How to make a good StoryMaking a good story
Can it be possible to make a good history without conflicts?
For millennia there have been no conflicts at all. It can be pretty good, but it can also be pretty boring. Two main kinds of "conflict-free" story patterns exist: The Slice of Lives is a story telling feature which, as the name implies, shows the activities of a human being who lives his or her own world.
There can be a solitary instant, up to a few years, and there is no reason for a dispute. There' s a conspiracy, there's just no conflicts. It has a bow, but this bow is not a three-act bow. It is an East Asiatic (China/Japan) story telling without any kind of confronting.
That can be very hard to conceive in an action, so let's take a look at a comic: When you mean by "good story" an exciting storyline, there is no way to create it without some kind of obstacle between the protagonists and their goals. Such hindrances can be caused by other human beings (conflict), themselves (internal conflict) or natural powers.
There are no barriers, no history. No matter if this is a two-line or a thousand pages long tale, it still has the same problem: it's just boring. Let us now introduce some obstacles: Outside conflicts: Their family hates each other. He is a clergyman, but he likes her. Barriers caused by the will of man are much more interesting than mighty but spiritless natural powers.
The bottom line is that you can't make a good tale without hindrances and the best way to make it is a war. Notice: Especially in-house disputes can be very sensitive and do not even appear as such. One good example is Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha. Although there are some outside clashes, they are not fundamental to history.
But the novel is based on a powerful inner conflict: the protagonist's search for the meaning of his being. Indeed, it is a succession of inner strife between his needs and the absence of satisfying responses that his environment offers at different phases of his being.
Only when this dispute is solved does the novel reach its apex. What motivates a nonconflict tale is generally the sharp observance of another person's lives, extremity, intimidation and pathosis or hideousness. âThese histories are generally not popular both in the western world as we are conditioned to want agitation â we want the history to take ourselves higher rather than lower â-but they can be utterly rewarding if you can get over your need of agitation and unrelenting forward impulse conditioning answer from a history.
Are you able to make a history without conflicts? Sure. Will it be an interesting tale? Confrontation, in its many variations, is what drives the bow of your personality by getting him to immediately win what he needs and wants. However, do not overlook the fact that conflicts occur in many flavours and should always be taut.
Conflicts and tensions are often used in an interchangeable way, not so much because they are the same - because they are not - but because they kiss co-usins who perform similar roles within history. There''s a clash that points to a direct encounter. On the other side, suspense is what I like to regard as a threatening of conflicts. You have excitement in a scenario where your character is awaiting the next bombing in a shelter.
They won't have a real fight in this sequence, because nothing happens to the people. However, you have a lot of excitement because you know that something will come up. Consider conflicts and suspense as plungers working, sliding and drawing in concerts to create contrasts in history.
When you start your conflicts in every individual sequence, you will find yourself in the ironical situation of having recreated a monotone film. It allows you to reduce the fuss and the arguments without loosing the readership. Indeed, tense moments can often be more thrilling just because people know the conflicts are happening and there's nothing they can do to stop them.
So, bottom line: in every sequence, aim for either conflicts or tensions. Much of them are forever in the never-ending narrative series as per most history preambles stick. So, no, I don't concur that it is possible to make a history (substantial and not one-sided) without conflicts, however small they may be. e.g. to answer a query or explain something, everything is a solution to a dispute.
However, it is possible to make history as part of the global landscape, so that the history flows into the global environment without the need for completion, construction, etc. Several of Tolkien used to do this, although he did add narrative features to some of them. At the heart of a history (as it is interpreted traditionally) is transformation.
However, we don't find the following tale very exciting (or "good"): "Confrontation " is just a complication of this transformation underway. One could certainly tell a tale which had no problems and which (unlike my example) is good. In my opinion, the actual issue is whether or not the most compelling conflict-free history can keep up with the most compelling one - the one with conflicts.
Because we are hard wired to be troubleshooters (I'm speaking to the neuro-biological plane, not figuratively) and to have the pleasure of knowing the surrounding environment, my assumption is that the best tale with conflicting will be more exciting. If, for example, the meaning of a storyline is that a person does not alter, he can still be phrased in these notions.
You have to consider that "history" can be used in this ultra-general meaning on any unity of the history (e.g. an entire film or a singular sheet of characters or a singular scene).