Ideally, nearly every scene in a story will have conflict, because nearly every scene should have these primary plot elements: goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences. And nearly every scene should have a turning point, which will be its climactic moment. With these things in their proper places, nearly every scene will follow basic structure:
In writing, all of these elements work in fractals. Yes, the overall narrative arc should have these things, but so should each act, and so should each scene.
. . . Generally speaking, anyway, because every rule is made to be broken.
As long as you know why and how you are breaking it.
With that in mind, sometimes you may have a scene that has no conflict.
Or no important goal, or antagonist, or consequences.
And on rare occasions, no turning point (though almost always there should at least be a turning point).
But these are exceptions, and the writer should implement them intentionally, not out of laziness or ignorance.
And when I say that most scenes should have conflict, I'm not saying they need shouting matches or flying fists. Conflict is simply what happens when a character runs into and deals with resistance (antagonistic forces).
In any case, let's go through some types of scenes that don't require much, if any, conflict.
Incidents
This term comes from Dwight V. Swain in his book, Techniques of the Selling Writer, but his writing on the subject there is surprisingly slim. Swain simply says:
An incident is a sort of abortive scene, in which your character attempts to reach a goal. But is met with no resistance, no conflict.
Incidents still have goals and consequences, but they lack antagonists and conflict. They almost always have turning points.
As K. M. Weiland points out, you could turn an incident into a full-blown scene. You could put in antagonists and conflict, but sometimes that's not what the story is about. Sometimes your character needs to simply succeed in a goal in order to progress to the next part of her journey (which is what the story is really about).
For example, say your character needs more information on a mythical monster (goal) so she knows where to look for it. Your character meets up with a professor who knows the myths. Now, you could turn this moment into a full-blown scene by having the professor be antagonistic--he doesn't want to give this information away. Or, perhaps, a third party is getting in the way of the professor giving your character this information. Now you have a scene with conflict, as your character tries to overcome that.
Or maybe you don't really need all that, because it distracts from the main story by adding length and weight to things that don't deserve them. It would emphasize pieces that aren't critical to the plot. So you write an incident. Your character meets up with the professor, gets the myths with the info, then heads off into the Murky Woods to find the monster.
Of course, there may be other ways to handle this situation. You could try to fit the information into another scene, or summarize the character getting the information instead. But if the myths themselves are important, then probably this conversation needs to be dramatized in a scene.
The turn happens when the character gets the final information and resolves what to do next with it.
Incidents can also be action-oriented. Let's say our story isn't really about catching this mythical monster. It's about what unfolds once this monster is caught. So an incident may be our character heading into the Murky Woods and successfully tracking and trapping the beast--no obstacles, no resistance, no conflict. The turn is just that, trapping the beast.
Again, I could turn this into a typical scene, by placing antagonistic forces in it. Maybe our character encounters a ruthless thunderstorm, trips and sprains an ankle, and almost gets eaten by the monster. Now it has conflict. It also now takes up more space and carries more weight. It also now shows how our protagonist is struggling, and maybe that's not what I want.
Incidents can be used to show off a character's prowess. If the character easily tracks and traps the monster without a hitch, then I'm showing she's skilled and/or experienced in that.
Sometimes there are scenes that seem to arguably fit between an incident and a typical scene, where there are technically antagonists, but they are non-threatening, and the character navigates them easily. Ruthless thunderstorm? No sweat. The monster wants to eat me? It'll be trapped before it takes another step. These can also be used to show off the character's skills.
And other times such moments are nice, because you can then undermine them later. They lull the audience into thinking everything is fine or great . . . until something bad and unexpected happens, bringing the character to her knees.
Almost always, an incident will still progress the plot. And there will almost always be some sort of shift, a change from how things were at the beginning of the scene to how things are at the end of the scene.
Happenings
As Swain writes, "A happening brings people together. But it's non-dramatic, because no goal or conflict is involved." Usually this is used to introduce characters who will be important later in the story, so in this sense, it's often also a meet cute.
With that said, though, not all meet cutes are happenings, and not all happenings are meet cutes.
I like to think of this as sort of the relationship version of the incident.
In a relationship plotline, the character either wants to draw closer to or push away from the other person (or maintain the relationship as is)--that's the goal. The antagonist is what gets in the way of that, which can be something outside the relationship, within the character, or even the other person in the relationship. The turn happens when the characters grow closer or more distant (or in some cases, successfully fends off the antagonist to maintain the relationship) in a defining way.
In a happening, the characters are interacting, but there isn't any antagonism or notable objective really.
As K. M. Weiland points out, a happening may also be used to relay information (that the character isn't actively seeking) or work as a distraction (which can be great to use when you want misdirection).
It should go without saying, that happenings should still be interesting and somehow contribute to the story. Frequently they are setting up what will happen in the story later, which brings me to my next section. . . .
Setup / Prequel Scenes
Some scenes are simply setups for payoffs later. Usually for most stories, we want to integrate setups into full-scale scenes, but I'd be lying if I said setup scenes didn't exist, or didn't exist in some successful manner. Like incidents and happenings, they are likely to be short. You often can't sustain a scene that doesn't have the primary plot elements for very long.
In some ways, the setup scene overlaps with happenings, because happenings are often about establishing a relationship that will be important later. But sometimes what is being established, isn't related to people.
Comedies, like Seinfeld or The Office often use setup scenes to deliver humorous payoffs later. In one episode of Seinfeld, Kramer stumbles upon the set of The Merv Griffin Show in a dumpster and begins curiously looking through the items. There isn't any real antagonist or conflict. There is hardly a meaningful goal (arguably). The true purpose of the scene is to set up the humorous payoff of Kramer's apartment looking like The Merv Griffin Show later, and then him behaving as a television host when people come over.
In his book The Structure of Story, Ross Hartmann refers to setup scenes as "prequels." And he notes that they can also be used to provide the context needed to understand or appreciate an upcoming scene. In this sense, the scene is foreshadowing and making promises about what is to come. He gives this example:
In Outbreak, a team of virologists is about to land in a "hot zone" full of infected patients. Dustin Hoffman's character warns Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character not to be afraid of what he's going to see. If anyone panics, it'll put the whole team in danger. Gooding's character is book-smart but has never seen a nasty disease in the flesh. He acknowledges the warning and promises that he's ready.
This sets up the upcoming scene where Gooding's character does panic. It also gives the audience context, so they can better appreciate the situation with the disease.
If you aren't careful though, such scenes can easily turn into info-dumps.
Almost always it's best to integrate exposition into a full scene, by following Robert McKee's adage: convert exposition into ammunition. That certainly leads to better writing. Still, it may not be realistic or possible to do that all the time. Sometimes you may want to insert exposition into a prequel scene.
Sequel Scenes
A sequel is a reactionary segment that follows a typical scene, but sometimes that reaction is important and long enough to make up its own scene. I already did a whole post on sequels, so you can learn about them in more detail here.
In short, they are made up of three phases: reaction (emotional response), dilemma (logical response), and decision (which leads to a new goal).
Because sequels are about how a character is responding to situation, they function a little differently. They often don't start with a scene goal, but are about the character finding a goal for the next scene. In some sequels, you can argue that the goal is figuring out a new goal, a new way of moving forward. If there is an antagonist and conflict, they will usually show up during the dilemma stage of a sequel. The character may be in conflict with himself, as he debates which path to take next. Or he may be in conflict with an ally where they argue the same thing. Or he may be seeking more knowledge to help him make up his mind, and find some resistance there.
Or maybe he doesn't, and there is no antagonist or conflict. That's okay too. In a sequel the character may simply be going through emotional and logical responses until he makes up his mind about what to do next.
Sequels are all about the reaction.
Thematic Scenes
Some scenes are only about exploring the theme. They may not progress the plot. They may not even relate directly to the character's arc. They may not have antagonists and conflict.
Of course, most thematic moments will also have all those things.
But some don't.
In A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Coriolanus must capture and cage birds to send back to the Capitol. So there is a goal, and I suppose you could say it's an incident, but it's really more about progressing the theme than about the plot. It actually doesn't contribute anything to the plot. It's about showing the birds, which are symbolic of humankind thriving on freedom, locked up. It's about discussing whether or not they are better off this way. Is it bad they can no longer fly free? Or is it good that they will now be kept safe?
In short, it's about exploring the thematic arguments.
Not every scene is about plot or character.
Victim Scenes
This is in some ways the dark version of the incident. In an incident, the character has a goal and meets no antagonistic resistance. As I mentioned, this is sometimes a good way to show off a character's skill.
But a sort of opposite can also exist, where an antagonist simply blocks the character, who can do nothing but wait for a moment of mercy. This puts the character into a passive state, a victim state, which almost never works. Passive characters lead to poor plots, and as counterintuitive as it sounds, their victimhood actually makes them less sympathetic.But "almost never" isn't "never." Like anything, victim scenes can work well if you know how and when to use them, and like these other types, they often need to be short, because the audience won't be interested in them for very long.
Showing your protagonist helpless as he gets pummeled by an archnemesis can go a long way in showing off the antagonist's prowess. This can be particularly effective if we show how greatly skilled the protagonist is earlier. It'd be like Moriarty leaving Sherlock running with his "tail between his legs."
Victim scenes can also be useful in establishing the passive pain and unfairness your protagonist suffers in his day-to-day life. Sometimes we need to show the protagonist is helplessly trapped in a situation before something like the inciting incident comes along and offers him a way out.
Sure, you can argue that victim scenes still have conflict, but it's not really much of a "conflict" if the character can't do anything to fight back, if they are just waiting for a reprieve. So, I call them victim scenes.
In closing, not every scene literally needs conflict, it's just that, more often than not, in most stories, the scenes will be better if what's happening is framed with a goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences. Too many new writers simply write conflict-less scenes because they don't know any better yet, or haven't learned the skills they need to. While we all start at the beginning, conflict-less scenes are there for when they enhance your story, not take away from it. They aren't there for you to overuse and abuse. They're there to make stories better.
Great post on an important topic not or only superficially touched upon by many other writing blogs.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you disagree but I think that there are countless examples in books, movies or series that don't tick *all* the boxes of a full-blown scene and yet are key scenes if not turning points or set-ups for turning points.
Elle's first class at Harvard Law School comes to mind (Legally Blonde), or arguably Lucy being at comatose Peter's hospital bed for the first time (While You Were Sleeping).
Thanks! And I do think there are more than what I probably make it sound like sometimes. Some genres and stories will have more of these than others. The problem is that in most unpublished stories these are usually overused and/or used poorly and/or scene-level conflict isn't utilized enough. Theory and checkboxes are really great and helpful--but only insomuch as they are improving the story and writer in the long run. I mean, they exist to help us write better stories, not worse ones. Anyway, I may be heading into a tangent with that . . .
DeleteElle's first class is a good example of a scene that works, but isn't really a "full-blown" scene. It certainly has a goal (attend class) and antagonistic forces, and a turn, but the conflict isn't very long and obvious, and I would say structurally, the proportions are atypical. But it's a great scene and fulfills its purpose well, and that's what we want. (My opinion anyway.)
Thanks for commenting and sharing your thoughts!
Hi, it was a good read, but:
ReplyDelete"Ideally, nearly every scene in a story will have conflict, because nearly every scene should have these primary plot elements: goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences. And nearly every scene should have a turning point, which will be its climactic moment."
I strongly disagree. I don't understand fixation with conflict and I disagree that three act structure is better than any other story structure. Conflict is fun, but is not essential to make an interesting story, not to mention interesting scenes. Conflict is not "primary plot element" and you can have story without "goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences". One of more popular opinions is that without conflict readers will be bored, but that would mean they are not inteligent people. Anyone who will lose interest just because it is not shiny enough or not fast enough has a mental problem, it is called "tiktok brain". Main character can have no obstacles and everything he want to do he do with ease "super easy, barely an inconvenience" and it still could be good, interesting story.
It is easy to write A vs B, but how about writing A & B. How about totally shifting point of view to that of "antagonist" to show that it is not "antagonist", but just another human being with his own goals. That so called conflict is just misunderstanding and working together will benefit both sides. Not against "C", but just together toward better future. How about getting readers interested not by conflict, but by plot twists, wisdom or something different.
Try to write a story without conflict in its core. It could be hard, but will be refreshing.
Have a nice day.
Glad you liked the read. I'm certainly open to hearing others' opinions on writing. Can you give me a couple of examples of great stories that have no conflicts? No goals? Or no antagonistic forces? (Or no consequences?) I would be surprised and interested to hear of them. What would you consider the primary elements of plot, if not those?
DeleteI personally can't think of any great story that doesn't have those elements.
I don't pretend to know all your intentions or thoughts (I mean, I don't even know you!), but I think most people have a narrow view of what those things are. A goal does not need to be aspirational--it can be to avoid something or maintain something ( https://mystorydoctor.com/the-3-types-of-plot-goals/ ). It basically means the character has a want that shows up in concrete ways. The goal could be as simple as wanting to maintain a smooth workflow during a work shift, for example.
An antagonist is not necessarily "bad." An antagonist is simply a form of opposition. ( https://www.septembercfawkes.com/2023/10/the-true-purpose-of-antagonists.html ) An antagonist is not the same as a villain or bad guy. So, sure, of course the antagonist can be "just another human being with his own goals"--in fact, an antagonist may not even be a human, or even a single entity. It could be society, nature, or one's self. It's simply a force that creates opposition for the protagonist.
Even if you put "A & B" on the same side, it's likely they need to face some sort of obstacle, challenge, or hardship, which means there is antagonism--even if it just comes from nature or the world itself.
Likewise, conflict doesn't mean arguments or violence. Conflict is simply the clash of the protagonist and an antagonist. It may be as simple as a crying toddler making it difficult for the protagonist to have a conversation with a love interest. ( https://www.septembercfawkes.com/2023/11/what-exactly-is-conflict-conflicts-true.html ) It may also show up as a gust of wind nearly blowing away the protagonist's homework that she needs to turn.
I can't think of any great stories that don't have consequences. If there isn't a chance of anything changing from what is going on with the protagonist, then what is the point for the protagonist to do anything?
What structure do you prefer to three-act structure? Most approaches still fit within three-act structure, they just slice and dice the story differently, coming at it from a different perspective/angle. (Though I don't think I've ever said three-act structure was the "best" structure . . . )
Certainly you don't need conflict in every scene (I mean, that is the whole point of this article). But it's very difficult to write a good story without some form of conflict, even if it's a mild conflict on the surface (such as trying to muster the courage to ask a question in class). (1/2)
(2/2)
DeleteConflict doesn't need to be "shiny." It doesn't need explosions or shouting. It's simply the protagonist encountering and dealing with resistance and opposition.
"You can have story without 'goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences,'" So, I personally call those the primary elements of *plot*, specifically. Story is more than plot--it's also theme, setting, and characters. If those aren't the foundation of *plot,* what is, I wonder? What then makes a plot, a plot?
"Main character can have no obstacles and everything he want to do he do with ease 'super easy, barely an inconvenience' and it still could be good, interesting story."--I certainly see how this can show up in a scene, maybe even in an act. I can't think of any great stories that do this through the whole story though. Can I get a more specific example (real or hypothetical)?
Even if the root of the conflict is a misunderstanding, well, the misunderstanding still caused conflict. At least that is how I view it. It's hard to have a great plot twist (if not impossible) without these basic plot elements in play, but certainly theme (or wisdom) is another great way to hold the audience's attention.
I don't even know how to write a story that has zero conflict and have it be good and worthwhile, personally. But if that is what you want to write, go for it. Certainly I'm for anyone writing whatever they want. No one has to do what I say.
You definitely don't have to agree with me on everything! I don't expect anyone too. I mainly share my ideas, and people are welcome to take or leave them. With that said, I think if we were to have a lengthier conversation, we would see that, actually, our perspectives on writing aren't as different as they first seem.
1 of 5
DeleteHello.
I feel that my english is too limited to properly give you my thoughts as a replica to your reply. I understand what you write, but creating sentences is harder. With my limited language ability I will use somewhat poetic contrast to try to tell what I want to tell. Many "X like Y". Sorry in advance for language mistakes, which I try to avoid. That being said previously I wrote about "any story", not exactly "great story". Something being "great story" is pretty subjective if we don't have some objective measurement. For me "the greatest story" is The Doll by B. Prus, but this you can easily put into conflict-based story basket, although it is something much bigger than that. There is even symbolic scene of the most prominent main character where he climbs from the basement upon laughters of defeated society, which took the ladder - in this basement, in his education, in his fight and even in his financial success. They always take ladder, but when he succeeds they also always try to leech on his success. This is the story of the ages.
A plot is a series of events, like a movie is a motion picture - series of pictures. Plotless story is a description of static, like a photography that can tell a story although time stopped in the moment of flash. Connection between events is very important for making an interesting story, but without connection it will be still a story. There could be story of madness (no logic), depravity (no morals or ethics), chaos (no physics), order (no randomness), "emotional cold" (no human emotions) or "emotional fire" (unhinged emotional piece) or anything other.
Many of those stories wouldn't be interesting or engaging for the most of the people or even for everyone, but that doesn't mean those are not stories. How far can we go with that? I feel answer to this question is more a feeling than anything else. In my language I can tell a story with a single word, but in english those would be two/three words like "I am dying" or "I survived". For one word story without a verb one could argue that telling a name of genocide place to people who care would make them think. Marketing experts try to seduce people with their social engineering and giving intended emotional response to sentences, words or ideas - they are also making stories. But lets go even deeper. In the caves with prehistoric pictures there are stories carved into this concepts, stories hard to decipher, but they are there. With a mystery why they didn't make any picture of human face (for thousands of years), but they did accurate pictures of animals - that is a story in itself.
In short: story is like information, but information is supposed to be an objective truth where story is not having such limit.
2 of 5
DeleteWith that being said there are no limits how to compose a story, what could be a story driver or how to engage readers. For me the basic emotion that should be used to engage readers is curiosity. Reader should be curious what next, which can be (but not "must be") build upon a question "who and how will win". Conflict-base story is just one of many possibilities. Other could be "educational-base story" which probably were prehistoric stories carved or painted on cave walls. You could argue that hunting is about conflict (obstacles), but how about chopping tree or taking an apple from a tree? One animal from herd of animals is like one tree in a forest. Both lives and yet in modern times many people believe that animals should have more rights than other living creatures (sometimes even more than humans and I know one law that is that stupid). You can easily frame hunting as man vs nature or man vs animal (one) and it could be a superb story, but you could also frame it like an instruction to make a good meal. In modern times it is shortened to "You need this much of the meat from this animal" with an idea that reader will buy this meat. In the past they carved instruction how to get meat (possibly).
There is not much of a conflict in some parts of Old Testament. New Testament is also mostly no-conflict although there is a famous quote that He didn't bring us peace, but a sword. There is also obvious conflict in all time favourite fragment that Mel Gibson turned into the movie. I have many books that contains informations with stories and yet they are not conflict-based. I want to read them, because I want to know something that there is to know. For example book about Roman imperators or book with role-playing scenerios that in itself are stories with large chunk of it left to the imagination of reader (if he chooses not to play them, but just read them).
Some time ago I read short story from the POV of a kid and his last days as a living human being during zombie apocalypse. He was too weak to acomplish anything he wanted and his death is not even stated in the story, he just joins zombie herd and goes with them for a walk for an eternity. No obstacle was conquered by him and yet I will remember him. Nice little kid who didn't stand a chance and nothing he did made any change in his life or death.
But lets go further.
3 of 5
DeleteCharacter without a goal is very passive. He could be even unrealistic with his passive approach. Like a vehicle for reader to use to ride along the story. IRL that kind of thinking was the basis of the latest teaching of Heaven's Gate cult. It helped them to make a suicide, because they believed that their bodies were only vehicles for their essence (soul). Zombies (before they became living dead) were also very passive people without their own goal. Idea of possession (by demons, devil, evil spirit etc) is also way of thinking that body is but a bottle for spirits to go in and out. Some say that making exorcism on not possessed person push his spirit from his body and opens possibility for other beings to possess this body. Close to that idea was movie Insidious.
As for story without antagonist (or antagonistic force) lets stop on story within a story. In The Time Machine our human shaped vehicle (average person) has a theory about Eloi and Morlock. Eloi had everything, they had no antagonistic force that could stop their debauchery, gluttony an fullfilling all their wants that they became as stupid as cattle or sheep. They were then harvested by Morlock, but before Morlock domination they had everything.
Story of "A & B" is a story of friendship that can have educational purpose. They can face some sort of obstacle or challenge, but they also can show "the power of friendship" or that even different people can live in peace.
4 of 5
DeleteYou asked question: if there isn't a chance of anything changing from what is going on with the protagonist, then what is the point for the protagonist to do anything? But I would answer to this with not my own words: do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Many powerful stories are about a human who in the face of defeat stood his ground. Like "tank man" on Tiananmen Square or like "Lalek" who managed to fight german and later soviet occupation from 1939 to his death in battle in 1963. I think it is part of being human to refuse to surrender to fate and fight even if there is no chance of changing anything. Sometimes without chances there is a miracle - like in Tiananmen Square when this lad actually stopped multiple tanks for couple of moments - tanks send there to kill people. It was worth fighting - even for only a few moments of glory.
As of my go to story structure (for writing) I am working on semi composite novel with three huge twists. For reading I don't care about story structure and I don't need having any emotional response to stories. I read when I am curious and I also aim for that curiosity in my writings.
Example of an interesting (in my opinion) story without obstacles for our main character (short version that can be build upon):
1. X wakes up in bed and has a normal morning. From stuff he sees in house we can deduce that he is/was living with a woman, but he never thinks about it.
2. X is at work. He works in a office. There is some drama in the office, but it is all fun and games. X is normal worker in this office. He thinks about his girlfriend and how much he loves when she spends the night at his place.
3. During the night (in the past? in the future?) woman is attacked in her home. Torture porn in this one is gruesome. She don't know why and who is beating her, but he is much stronger than her.
4. X is returning home from his work. It is different house than in the first act. He wants to make a movie evening and he calls his girlfriend to come. She agrees. The end.
Or we can reduce ammount of violence and make something like this:
1. X is a real estate agent. He has three meetings with clients from different backgrounds. He talks with them about current situation and we know more about country they are living in.
2. After meetings he goes home and sit in his favourite chair. He reads newspaper and finds article about local school. While he is reading it he falls asleep.
3. In the local school we see some school drama from POV of one girl. She thinks about lots of thinks, but she doesn't have any conflict with anyone and what she wants she gets. In the background there are talks about same issues like in chapter #1, but this time from the point of view of kids.
4. Girl goes back home and screams. Her mom comes to her and asks whats the matter and she tells her mom that she saw a man asleep in chair with newspaper. He woke up when she saw him and then vanished. She talks to her mom how he looked (like X) and her mom tells her:
- It was favourite chair of your uncle. He was real estate agent and used to sit in this chair like he would be older than he was. He died in an accident not long after you were born.
(1 of ?)
DeleteHi Billy,
I understand about the language barrier.
I love symbolism, and it sounds like the story uses it well.
I see, I think. To me, a good plot needs to have a sense of cause and effect (in other words consequences—sometimes these consequences are only internal, focused on how they impact the character internally), and for it to be meaningful, the protagonist must be trying to fulfill a want in concrete ways. Certainly there are works that are more “plotless,” though. Certainly there are works that are more experimental too. I’m not sure I would call all of those “stories” . . . maybe . . . it starts to turn into a debate about how one defines the word “story.” I probably wouldn’t define it the same way as you, it sounds, but I can respect your point of view on it.
There could also be more than one way to define “story,” depending on the context.
(2)
Delete“do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Many powerful stories are about a human who in the face of defeat stood his ground.”—See, to me, the protagonist IS acting to do something, to stand up for something is to do something. To me, these characters hold steadfast, and that has *internal* consequences on who they are and what they stand for (their identity). Often in these stories, these characters are *threatened with change*--to change into something they are not, but they resist that. So I think there is still the *chance of (some sort of) change* but the character is withstanding that, and that is why the character acts. I think the chance for change (at least internal change) still exists in those stories. And so there are still consequences. How the character chooses to face his fate carries *internal* consequences at the very least, and those are still consequences to me. It’s about staying true to who you are and what you believe in, even when the external consequences are defeat, because the internal consequences of staying true to your beliefs matter more to you than the external consequence of defeat.
. . . Sorry, I’m getting ready to go to a conference this week, and I don’t have more time to reply in more depth (I didn’t want to leave you hanging though). In any case thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I think you bring up some good points to ponder and I appreciate the examples. Best wishes in your writing endeavors. :)