
The significance of plot without conflict (2012) - open-source-ux
http://stilleatingoranges.tumblr.com/post/25153960313/the-significance-of-plot-without-conflict
======
ashark
Western works (especially cinema) use this in individual scenes all the time,
right? The first example wouldn't be at all out of place in the first act of a
film to show us that two people know one another, or (even more effectively)
later after they've fought to show us that they're friendly again.

Its use as the central structure for an entire 1.5-2hr movie, or a whole
novel, say, is what's rare.

[EDIT] All the examples on Wikipedia are very short, too. Is such a structure
common as the central plot of a longer work _anywhere_? Its super-common in
the West in the above use—maintaining interest in scenes that lack
conflict—but again, not as the main plot structure of anything. Also, the
"argument" version on WP made me realize that the thing this all reminds me of
that I couldn't quite place is the _syllogism_

~~~
dragonwriter
> Western works (especially cinema) use this in individual scenes all the
> time, right?

Sometimes, probably, though conventional theories of screenwriting hold that
each scene must have and be defined by a conflict whose resolution advances
the plot related to the wider conflict of the piece, and that a scene which
does not have a conflict or whose conflict doesn't fulfill a role in advancing
the wider plot should be excised.

> Also, the "argument" version on WP made me realize that the thing this all
> reminds me of that I couldn't quite place is the syllogism

It also has some similarity to the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis style of
rhetoric/argument, possibly closer than to the purely-deductive syllogism.
But, yes, I can see that similarity, too.

Interestingly, the Western 3-Act structure has been described as a special
case of T/A/S structure; so, in a way, this structure may be more relatable to
Western structure than the superficial differences suggest.

------
riazrizvi
Narratives are driven by 1) a question that 2) the reader cares about.

\- How is Ender going to save earth in space army academy? (Ender's Game)

\- Who killed Mr Ratchett? [EDIT: or rather How will Poirot figure out who
killed Mr Ratchett?] (Murder on the Orient Express)

\- How was Rome formed in the early days? (History of Rome, Livy)

\- What's going to happen to Seth Brundle? (The Fly)

\- How did Warren Buffett become who he is today? (Snowball)

\- Are Mr Knightly and Emma going to hook up? (Emma)

\- Who is Ted Mosby going to marry? (How I met your mother)

Conflict can be the basis of the question, 'Who will win the fight'.
Kishōtenketsu can be the basis of the question, 'Who are these people and how
are they related?'. I don't agree that 'in the West, plot is commonly thought
to revolve around conflict' because many plots do not have the outcome of a
conflict as the main question.

~~~
norswap
I'm pretty sure everyone that watched "How I Met Your Mother" were doing so
for the jokes, not the plot. It wasn't even really a narrative at all, more
like a smattering of teasers.

But you're right, not all plots are about conflict. Plots about conflict, and
especially inner conflict, tend to be fascinating if done right though.

~~~
riazrizvi
Yes I agree that watchers/readers are not always focused on the main question.
In any moment you feel drawn in to a story you might be drawn along by a
secondary or tertiary question. Storytellers weave them together into a
tapestry of compelling viewing/reading. Think of a single joke you might hear
in a show, 'Why did the chicken cross the road?', we immediately think, 'How
is he going to try to make this old joke funny now?'. Once a story loses its
questions for you, you lose interest in the story.

------
mvaliente2001
I've always think that "My Big Fat Greek Weeding" was close to that concept.
Instead of a big conflict that is resolved at the end, we have small conflicts
that are resolved almost immediately after being presented.

Toula feels ugly, ignorant and trapped in an uninterested job. She begins to
study, changes her clothes and make up, changes job. She still remembers that
she was rejected by the other girls when she was a child, but now in college,
she tries again and is accepted. She likes a man, he likes her back. Her
father doesn't accept a "xenos", but he tolerates him. He's not catholic
orthodox, he gets baptized. And the last part of the movie lacks any conflict,
and nevertheless, we're thrilled to see the happy ending materialize because
we got to like the main characters.

~~~
alvinmint
You can think that the conflicts are internal and at the end the characters
changes, improve or found something unique about them.

------
gallerdude
I was watching a movie last night, where in the opening scene, a getaway
driver escapes the cops. In the meanwhile, the driver, seemingly randomly,
kept listening to the score of the local football game. At the end of the
chase, the driver pulls into a parking ramp where the game has just ended -
obfuscating his vehicle in a sea of fans leaving the game. (It's worth noting
that there's still conflict, but this was the first example that came to mind
for me.)

~~~
rodgerd
_Driver_. That scene struck me mostly because it was the rare example of a
director trying to make chase conventions work in a contemporary setting,
rather than pretend cellphones, radios, cameras, and police helicopters don't
exist.

------
skybrian
It seems like both kinds of plots set up a problem and resolve it. In one, a
problem happens to the characters in the story. In the other, the problem is
for the reader to understand what is happening in the story.

But it's very common for stories to include both kinds of problems.

~~~
jamesjyu
The problem of the reader needing to understand is story is not in the story
itself. Anytime anyone reads anything, their goal is to figure out what they
are reading... so that problem doesn't add anything.

Kishōtenketsu specifically doesn't set up a problem in the classic western
sense. There is no apparent obstacle that the protagonist needs to overcome.
There are no "stakes" that we are worried about (what happens if she doesn't
get what she wants?). There is no antagonist. There is no rising action where
conflict+stakes increase over time. It's just a totally different structure.

There is a twist at the end, but a twist is not a conflict.

~~~
munificent
> The problem of the reader needing to understand is story is not in the story
> itself. Anytime anyone reads anything, their goal is to figure out what they
> are reading... so that problem doesn't add anything.

I feel you're been needlessly pedantic here. Sure, the reader always has to
parse each sentence and understand it. But that's pretty different from the
author deliberately introducing a non sequitur that _cannot_ be understood
until the later resolution.

> It's just a totally different structure.

What skybrian is saying is that, yes, at one level the structures are
different, but at the next level of abstraction there are commonalities. In
both cases a tension is created in the reader which is then later resolved.

In conflict-based stories, most of the tension comes from the reader
sympathizing with the protagonist who is directly experiencing the tension. In
kishōtenketsu, the reader experiences a tension the characters do not because
it's not "in world".

Even in Western literature, this technique is used all the time. Foreshadowing
is common. Many stories shift viewpoints between multiple characters so that
the reader has access to insight the characters do not, and that's used to
deliberately create tension and anticipation in the reader.

~~~
skybrian
As another example, it's common in novels to have multiple independent
storylines that eventually connect. Part of the tension is "what do these two
people's stories have to do with each other?"

~~~
munificent
Yes, I was thinking of exactly that in the shower later. It's one of my
favorite ways for an author to build tension.

------
Blackthorn
It was a major eye opening experience the first time I saw My Neighbor Totoro.
There was a charming and wonderful film that was completely devoid of
conflict! Yet, it worked and worked well. It went against everything I had
been taught in every English class in my life.

~~~
colanderman
In my high school literature class we were taught that conflict doesn't have
to be between individuals. Indeed, Totoro does have conflict by this
definition: between the girls and their insecurity about their mother's
illness. The conflict is resolved thanks to Totoro and the friendship they
developed with him.

I seem to remember The Magic School Bus [1] (kids' science show) having
stories – that is, a series of related events – but only sporadic (and
generally incidental) conflict. "Magical bus takes school kids on memorable –
if ill-advised – journey, and Arnold makes jokes" sums up pretty much every
episode.

Seinfeld I would venture to say also deviates from the western norm, in that
the conflicts (of which each episode has several) are rarely, if ever,
overcome. Half the time the conflict reaches a climax at the end of the
episode. In fact the entire series ended with unresolved conflict. But the
stories are nonetheless memorable.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_School_Bus_%28TV_ser...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_School_Bus_%28TV_series%29)

~~~
icebraining
I also thought about The Magic School Bus, but while incidental, I seem to
remember there was often some element of danger that they had to surpass, no?
Like being inside someone and the time until re-growth being limited, causing
a race against time to exit the body.

------
nsxwolf
For whatever reasons I vividly remember asking the question in 7th grade,
"can't a story not have a conflict? Can't it just be about some nice people
getting along without anything like that happening?" and my teacher simply
said "No."

~~~
dsr_
Graydon Saunders' A Succession of Bad Days: top review on Goodreads:

"There's no plot to speak of--things happen, and then it ends. There's no
conflict to speak of until the last chapter. Most of the book consists of
detailed descriptions of civil engineering projects and the magical techniques
used for them. The characters are ludicrously overpowered special snowflakes.
The language is nigh-impenetrable, and the innocent comma is tortured beyond
all reason.

But you know what? To hell all that. I loved it.

This is a story about where legendary sorcerers come from. Five young people
(ages range from late teens to early thirties) with magical talent take part
in a highly experimental training program. Talent is hazardous; absent
training, none of them are expected to live to see fifty. Traditional
training, which runs along the lines of "spend several years sweeping floors
and learning control before moving on to lighting candles", has a roughly
fifty percent survival rate. Their program, in contrast, starts with
completely reconstructing a square mile or so of geography and scales up
rapidly from there."

It is, in fact, an extremely good story.

I also suggest Nathan Lowell's Solar Clipper series, a far-future space story
in which nothing much happens and it is fascinating. Excitement is largely
provided by superior coffee making and people management skills.

~~~
KVFinn
I love the Graydon Saunders books so I'll be sure to checkout the Solar
Clipper series! It looks like the author even has free to close to free
versions on his website.

------
pnathan
Tangentially, journalists almost, as a rule, put a narrative on events, even
those that really don't _have_ a narrative (which is most things under Current
Events) E.g, when a story focuses on someone's personal story through the time
of events, that becomes the narrative lens.

I'm not fond of this approach, because it sets up conflicts and limits the
view of events to the specific, when really, as someone far away, the specific
isn't useful in understanding how it is actually news.

------
empath75
This is basically the structure of most This American Life stories. A
recounting of some events, interrupted by incongruous new information, and
then a resolution where the mystery is resolved.

There's a YouTube video where Ira Glass describes storytelling as asking a
series of questions that demand answers.

------
fitzroy
2001 can be seen as a film that (mostly) exemplifies a conflict-free
structure.

[spoilers]

While the plot of the film has been described as ‘a computer malfunctions and
tries to kill the crew of a spaceship’, in fact that part of the film lasts
for about 40 minutes — or just over a quarter of the two and a half hour
running time. The actual overt conflict is only about 30 minutes, arguably
starting right before the intermission when we see that HAL can read the
crewmembers’ lips through the window of the soundproof pod.

Many films have conflict-free exposition scenes or sequences, but 2001 is
interesting because it has a single conflict-containing act within a larger
non-conflict structure, which is primarily expository and/or revelatory in
nature.

------
gwbas1c
I'm so sick of movies that end with a giant, epic, battle scene. These are
movies with minimal conflict for the first 90 minutes or so, and then all of a
sudden turn into a boring epic battle to the death. Ugh.

------
majewsky
Wikipedia has examples of how Kishōtenketsu can be applied to fairy tales and
arguments:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
That wiki page suggests this has been a conscious process used in Super Mario
level design since Super Mario Galaxy:

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-17-how-
nintendos-b...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-17-how-nintendos-
best-mario-levels-were-structured-using-chinese-poetry)

~~~
r888888888
The way this works in terms of design is:

1) A game mechanic is introduced 2) The player is subject to slowly increasing
difficult that requires the mechanic 3) The player is forced to demonstrate
mastery of mechanic in some new situation, often by combining with other
mechanics 4) The player has mastered the mechanic and has the option of using
it whenever they want in the future

------
lubujackson
When I think of the focus on multicultural writing I wish it was more stuff
like this rather than typical stories told with a slightly different cultural
background.

~~~
gallerdude
Yeah, I think everyone (perhaps the hacker especially) has an appreciation for
the structures underneath the hood that make something interesting.

------
rodgerd
One of the things I realised I loved about _My Neighbour Totoro_ is exactly
this; it cuts against the normal kids' movie fare by providing a fairly simple
slice of life (albeit with the supernatural). It really stands out compared to
the structure of most kids' movies.

------
ranprieur
Popular American storytelling is centered on something even more precise than
conflict. It's centered on the question of which side is going to win. Not
only fiction, but even reality TV, always has to trick us to make the conflict
seem exactly balanced until the very end.

Sometimes I want to see a conflict that's an obvious blowout from setup to
resolution. That can still be vastly entertaining with a little creativity.

~~~
thanatropism
This is _Dunkirk (2007)_ , no?

------
white-flame
I think that the most important and engaging components of conflict are
"mystery" and "anticipation". Playing those out with a deliberate antagonist
just happens to be an easy go-to way of encapsulating that, playing with the
mystery of what he's got up his sleeve and anticipating when they finally
clash.

But these components of conflict do not require an antagonist "character" per
se. The conflict can be survival, overcoming disease, making that next
promotion, getting the girl/guy, not knowing what happened to bring the world
to the condition it's in, etc.

Or they can be applied in simple charm or humor, but those still need a setup
and payoff of some sort. The "setup" here still sets up a conflict of some
type, just not necessarily of the antagonistic flavor.

So I would disagree that there's no "conflict", but rather there is a lack of
a specific antagonist character.

------
SubiculumCode
It was an interesting article, but I think we must be very careful if we are
to make the strong claim that the entirety of western literature follows a
single plot structure. Maybe all Disney movies, but not the great abundance
that constitutes western literature.

------
mwexler
This reminded me of the MacGuffin concept, popularized by Hitchcock, about the
need for a goal to drive a the plot of the movie, but it was just a throwaway
device used to get into the characters and their conflict
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin#Alfred_Hitchcock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin#Alfred_Hitchcock)).
The MacGuffin school assumes that the viewer understands the deeper meaning of
the quest or centerpiece, and so can ignore it, but it turns out that many
viewers, right or wrong, actually like clever plots and quests... along with
great characters and snappy dialog, etc.

------
alexanderdmitri
> Is it possible that deconstruction could never have been conceived in a
> world governed by kishōtenketsu, rather than by the three-act plot? Is the
> three-act structure one of the elements behind the very worldview that calls
> for its deconstruction? Can the Western narrative of the will to power
> remain coherent in the face of a rival narrative from the East? This writer
> would prefer to ask than to answer these questions.

Does the author actually say what the significance of a plot without conflict
is? Is this an experiment with meta-thesis where conflict is avoided by not
actually concluding the argument?

------
manyoso
I think of movies like Dazed and Confused as essentially without conflict.

------
pacaro
_Ciméma du look_ [1] does something other than conflict in a sense. The movies
still have conflict (I'm really thinking of _Diva_ [2] as my exemplar) but it
is entirely secondary to the style and texture of the movie

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinéma_du_look](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinéma_du_look)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diva_(1981_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diva_\(1981_film\))

------
alvinmint
Most writers knows about the different kind of plots and structures, the
problem is that the market wants and expect a specific type and writers needs
to eat.

If you are interested in story structures I recommend this books -Story:
Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting bt Robert
McKee -Invisible Ink: A Practical Guide to Building Stories that Resonate by
Brian McDonald

------
ringaroundthetx
This is why I stopped watching Orange is the New Black.

Season 3 had no conflict, or it wasn't relevant conflict any longer. Just life
in prison.

I did consider that dull, but I don't preclude that a plot can't be "good"
without conflict.

I think that is entirely fine and possible. But in a story where a previous
chapter or segment did follow that formula, and then the next doesn't, it
looks like a dull accident.

------
spookyuser
I love the kinds of stories where nothing happens, I don't even know what
they're technically called but I mentally refer to them as people walking
around and doing stuff movies. I dont know why they're so appealing to me -
maybe for the same reason that people find slow tv good. But I would be
totally happy to go and watch Slacker for the sixth time right now.

~~~
icebraining
The trilogy _Before Sunrise_ / _Before Sunset_ / _Before Midnight_ is
essentially two people walking and talking the whole duration.

EDIT: And now I see it's written and directed by the same guy as Slacker :)

~~~
spookyuser
Yup, I love those too. They probably have even less conflict than Slacker :P

~~~
icebraining
Have you seen Lynch's _The Straight Story_? It's literally just an old man who
goes to see his brother, who suffered a stroke. There are a few problems along
the way, but it's small stuff, there's no big race against time or anything
like that, it's literally a straight story of his trip and the people he meets
and talks to along the way until he reaches his brother's home. It's also very
good, in my opinion.

~~~
spookyuser
That sounds amazing, I'll check it out!

------
pier25
> The resulting plot–and it is a plot–contains no conflict.

It may be a plot, but is it a good plot? Does it makes you want to know more
about the story?

------
danharaj
I would have liked the author to include references to the particular Derrida
texts they were referring to. I'm not familiar with him in particular and I'd
like to get more context. Especially since Derrida entered philosophy right
after World War 2-- pretty compelling evidence (by no means eurocentric,
either) that the world is ultimately ruled by violence.

------
Dirlewanger
I'm not a writer in the conventional sense, but can't Kishōtenketsu be reduced
as to just world/character-building? I'm not fully seeing just how different
it is. The comic panel was too simplistic I guess.

~~~
jamesjyu
It's different because there is no apparent obstacle that blocks the
protagonist (the girl) from achieving their goal. In traditional western
plots, this conflict is the main focus, and is usually between the protagonist
and an antagonist who has their own (usually opposite) goals.

This conflict underlies almost all the narrative structure. For example, the
reader should be obsessing about the stakes as they read: what happens if the
girl doesn't get what she wants? Who else loses? Does anyone die? This is what
drives people to read on. Without conflict, this structure falls apart.

World and character building can occur in either of these cases. But in the
classic conflict case, the world and characters are usually designed to
heighten conflict (ie. the character has a flaw that leads to them to more
direct conflict).

~~~
r00fus
I viscerally hated kids shows (e.g.: Little Einsteins) that had conflict-
driven plots, and avoided those for my kids (except in small overall % - where
for some reason my kid really wanted to watch).

At a point it felt like a conspiracy.

You don't need an antagonist to make an interesting story.

~~~
jamesjyu
I agree that interesting stories don't have to adhere to this structure (and
by all means, stories should break the rules!). But, the western market
generally demands it for salable material, especially novels.

Even in this conflict structure, the best antagonists are the ones that
believe they are doing good. It's not a trite good vs. evil construct. They
have their own desires and a philosophy that can be a logical way to solve a
problem (but in conflict with how the hero wants to solve it).

Ghibli films do this best. For example, in Princess Mononoke, the antagonist
(Lady Eboshi) is initially presented as the evil forest destroyer, chopping
down trees to make villages and industry. But then, you find out she does this
to provide shelter and work for social outcasts. It's a moral dilemma with no
clear right answer.

------
asimjalis
Kishōtenketsu is an idea. Calling it "eastern" and contrasting it with
something called "western" is (ironically) creating a conflict where there
isn't one.

------
jamesrom
There was indeed conflict. The conflict came from the juxtaposition of
seemingly unrelated frames.

Creating conflict is an element of every story. Drama is the process of
reconciling conflict.

------
kristianov
This is an ancient Chinese writing guideline: 起承转合。

~~~
kruhft
What does it mean?

~~~
Pete_D
My dictionary (Pleco) says: "introduction, elucidation of the theme,
transition to another viewpoint, and summing-up-- the four steps in composing
an essay".

I would guess that kishōtenketsu is a loanword from this, qĭchéngzhuănhé.

