Re: dr Jack

[3]:
Intention is a conscious goal of an entity that motivates its activity.

Ex1: You want to keep your room clean. Therefore when you see trash you discard it.
Activity: Discarding trash
Intention: To keep the room clean.

Ex2: You want to know the truth, therefore you ponder.
Activity: Pondering
Intention: To know the truth.

"Obstacle for me is anything with an intention against the goal." contradicts what you said otherwise, because so far a rock could be an obstacle, but a rock can't have intention because it is not sentient.


Constructing Stories without Conflict[3]

Last page I got to the point of having this list to think about in respond to the question: What do stories without conflict[3] use to hook an audience?

Slice of life, Contrast, Parody, Fantasy, Imagination, Ambition, Mystery, Reunion, Surprise, Amusement, Unpredictability, Unusual perspective, Promise, Paradox, Metaphor, Thought experiment, Struggle, ...

Here, "Unusal perspective" is randomly chosen as the topic to explore.

Example

Story: The main character is 1 inch tall in a world where things are of our size. The story isn't about the MC trying to become big to fit. If that is the case, it would be an internal conflict[1,2,3]. To the MC, the world is normal. The world is not built for the MC, but that is normal, and that is life.

Game: In the game, the player controls the MC to go about life in a world not developed for it.

Attraction of the Story: (That is, ignore the gameplay, the graphics, the sound, etc.. and focus on the story alone.)
o The irony that the difficulty of tasks become scrambled with the size change
o The MC's creative ways to enjoy life using every day objects in ways impossible to the player in real life.
o The meaning that life is enjoyable even when the world isn't built for you

This story has no conflict[3]. For instance, it isn't about a situation where someone wants to do something but is opposed by someone else, such that the goal of the MC is to overcome that other person. This story describes an experience living in a world from a different perspective.

Does it have a conflict[1] or a conflict[2]?

In retrospect, this story could cover many of the terms I set up to consider. If I cross out the ones that are covered or easily covered, I get:

Slice of life, Contrast, Parody, Fantasy, Imagination, Ambition, Mystery, Reunion, Surprise, Amusement, Unpredictability, Unusual perspective, Promise, Paradox, Metaphor, Thought experiment, Struggle,

So perhaps the next attempt would be to consider a story using the unused terms.

I would say Hachi has a conflict of not being able to accept his master's death. The story is only poignant because of this internal struggle and him not giving up and accepting another master. If it was just about the faith and love of a dog to it's master it would have been boring. There are other dog stories like this that involve conflict, for instance, a lost dog crossing the country to find it's master etc, basically the same thing but this is the chasm of death rather than a long distance. In a way, it's made more poignant because of it's impossibility.

Re: fireside7

I don't think that in Hachi the point is that the dog didn't accept the master's death. The point is to portray an eternal bond between it and the master that transcends life and death. It is not misunderstanding. It is not denial. It is ritual.

Not really, going to the train station is more a sign of lack of acceptance. The bond doesn't transcend death, the dog just doesn't accept it and is still waiting for his master to return. It's conflict with impossible odds, because the master will never return. If you can accept the man against nature conflict, this isn't much different. What's interesting is this bond doesn't really work without this struggle that goes on at the end when the master dies, which somewhat proves that stories fall flat without conflict.

Re: fireside7

To me it would not be interesting enough if there is only a failed attempt to overcome a conflict[1] with nature (death) and inability (unable to know that the master is dead). To me it would be more interesting given that the dog knows that the master would not return, but continues to express an undying love.

The way I understood:

The dog goes to the station because it loves the master. As long as the love does not fade, it would keep doing it. Whether it understands death is irrelevant. The point that is touching, is that the love is so strong that it never fades. This casues the viewer to reflect on whether they have ever loved something so much that they would love it forever even though it is long gone.

To the dog, there is no internal struggle to decide whether to go or not. And it would be a stretch to justify that the dog is struggling against the concept of separation. The dog isn't struggling, it does that every day even before the master's death. It is just what it does. The dog loves the master before, and loves him after. There is no force that is dampening that love. The viewer see the absence of that force in the dog, and the presence of such force in themselves, this in turn creates a contrast:

Why doesn't the dog give up? (Viewer: I think I would...)
Why doesn't the dog doubt that the master has abandoned it? (Viewer: I think I would...)

***

But I agree that it could be understood in multiple ways. Perhaps we could even talk about how to make a story that shows different attractive features to different audience.


[Edited by - Wai on December 30, 2010 2:13:17 AM]

Quote:

Quote: At least I hope so. Since I didn't find any reference to this in the other messages.
(And the answer is simple.)

No, it's about conflict in all it's forms, which has led to a semantical argument without any examples.

Any kind of definition can bring to a semantical argument :p. Anyone can do it.
But my definition, without many problem, can bring in itself every type of conflict considered by fiction rules.
And only them. Not any other type of conflict.

Re: Wai

Quote: "Obstacle for me is anything with an intention against the goal." contradicts what you said otherwise, because so far a rock could be an obstacle, but a rock can't have intention because it is not sentient.

Yup. I was assuming that you want to give intention also to nonsentient being.

But this bring out a problem. A man who goes against a mighty storm is not a conflict? Or a blizzard, or a plague... Or simply a sea that separate the character from the gold.
All of these are conflicts (and some of them are used for stories too like the movie "The perfect storm") for me.

Quote: Attraction of the Story: (That is, ignore the gameplay, the graphics, the sound, etc.. and focus on the story alone.)
o The irony that the difficulty of tasks become scrambled with the size change
o The MC's creative ways to enjoy life using every day objects in ways impossible to the player in real life.
o The meaning that life is enjoyable even when the world isn't built for you

Here you're making assumptions.
1) The irony that the difficulty of tasks become scrambled with the size change.
You didn't talk about tasks. I'm pretty sure that every one of these task needs a goal and have an obstacle (wrong technology I think, such the keyboard is too large)
o The MC's creative ways to enjoy life using every day objects in ways impossible to the player in real life.
Using to do what? Filling the gap will show the conflict. And Enjoing life is a goal.
o The meaning that life is enjoyable even when the world isn't built for you
You're assuming that the life could be a mess in a strange world. It seems to me an external conflict, with an internal result.
You set the goal = finding life enjoyable.
Obstacle = the strange world.

I can understand that, in my definition, any kind of sentient being making an action is conflict. Let's say breathing... Goal = taking oxygen - conflict = law of physics (such as the air stay still usually :p).
But I don't see problem about that. And I see problem taking other definition (such the one who doesn't take storms or sadness as possible nonsentient or internal "antagonist")
The real problem in a story is not to have a conflict, but to have a "compelling conflict".

About Hachi.
The conflict of the dog awaiting for his man is a conflict. Let's use your stated goal:

Quote: To me it would be more interesting given that the dog knows that the master would not return, but continues to express an undying love.

Character = dog.
Goal = express undying love.
Strategy = He'll wait here until the return.

The simply question you used:

Quote: Why doesn't the dog give up?

Is an assumption that the dog has to go against an obstacle. The obstacle I can see is the "sadness" or something like that. An internal conflict.
Anyone can see that the dog is suffering, so another internal conflit is the suffering.
Will the dog express undying love or he will be stopped by suffering an sadness?

The dog get success for every second he can remain loyal (or using any kind of behaviour "express to undying love"), until the death I think, but that's an opinion.
The conflict is there.

Quote: The dog goes to the station because it loves the master. As long as the love does not fade, it would keep doing it. Whether it understands death is irrelevant. The point that is touching, is that the love is so strong that it never fades. This casues the viewer to reflect on whether they have ever loved something so much that they would love it forever even though it is long gone.

This actually is a common theme for many stories and it does represent conflict. How much do we let past loves influence our present condition? How many stories have you heard one character say "it's time to get on with your life." In other words, you are dwelling too much on these past loves, or misdeeds, and missing what is going on around you. It's only unusual, and really more sad and poignant, because it's a dog. And by the way, if it were a person, it would be seen in a completely different light as aberrant behavior. Most people, and dogs, reach a better acceptance, find a new master, and don't dwell so much on the past. In most stories, the person reconciles with the past and gets on with it. The reason it's common in stories is because it's a conflict that we all go through. Most of us, that are older anyway, have left loved ones behind and have had to go on. For some, it can be a crippling experience, which is one of the reasons conflict is so used in stories, not only does it make the story more interesting, but it's a type of therapy for our own conflicts. I think it's these internal conflicts that give a story more depth. It's very easy to have an enemy type conflict, but there really is no character growth involved unless there is a type of reconciliation with the enemy other than destruction. Which brings up the question, is character growth even possible without conflict?

[Edited by - fireside7 on December 30, 2010 12:31:44 PM]

Re: dr Jack

I think you really lost the understanding in the last post.

Quote: But this bring out a problem. A man who goes against a mighty storm is not a conflict?

It is not a conflict[3], but a conflict[1,2]. In Def3, there is no problem that this situation is not a conflict[3], because a conflict[3] is not required for a story. The same situation could be described as a struggle[3], but a struggle[3] does not necessarily imply a conflict[3].

The rest of your comment about the example would make more sense if you observe the differences in the definitions.

Quote: I can understand that, in my definition, any kind of sentient being making an action is conflict. Let's say breathing... Goal = taking oxygen - conflict = law of physics (such as the air stay still usually :p).
But I don't see problem about that. And I see problem taking other definition (such the one who doesn't take storms or sadness as possible nonsentient or internal "antagonist")
The real problem in a story is not to have a conflict, but to have a "compelling conflict".

I totally understand this definition, it is the definition I would use 10 years ago. I question it not to learn about it, but to expose its problems, one I would probably call 'generalize-ritis'. Generalized-ritis is a situation where a colorfully precise word is used to describe something so general that it loses its original color and precision instead of using the general word that would describe the same thing.

I think this situation happens because people are too stubborn to admit that how they definition was able to describe the possibilities, yet they would rather redefine the terms to include the oddities instead of accepting that there are other fundamentally different types of existence.

Analogy Land:

You have only seen white swan all your life so you define that swan has the attribute "white". Now a yellow swan shows up, people say, "hey, this swan is yellow!" You say, "No, it can't be, because I already said that swan is white, therefore. Because I need to be correct, therefore now I define that yellow is just a type of white." In this particular analogy, a sane response would be to say, "Wow I didn't know that swan could be yellow. I guess whiteness is not a principal quality of a swan, a swan has a 'color', but it could be white or yellow." It is not done because people would rather keep the literal form of the definition than its semantic form.

If you want to see more examples of generalize-ritis, consider this:

In your definition[2], how do you define 'character'?
Can a story have none?

I think the quality of Compelling[2] you have is the same as what I would call Attraction[3], could you express the following cause of Attraction[3] in terms of Def 2:

[3]: "The viewer see the absence of [doubt] in the dog, and the presence of such force in themselves, this in turn creates a contrast which attracts the viewer."

In your framework of definitions, can this statement make sense:

Viewer: "I like this story because it shows me how conflicts that we commonly experience in real-life are non-existence to a person who approaches life from a different perspective. It is so common in the media that those situations are presented as conflicts, but this story makes me think again. It seems that the media's habitual tendency to focus on conflicts or to describe situations in terms of conflicts often fails to depict this other approach about life."

Re: fireside7

It is a common theme, but there are two points that needs to be clarified:

1) A story could invoke conflicting thoughts in the viewer without itself presenting a conflict.

2) A situation presented in a story may be viewed as a conflict by a viewer from one culture, but not as a conflict by a viewer from a different culture.

About point 2: The concept that "you need to move on" is a rather western and modern concept. I don't facts to back up this statement, I am just speaking from a different perspective. For following is going to sound objectionable because I am posing is to show the contrast. However there is a spectrum of perspectives in between, that might be worth mentioning.

When a person loses a spouse, the western, modern solution is to move on. The perspective is rooted in the concept that somehow after the widower becomes incomplete. An alternative perspective, is that the widower has no need for a new spouse because death cannot severe an emotional bond between two people. If the emotional bond is still there, why would the widower desire to find a replacement? The widower cannot desire to fulfill a spiritual completeness, because the spirit (i.e. the memory of the spouse and the understanding of the relationship, not talking about superstition...) still exists and is eternal. Therefore, if the widower desires to look for a new spouse, the reason is materialistic (i.e. based on the material, physical world).

In this understanding, one can't dive too quick into the conclusion that, "the widower doesn't remarry, he must be failing to move on," but also consider the concept that, "the widower is not looking for a new wife, he must have reached a spiritual level in his past marriage." In the modern western view, this second concept is mostly absent or looked down upon as outdated. It is looked down upon because traditionally people looked down upon widows that remarry regardless whether a spiritual bond was ever formed (i.e. blind law over meaning). However, when the west 'freed' these people subjected to these ridiculous laws, people forget there is a spiritual level that could be attained.

Quote: Most of us, that are older anyway, have left loved ones behind and have had to go on.

Think again, this is not something that can be automatically assumed.

Quote: I think it's these internal conflicts that give a story more depth. It's very easy to have an enemy type conflict, but there really is no character growth involved unless there is a type of reconciliation with the enemy other than destruction.

I agree that internal conflict can give depth to a story. But I am thinking from a standpoint where even that type of conflict is starting to grow old (not to mention enemy type conflict, which grew old way before). Think of it this way, if one day you have seen so much internal conflict that not even that gives you enough depth, then what is next?

Reflect:
How many stories would you need to read before you recognize its pattern? How many stories do you need to read before the patterns get old? Some might need to read a dozen, some might only need 1 or 2, some might not even need 1 (they can imagine what other patterns there could be and they got old before they read the first book that uses that pattern.)

At that point, it is no longer about whether swans are white, not about whether white is a type of color. But that the swan itself has to transform.

Quote: Which brings up the question, is character growth even possible without conflict?

According to all of our definitions, you could definitely have character growth without conflict. From my standpoint, I would even pull the rug right under that question and say you don't even need character growth or even character.

In this aspect, we are similar. When I ask "How to make a story without a conflict", you pull the rug under and say, "But then it won't even be a story." The difference between us, is that when you pull a rug, you are trying to say that it is impossible, but when I pull a rug, I am trying to say that it is possible even without.

Quote: In this aspect, we are similar. When I ask "How to make a story without a conflict", you pull the rug under and say, "But then it won't even be a story." The difference between us, is that when you pull a rug, you are trying to say that it is impossible, but when I pull a rug, I am trying to say that it is possible even without.

Currently I think that there could be no story without conflict.
I accept the possibility, but for now I'm not persuaded.
But if you change the usual meaning of conflict used in fiction rules, all changes.

There's no harm if you create one personal statement about conflict (such one that doesn't consider "A man against a storm" a conflict), but it could create misunderstanings within people who use the term "conflict" accepted in the rules of fiction.