Three types of conflict

[Star-child]

Seems like meeting any criteria like these in some amount means you're on track. The type of measure is less important than the fact that there is something there to measure.

This goes on my bulletin board.

 

[Steve Harrison]

Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age, but those three types of conflict strike me as stating the bleeding obvious. Hopefully the rest of the book provides a deeper level of complexity and sophistication, but I'm not interested in finding out and will keep writing my stories about people tackling the challenges of life, the universe and everything.

 

[HareBrain]

those three types of conflict strike me as stating the bleeding obvious.

It's not the types of conflict that was the revelation for me, it was the complexity vs depth line. It that was also bleeding obvious for you, then well done.

 

[Steve Harrison]

It's not the types of conflict that was the revelation for me, it was the complexity vs depth line. It that was also bleeding obvious for you, then well done.

I get that, but of course adding additional elements or layers to a basic story or conflict or character or whatever deepens and adds complexity to the whole. That's the nature of writing and of life in general.

Sorry if I sound like a know-it-all. I've just seen so many books and articles on writing over the decades that present basic concepts in ways that make them sound like profound wisdom that I find them irritating.

However, I remember those 'Aha!' moments and I'm genuinely glad you got something useful out of the book.

 

[Phyrebrat]

It's not the types of conflict that was the revelation for me, it was the complexity vs depth line. It that was also bleeding obvious for you, then well done.

From your published work I recall Orc & Cass have bags of all 3 types, HB. (Speaking of which I have to chase Waterstones Manchester up )

As I finish SG, I’m starting to think of my next wip (a fantasy folk horror with historical elements {of course!} ) and already am applying this advice to deepen an MC’s experience.

pH

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think I generally put my various characters through so much they touch all these....

 

[Danny McG]

I didn't even understand the three examples.
Too many clever bastards on here!
(Thank you Ian Drury)

 

[sknox]

There is a difference between writing advice that says you ought to use this or that in your writing and categories of literary analysis. The man vs X is an example of the latter. If we take stories generally, they can be categorized in one of these three. The purpose of doing so is to facilitate discussion mostly among academics and the occasional literary critic who manages to get off the farm.

Trying to take these analytical categories as a kind of writing advice might be all that great for the beginning writer. It is sort of interesting to write a book, then stand back and see that huh, I appear to have written one of those kind of books. Which will be useful mainly if you get famous and get interviewed by someone who was an English major.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I am struck (as perhaps HareBrain was also) by the contrast between complexity and depth. I don't know yet whether it will influence me in my writing, but it does provide some interesting food for thought.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

And he says that if you add another source of conflict of the same type to a story, it complicates it**. If you add another source of a different type, it deepens it.

That sounds backward to me. I would have thought more of the same type would deepen, and something of a different type would complicate.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That sounds backward to me. I would have thought more of the same type would deepen, and something of a different type would complicate.

Yeah, me too.

 

[HareBrain]

Just off the top of my head, say a protag is arguing with his wife. But he also isn't sure how he feels about her. And the conflict with her is partly being driven by a new law that's been passed that affects him. That's one source of each of Watt's conflict types. Isn't that likely to be deeper than three interpersonal conflicts, say with his wife, his boss and a neighbour?

 

[Elckerlyc]

That sounds backward to me. I would have thought more of the same type would deepen, and something of a different type would complicate.

If the protagonist has multiple conflicts (of any kind) it will make matters complicated for the MC.
But the point is, what it will do to your story, how will the readers perceive it. More conflicts of the same type is more difficult for the reader to discern, to keep separated. But conflicts of a different type are more easy recognizable and therefor deepens the story to the reader.
I think. (haven't had my coffee yet this morning.)

 

[tinkerdan]

Here is the only rule you need to know:

I think. (haven't had my coffee yet this morning.)

:on't touch the computer until after you have your first cup of coffee.
That embodies man vs self, vs environment, vs technology, vs interpersonal all rolled into one simple act--drink the coffee first.

 

[HareBrain]

Here is the only rule you need to know:
:on't touch the computer until after you have your first cup of coffee.

Or until you've memorised which keystrokes are shortcuts for which emojis.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Here is the only rule you need to know:
:on't touch the computer until after you have your first cup of coffee.

I wish I could remember that before I had my coffee....

 

[The Big Peat]

That sounds backward to me. I would have thought more of the same type would deepen, and something of a different type would complicate.

This may be a crap analogy that doesn't work, but -

Imagine a single Conflict as being like a transit route. It provides a route for the story to progress from the beginning of the book to the end of the book. Whether Broody McLoner will Kiss, Marry or Kill the Princess Sasspants-Badassen is one of the arcs that carries the plot.

A Conflict of the same type is like the same type of transit route and adding another Conflict of the same type is like adding another transit route from Point A to Point B. And it complicates things because there's only so many pages between the start and the finish - there's only so much land between Points A and B on which to build the routes - and each Conflict/Route needs its own space or it ceases to make sense. Even if Broody McLoner and Princess Sasspants-Badassen are travelling together because they both want to defeat the Great Snarkissimio because Princess Sasspants-Badassen wants to save her kingdom and Broody McLoner wants a gigantic pile of cash, there will be a need for scenes that have nothing to do with the Great Snarkissimo where their relationship deepens and scenes that have nothing to do with their relationship and everything to do with defeating the Great Snarkissimo.

And the more routes you have, the harder it is to ensure that they all bring the reader/passenger to the end/point B in a satisfactory manner. I think GRR Martin is a great example of this. He added Conflict after Conflict until there wasn't enough space to contain them properly and he can't resolve it. It is too complicated. It's like he's sending people from London to Paris and he's used all of the sensible available routes and he knows he can't send people from London to Paris via New York and he's sitting there trying to figure out a better way and he can't.

But a Conflict of a different type aren't new transit routes. Broody McLoner's internal conflict over whether he wants to do the right thing or whether he's actually just this in this for the gigantic piles of cash/conflict with people's expectations of him due to his membership of the Jolly Criminals doesn't take any space away from whether he'd K/M/K Princess Sasspants-Badassen or whether he'd fight the Great Snarkissimo - you can tell both stories at the same time.

And doing so creates added impact and meaning in those other Conflicts which is why I'd suggest that instead of new transit routes, they're upgrades to the existing ones. Broody McLoner's internal conflict turns his interpersonal conflicts from mud tracks to dual lane paved roads. They can carry more traffic. And more traffic here equals more Depth - more Depth of Character for Broody, more Depth for the audience to appreciate. I guess you could call it more Complexity of Emotion, but it's not Complexity of Story Structure and I think that's the way Complexity is meant here.

Or at least, that's how I see it and how it makes sense to me.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

I would use the internal/external duality as well, and treat 'interpersonal' and 'environmental' sources as 'external' and I do think you need both.

If I may chip in, I've always liked John Truby's (The Anatomy of Story) method when it comes to creating an organic plot that is character driven and whose elements, no matter how far removed from one another, all form a web-like structure woven around the central character(s).

If memory serves, the way he addresses internal/external conflicts is this:
- A good character will be defined amongst other things (strengths, weaknesses...) by their need and (not "or") their desire
- Their desire will be the stated main objective of this character. It is an external conflict, or a conflict linked to an external element: An item, winning a war, defeating X, surviving a dire situation, escaping jail, etc.
- Their need creates an unstated objective that will be attained or not as the character pursues their desire. It is an internal conflict, something often arising from a character's past faults or flaws and which they might not even be aware of.

The need and the desire cannot be the same, however they can both find resolution through the same action. For example, in Groundhog Day, Bill Murray's desire is to escape the infernal time loop he has found himself trapped in. But his (true) need is to learn to love life and stop being a grade-A a**hole. And the only thing that will bring an end to the time loop is when Bill Murray starts to love life and stops behaving like a grade-A a**hole.

So there are four kinds of ending:
- The desire and the need of the character remain unfulfilled. A super depressing ending, not only has the character failed but they remain unaware of the nature of their true need or have made it even worse by the end of the story.
- The desire is fulfilled but not the need. A tragedy. The character has apparently won but their true need remains the same or have worsened in the process of attaining this objective. The Godfather.
- The desire is unfulfilled but the need is. Quite a happy ending. Even if the main objective is failed, the character realised that this objective was not what they really needed to transcend their condition, and they have evolved positively in the process. Rocky doesn't win the boxing match (apparent defeat) but he has vanquished his inner demons and therefore emerges as the true victor.
- Both the desire and the need are fulfilled. Upbeat ending, fairy tale. They all lived happily ever after.

 

[Mouse]

It's a wonder I manage to write anything because I do not understand any of this.

 

[Phyrebrat]

It's a wonder I manage to write anything because I do not understand any of this.

don’t worry Ambrose and Merc have all three conflicts in TBM.

pH