Goals & Turning Points > Conflict

In the writing world, we often place a lot of emphasis on conflict. And for good reason. It's extremely difficult, if not possible, to write anything longer than flash fiction without some form of conflict. A story without conflict often doesn't hold the audience for very long. I even consider conflict to be one of the primary elements of plot (goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences).

But sometimes I think we put too much emphasis on conflict, especially in the West.

For one, we have an adage in our writing community that "story = conflict."

But the reality is, story does not equal conflict.

While atypical, it's technically possible to create a story with little to no conflict. I could tell a story about a magical trip to a mesmerizing beach, where nothing goes wrong, and it can even be interesting . . . as long as it's short (smooth sailing can only be interesting for so long).

In reality, goals and turning points matter more than conflict.

As I've argued previously, goals, not conflict, are the true framework of plot.

It's by having a goal (and plan) that we shape a story.

If you think about it, this makes sense. Conflict cannot exist until there are antagonistic forces, because conflict happens when a character faces antagonism--resistance and obstacles. By definition, an antagonist is what is opposing a goal. Therefore, you can't have a true antagonist, until you have a goal.

Goals are the foundation of plot.

Turning points (also known as "plot points" and "plot turns") turn the story in a new direction. The biggest turning point of a story is the climax. It literally turns the story into falling action, and will show whether the protagonist gets, or doesn't get, their big goal.

But that is only one turning point. Each act should have a turning point. And each scene should have a turning point.

When a turning point happens, it naturally alters the character's goal and/or their plan to get the goal. The goal may be obtained, abandoned, swapped out, partially completed, or something else. And the plan may be abandoned or refined or swapped out or get more detailed, or something else.

What holds true, though, is that when a turning point happens, the goal or plan somehow shifts. When this happens, it "progresses the plot." The story is evolving and changing and moving forward in a direction.

In contrast, conflict doesn't actually guarantee that the plot is progressing.

Consider a couple who is in conflict. They may fight and argue about an issue, but nothing truly gets resolved. After the conflict, they are in the same situation they were previously. They just "went in a circle." Nothing changed one way or another--nothing progressed, for better or worse. They aren't going in a new direction. There was no turning point. 

I call this "circling the conflict."

And in a strong story, the characters don't circle the conflict. They change it by turning it. Either the situation changes in their favor, or it gets worse (simplistically speaking). It shouldn't stay the same.

A character technically doesn't need conflict to turn a story.

Consider incident scenes.

In an incident scene, there is no conflict.

The character has a (scene) goal, pursues the goal, and gets it.

For example, in Casino Royale, James Bond arrives at the resort, and his goal is to figure out who received the ellipsis text message and where he is now.

He gets out of his car and pretends to tie his shoe, so he can scope out the cameras.

Two men mistake him for a valet driver, so he seizes the opportunity to create a distraction, by hitting another car as he parks theirs. Alarms go off, and people run to see what's going on. Unnoticed, Bond slips into the resort and to where they keep the CCTV footage. He goes through the recordings to find the day and time the ellipsis message was sent. He locates who received it and what he was driving. Bond then goes to the front desk and inquires about the car and its owner. The receptionist reveals his name is Dimitrios, and he has a home up the beach.

While there are interesting things happening in this scene, technically, Bond isn't experiencing conflict. He's not actually meeting resistance. He pursues a goal (essentially) unopposed.

But it still turns the story because now that he knows who and where this man is, he can find and investigate him. Because Bond got his scene goal, the situation changed--the direction of the story changed, and the plot progressed. (This is also in part because getting the goal carried significant consequences.)

Yet the incident scene does not need to always be as exciting as James Bond.

In Michael, an incident scene takes place when he hires his manager, Brinker. Michael meets with a room full of men about his career, and Brinker speaks up. Michael takes interest in him and hires him on the spot, unopposed. There is no conflict. The protagonist had a goal, pursued it, and got the goal.

But it still turns the story, because now that he has his own manager, Michael can fire his father and pursue a solo career. The situation changed, and the direction of the story changed, progressing the plot.

Low-conflict scenes and stories can still be interesting, and they can still progress the plot.

Consider the famous film My Neighbor Totoro. There is very low conflict. There are very low stakes. Yet it succeeds in part because it still has goals and turning points. The plot is still progressing, even without obvious conflict. (However, it's worth mentioning, it does still technically have conflict--it's just quieter and less obvious.)

So while conflict is certainly important--especially in long-form narratives--it's perhaps not as important as many of us make it sound.

As an editor, I'm often pushing newer writers to include more conflict (even if it's unobvious conflict), because they usually aren't including enough for a novel. It's hard to pull off numerous scenes or a whole story with no or low conflict. And if you go that route, usually those scenes and stories need to be short in order to stay interesting.

Low or no conflict tends to work better as an exception or rule break, than a default.

And because the vast majority of stories do need conflict of some kind, I will continue to consider it a primary element of plot. More conflict rarely, rarely "hurts" a story. In contrast, no conflict can frequently "hurt" a story.

Yet I want to acknowledge that when it really comes down to it, you can technically get away with low or no conflict at times. It's much harder--nigh impossible--to get away with not including goals and turning points.

Goals and turning points are greater than conflict.

***

FanX is this week! I'm heading to Salt Lake this week to participate in FanX (as I do pretty much every year). I'll be doing 4 panels + 1 presentation: Trigun, Twilight, KPop Demon Hunters, Studio Ghibli, and Kishotenketsu (lots of Asian storytelling this time). My schedule is here. (Check the tabs for each day.)

Also, I don't always wear costumes, but frankly, after years of attending in professional attire vs. costumes, I've learned it's a lot more fun to attend in costumes, so this year I'll be wearing a different one each day, and I may not be very recognizable in a couple (I'll have my name badge, though!). Just wanted to mention that.

Finally, thanks to everyone who participated in my protagonist workshop the other Saturday. We had an amazing group with great questions 💖

Keep up the writing!