From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #20 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, January 28 2000 Volume 02 : Number 020 Today's Subjects: ----------------- os/conflict ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/ conflict [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ conflict ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/ conflict [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ conflict [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ conflict ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: os/ conflict [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:39:55 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: os/conflict I've changed the subject line because this is seriously off topic. On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/26/00 4:43:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: > > << > Only if one considers (apparent) harmony to be nowhere. > >> > > Absolutely. When you are talking about drama. "Drama is conflict" is a > truism in dramatic writing. (Not necessarily interpersonal conflict -- > conflict with the elements, etc., is dramatic conflict -- but if Buffy and > Riley continue to sail peacefully along, Buffy does well in college, nobody > has any problems -- dramatically, we are nowhere.) Nonsense. To the extent that it's true that "Drama is conflict", the show has an undiminishable source of conflict in the form of Buffy vs. the forces of evil. If there's also conflict among the continuing human characters, fine (it provides variety); if there isn't, also fine. In fact, one of the things I like most about this show is how well many of the characters get along with each other. I enjoy watching them do so. It's dramatically satisfying, and pleasing to the soul. Of course, they have to be _doing_ something while they're getting along, and this usually involves what you'd call conflict, but it doesn't have to be conflict amongst themselves. But in fact the notion that "Drama is conflict", which I've usually seen expanded into "story is conflict", is not true, if it means that any good and enjoyable story must involve conflict. The holders of that position have been forced to expand their definition of "conflict" over the years to maintain their argument. "Conflict" is now claimed to be not just "persons vs. other people" or "persons vs. their environment" (the elements, as you put it) but "persons vs. themeselves" (internal conflict), "persons vs. logic" (for nonsense stories), "persons vs. unknown facts" (that they're trying to find out) or even "persons vs. the existential void". The definition of "conflict" has been broadened so far that the term is meaningless. Many people's favorite section of _The Lord of the Rings_ is the visit to Lothlorien, which is perhaps the most conflict-free section of the entire book. Turning to drama specifically, I haven't seen _The Straight Story_ yet, but my understanding of its plot could be described as "conflict" only under a definition so broad it could cover anything. Of the four sections of _2001_, my all-time favorite sf film, two involve no conflict as reasonably defined, only one man facing a mystery. _Waiting for Godot_ is a play in which Absolutely Nothing Happens (a complaint made by many people who didn't like it), yet I found it one of the most gripping theatrical experiences I've ever had. DB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:35:29 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ conflict Conflict with oneself is certainly conflict -- in fact, to me, that makes the =best= drama. The meaning of the word "conflict," as used in the dramatic writing sense, has not been expanded; it has always had the same meaning, which you call "meaningless." "Conflict" does not mean, necessarily, people fighting or arguing with each other -- though that is the easiest kind of conflict to convey visually. "Conflict" in the dramatic-writing sense does not necessarily mean an adversarial relationship of any kind. It could probably be considered synonymous with "struggle." "Struggle" can be adversarial, but not necessarily. It is a word of broad meaning; are words with broad meaning "meaningless"? The main conflict last season was Buffy's conflict within herself. And hence that was where the real drama of last season lay. But without something like Faith to provide a means to represent that conflict visually (as well as to catalyze that conflict) it would have been difficult to represent that conflict on the screen. The climactic conflict of Season 2 was the unforgettable moment of conflict within Buffy about killing Angel. Not the fighting. But the conflict within her that led to the decision, and the conflict within her as Angel -- himself conflicted by what she had done -- gasped "Buffy" in that hurt tone, and the conflict within her afterward that led her to break down and run away. Internal conflict is not conflict? Not a source of drama? Internal conflict is the =best= conflict (in a dramatic sense, not for the person experiencing it ) and Joss is a master of drawing us into these internal conflicts via external events. Buffy's battles with the forces of evil are, in themselves, the =least= dramatically powerful aspects of the show, IMO; but they serve as catalysts for the real drama, the internal dramas. The dramatic core of BUFFY, to me, is Buffy's internal struggles with her role and her responsibilities. I specified that "drama is conflict" is a truism for =dramatic= writing, because dramatic writing has a structure that prose writing does not necessarily have. Drama classically has a three-act structure: setup of a problem, development of the problem, resolution of the problem. Novels are free to ramble as they wish, but drama is more focused, and must have impetus and forward movement -- the impetus is the problems and the struggle to resolve them. You could, perhaps, use the weaker and less poetic word "problems" as a synonym for the word "conflict" as used in a dramatic sense (is the word "problems" therefore meaningless?) The word "drama" has been extended from its formal meaning (an acted story) to mean the emotions that drama evokes, precisely because the three-act structure (setup of a problem, development of the problem, resolution of the problem) =does= have the power to evoke emotion, whereas struggle-free, problem-free stories rarely if ever have "dramatic" power. It's hard for me to think of any story (whether drama or prose) that has emotional impact without conflict, in the dramatic sense. Persons vs logic, unknown facts, or existential void can certainly be legitimate forms of conflict in the dramatic sense, if they involve some kind of struggle. BTW, there are books which explicate the principles of dramatic writing in general and writing for the screen in particular; some of the classics about the principles of dramatic writing come from ancient Greece, but probably the single most important modern book is (appropriately titled) "The Art of Dramatic Writing," by Laszlo (blanking on last name), written in the 1940s. These books explicate the meaning of "conflict" in the sense that the word is used in drama. No, the word as used is not meaningless. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:40:36 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/ conflict Fine. If "conflict" can be used that broadly, then it's your complaint that there is currently no significant conflict in _Buffy_ that's nonsense. My objection is to the notion that, if the main characters are in harmony, nothing is happening. Plenty is happening, and there doesn't have to be a big-arc plot (there is a big-arc plot going on, but at the moment it's not heavily into narrowly-defined conflict) in order to be satisfying. My dictionary (Webster's 2nd is what I have here) defines "conflict" as 1 "fight; battle; struggle", 2 "sharp disagreement" (verbal conflict), 3 [internal] "emotional disturbance". I'll go along with including personal anguish of the sort that Buffy has experienced as conflict. But not all those other things I mentioned. Webster says they're not conflict, and so do I. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:38:18 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ conflict Sure, it's fine to differ on the meaning of a word. ("Webster's" is a generic term, BTW -- lots of different Webster's -- and "fight," "battle," and "struggle" each can have multiple interpretations.) Where we actually disagree, though, is on your opinion that "conflict" in the sense that I use it, which is the sense in which it is used in dramatic writing, is a meaningless term. You may not choose to use it that way yourself, you may even feel that it is an improper use of the word. But it is not meaningless. Its meaning is important and useful in the context in which it is used. Another example of dramatic conflict, BTW, is a person's struggle (or battle or fight) to overcome a handicap. This is not "conflict with oneself" (in the sense of inner conflict), nor with "environment" (unless you choose to define the body as environment -- and would this hold if we're talking about mental handicap?) nor is it an adversarial relationship with another person. But it is a type of dramatic conflict. BTW, I didn't say nothing was happening before the conflict erupted with Faith; I said that the story appeared to be "going nowhere" at that point. No problem to resolve does not necessarily imply "nothing happening." It does imply a static situation -- no movement, no direction, no impetus for change. Plenty can still happen even in the absence of a problem to resolve, but without a problem to resolve there is no dramatic =need= for anything to happen -- and protagonists have little to do but react to events. But "going nowhere" (no story movement) is not synonymous with "nothing happening." Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:49:31 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ conflict One additional point. I said that "dramatic conflict" was synonymous with "struggle." And that "illogic" or "unknown facts" or "existential void" could be considered sources of conflict in the dramatic sense only if they were causes of struggle. If there is no struggle involved, there is no dramatic conflict. Your dictionary defines conflict as struggle. You agree with your dictionary. Hence, you, I, your dictionary and dramatic writers are all in agreement. Conflict means struggle. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:09:08 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/ conflict And "struggle" means "violently, with great effort, with difficulty". (It's the McKetchnie/World Webster 2nd, OK?) If it isn't those things, it isn't conflict in the sense of struggle. What of the examples I gave of dramatic works without conflict? Would you say that those do indeed involve conflict? If so, conflict means literally anything. If not, then there are effective dramatic works without conflict. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:22:59 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: os/ conflict In a message dated 1/27/00 4:12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << And "struggle" means "violently, with great effort, with difficulty". (It's the McKetchnie/World Webster 2nd, OK?) If it isn't those things, it isn't conflict in the sense of struggle. >> I can think of many types of struggles that are not violent. (Need I give examples?) But great effort and difficulty are indeed what define struggle. And they define dramatic conflict. The greater the effort and difficulty, the greater the dramatic conflict, virtually by definition. Effort and difficulty, however, are not =all= that defines conflict in the dramatic sense. Another vital element in dramatic conflict is that there must be stakes -- there must be a reason why one outcome has to be preferred over another, something that will be lost if the struggle is lost, and/or something that will be gained if the struggle is won. << What of the examples I gave of dramatic works without conflict? Would you say that those do indeed involve conflict? If so, conflict means literally anything. If not, then there are effective dramatic works without conflict. >> What are the examples? I only remember you mentioning "Lord of the Rings," which is, after all, prose, and not drama. (I barely remember LOTR, but it seems that the section you referred to involved a respite? Would a chapter about a respite be compelling if not in the context of a difficult struggle?) When I referred to dramatic writing (and to the book "The Art of Dramatic Writing" and other works) it means drama in the literal sense -- works intended for performance by actors, But of course the meaning of the word "dramatic" has been extended because there are works of prose that partake of the techniques of drama and hence have much of the same emotional effect as drama. I suspect that it may be the word "dramatic" that you are redefining. Are there works of drama -- stage or screen -- that kept you at the edge of your seat with anxiety, wrenching your heart with the protagonists' emotions, that had no element of dramatic conflict (IOW, no difficulty and no stakes in any outcome)? How about works of prose fiction? If you say they are "dramatic," you have to define "dramatic." But the idea that you quoted, that all story must involve conflict, is absurd. Story is not necessarily drama. Story is not necessarily even plot. I could tell you some nice stories about my trips that I think would be enjoyable, even though they contain neither drama nor plot. "Story" per se certainly does not always partake of dramatic conflict. There are many perfectly enjoyable stories with no conflict in them. BTW, according to your dictionary, is the phrase "conflict of interest" an incorrect usage? How about "conflict of principles" -- say, conflict between the principle of freedom of speech and the need to protect children from pornography -- does that not become "conflict" until some lawyers are actually battliing it out in a court somewhere? How about "conflict between expectations and reality"? How about "conflicting accounts" of a crime told by two witnesses who never meet each other, much less fight about their stories? Are these incorrect usages? Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #20 ****************************