.
I rest my case! ^_+
Persoanlly? Kinda can't stand slice of life. Unless it gets combined with another genre i do find enjoyable. Saturn Apartments is a very straight forward slice of life, but in a very unusual setting (sorta space opera-ish.) There's no epic scifi plot by any means, but it definitely has plenty of little, inter-personal conflicts between the different characters.
Intersting challenge though… Can stories work without any conflict? I can think of many stories without villains, i don't think i can think of any without some form of conflict.
I'm trying to think of the most inane slice of life stories i've seen… i mean, even shows like Teletubbies, a show for literal one year olds, has friction. Oh no, the pancake machine is making too many pancakes! Tinkywinky lost his hat, let's go find it!
Stories even in their simplest form are about problem solving. That's why we talk to other humans to begin with, information sharing. If there ain't no problem, why are you telling me about it.
TheJagged wrote:But problem solving isn't necessarily conflict :)
Stories even in their simplest form are about problem solving.
Some might say that's just a semantic difference but it's not. When we put conflict in a story we're having this VS that directly, most of the time it's other characters or a dire situation.
But stories where it's primarily about characters learning or exploring or falling in love etc don't have that sort of feel. They can be just as interesting and compelling (if not more so) than any other type of story but they don't need a dramatic conflict to be their centrepiece- It usually detracts from he power of this type of story.
I continue to advocate that the need for "conflict" isn't a necessity in stories, rather it's just a common convention and it's hard for people to imagine stories without it because they're so used to it, like 30 years ago 95% of action films had to have a white straight male protagonist and people thought it was weird to have any other type of person in that role because it went against the convention.
Most academics and critics define striving for a goal as conflict because there are obstacles to overcome. Even if the obstacle is fairly mundane like trying to make coffee when barely awake it is still conflict because of trying to overcome an obstacle. You're arguing for a redefining of terms not the value of stories without conflict.
Man against the elements, man against himself, man against the setting are all geneally accepted as conflicts in a story. You're merely saying that the term isn't applicable because these don't need to be conflicts. Interesting point but I'd lean towards the convention that even if nothing is directly against anything else merely striving for any goal is potential conflict and that is the drama in the story.
However, I'm only leaning toward the conventional interpretation of the parts of a story. Your redefinition is intriguing but such critical analysis is beyond me. I've been fighting something most of my life even if it is of my own making or just the circumstances of the situation. I see nothing but conflict just getting out of the bed in the morning. Any choice is a potential conflict so anything involving any choice in my view is conflict. But that has only been my experience and may not be a universally valid view and may not be applicable to the stories you are envisioning.
Heck, even just writing this is rife with conflict. Choosing the proper words, defining terms are all choices and full of potential conflict. I'm also striving for the goal of presenting a cogent thought. Again there is more potential for conflict though this doesn't match your definition of conflict?
This in and of itself reminds me of an exercize that Alan Alda has students do whenever he holds improv workshops. He has a student bring an empty glass across the stage to him, into which he fills it all the way to the rim, then walks back across the stage and instructs the student to bring the glass back over to him, but adds they cannot spill a single drop, because if they do, their entire village will perish. Naturally, it's when the glass is full, and the student tries their hardest to not spill a drop that audiences find more engaging, because of the conflict that's presented, and how the person we are engaging with has to overcome an obstacle or a hurdle to resolve said conflict - otherwise, what's so exciting or engaging about carrying an empty glass?
bravo1102 wrote:
Most academics and critics define striving for a goal as conflict because there are obstacles to overcome. Even if the obstacle is fairly mundane like trying to make coffee when barely awake it is still conflict because of trying to overcome an obstacle. You're arguing for a redefining of terms not the value of stories without conflict.
The opposite of redefining- These people use the term overly broadly so that it fits a convenient theory. That's how bad theories work- by moving the goalposts to extend a meaning to fit.
-The theory being that all stories need "conflict", so they jump and crawl through hoops to redefine anything anything pivotal to the story structure story as "conflict".
But in reality these factors are unrelated.
As a consumer of a story your experience is completely, utterly different when there is conflict between characters, or characters are in danger, or they're "against" nature, vs a person falling in love (as in the excellent "Before" trilogy which you must watch), an explorer mapping a new land, a scientist discovering a new process…
There's no need to break our backs to redefine the word "conflict" to apply to stories that don't really involve it just so that we can stick it under the umbrella of a moldy old popular story writing theory. :)
Conforming to definitions that don't fit is limiting unfortunately. It might seem a neat way to describe story writing but it's restrictive and inaccurate.
Ozoneocean wrote:
The opposite of redefining- These people use the term overly broadly so that it fits a convenient theory. That's how bad theories work- by moving the goalposts…
Conforming to definitions that don't fit is limiting unfortunately. It might seem a neat way to describe story writing but it's restrictive and inaccurate.
Excellent points and I really think this is a better way to consider these things than the conventional explanations. Really makes one think of other broader possibilities for story construction.
As a former educator as well as life long student it's a great way to see it.
Ozoneocean wrote:bravo1102 wrote:
Most academics and critics define striving for a goal as conflict because there are obstacles to overcome. Even if the obstacle is fairly mundane like trying to make coffee when barely awake it is still conflict because of trying to overcome an obstacle. You're arguing for a redefining of terms not the value of stories without conflict.
The opposite of redefining- These people use the term overly broadly so that it fits a convenient theory. That's how bad theories work- by moving the goalposts to extend a meaning to fit.
-The theory being that all stories need "conflict", so they jump and crawl through hoops to redefine anything anything pivotal to the story structure story as "conflict".
But in reality these factors are unrelated.
As a consumer of a story your experience is completely, utterly different when there is conflict between characters, or characters are in danger, or they're "against" nature, vs a person falling in love (as in the excellent "Before" trilogy which you must watch), an explorer mapping a new land, a scientist discovering a new process…
There's no need to break our backs to redefine the word "conflict" to apply to stories that don't really involve it just so that we can stick it under the umbrella of a moldy old popular story writing theory. :)
Conforming to definitions that don't fit is limiting unfortunately. It might seem a neat way to describe story writing but it's restrictive and inaccurate.
I strongly dislike dealing with the academic because of the reasons you had described with the moving goal post.
Reminds me when I started writing fanfiction years ago and the reason I left the hobby, the ones that considered themselves the academics of fanfiction kept coming up with theories only to keep moving the goalpost.
Hell I remember back when there was still an Anipike there was a website nitpicking Fullmetal Alchemist that kept going on and on about twelve "wise old men" in Greese generations ago and we weren't allowed to go against their rulings, except in his own essay he gone against their rulings a few times.
Let's use the term "Mary Sue", it started with just being a fanfiction only character that had no flaws what so ever that the whole universe bend over backwards for and honestly relatively harmless, but someone made a test that determine what was and wasn't considered a Mary Sue, next became the fragmentation of the term, until there is an actual Flawed Sue until finally the goalpost is just gone and all meaning was lost.
Now the same kind of community is trying to push the Three Nos in the same mannerisms.
I wonder if they do all of this because they just can't seem to write an entertaining story to save their lives.
The reason I dropped out of the fanfiction game long ago was too many people just kept writing and putting out absolute shit for no other reason than shock value; nothing more, nothing less. I won't lie, there have been some really badfics out there that I've seen that have left me feeling like I needed some serious therapy after reading them.
J_Scarbrough wrote:
The reason I dropped out of the fanfiction game long ago was too many people just kept writing and putting out absolute shit for no other reason than shock value; nothing more, nothing less. I won't lie, there have been some really badfics out there that I've seen that have left me feeling like I needed some serious therapy after reading them.
I remember one Talespin "Misting" fic that was so bad, it actually messed with mental health at the time. The original fic was bad shock garbage, but the extra layer of MST mocking just compounded the pain.
It seemed to be the two extremes, dull shock brought to the extremes or dull academic practices with everything of a series being sandpapered off.
Honestly fanfiction keeps trying to bring me in with promise of playing around within some stories and characters I like but just the writer politics turn me off.
I did some fanfiction only to have the original author adopt some of ideas and concepts into his sequel. I'd made my point about the original work.
Other than that most literary hypothesis is only so many words. Move the goalposts? Just remove them from the field and rewrite the rules and poof, you have your new literary critical theory.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo