Unless a better writer can dissuade me I am minded to say no. The 'essential' 'conflict' is cultural. It is part of the western 'Human Condition' - Eastern cultures have stories without conflict.
Indeed, I'd venture the first story you ever wrote did not contain a conflict. It was entitled "Me and Mommy in the park" and was little more than a juvenile chronicle - regardless it was still a story.
My next experience comes from comedians, 'The two Ronnies' spring to mind. Their stories (jokes) had no conflict and in many examples the expected conflict never materialised. (That fact, in itself, making the story humorous). The skill of these comedians lay in how long they could entertain whilst stringing-out a simple story.
In my personal development as writer I began the exercise of how long I could go in a story without introducing a conflict. (I can do about 60k).
This is a very old debate - the defence of the argument seems to be to broaden the definition of conflict.
My current position is that conflict is not a requirement. In comedic terms - how long can you string out a joke before revealing the punch line.
I have been asked to clarify this question as it has been flagged as similar to 'Can you have a story with an antagonist?'. Antagonist is generally used with regard to character driven conflicts (Hero vs Villain). The films 'The Martian', 'Gravity' and 'Castaway' do not have antagonists because the character is alone. (Wilson is a foil). These stories are tales of struggle. Whether 'struggle' = 'conflict' is a debate in itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment