The significance of plot without conflict
Posted on Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 14:30
In the West, plot is commonly thought to revolve around conflict: a confrontation between two or more elements, in which one ultimately dominates the other. The standard three- and five-act plot structures—which permeate Western media—have conflict written into their very foundations. A “problem” appears near the end of the first act; and, in the second act, the conflict generated by this problem takes center stage. Conflict is used to create reader involvement even by many post-modern writers, whose work otherwise defies traditional structure.
The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops and Internet “guides” to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in general—arguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kish?tenketsu.
Interesting.
However, to my mind, the twist and unification are a form of mystery, an apparently unrelated thing that is then connected, this makes it almost a riddle, a contest between reader and writer. A conflict (if only between the enigma and eventual solution) therefore, is not embodied in the plot, but still drives the narrative.
Still a fascinating article.