From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #21 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Saturday, January 29 2000 Volume 02 : Number 021 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: os/ conflict ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: os/ conflict [GHighPine@aol.com] off topic comment [Kathleen Woodbury ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:34:24 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: os/ conflict Here's what I wrote before, about gripping, moving stories, mostly in the form of drama (plays and films), that did not involve conflict as narrowly defined. "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." > I can think of many types of struggles that are not violent. The definition meant "violently AND/OR with great difficulty AND/OR etc." > 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?) Maybe it would be. The people who love the Lorien chapters seem ready to move there, in complete disregard of the fact that Middle-earth as depicted is in general not a pleasant place to live. I am not, as you feared, redefining "dramatic". You may be reluctant to apply your strictures about conflict to all story, but others are not so circumspect. From Scott Meredith's "Basic Plot Summary" on up, hackneyed theories of fiction-writing have been built on the thesis that all effective storytelling must be about conflict or struggle. I wish I had examples to hand, but I can assure you that it's a commonplace notion. Possibly writers of drama (plays, films, tv: that is what I've meant by "drama" all through here, as have you) are more wedded to the notions you outlined in the opening paragraphs of your last -- there must be effort, there must be difficulty, there must be stakes -- and while these things _can_ make a good story, not only do they not guarantee a good story but they are not in fact necessary, and there's something hackneyed about _requiring_ them. If these strictures are indeed dogma to screenwriters, that might explain why there so many formulaic, action-filled, but deeply boring films out there. > 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? All these are conventional usages of conflict: antagonism between two people (who need not meet: in modern war you can have actual physical conflict between people who never even see each other), or between two people representing differing viewpoints, or between two viewpoints inside one person (internal emotional conflict). The sort of non-conflict I was thinking of is the kind invented ad-hoc by people trying inappropriately to shoehorn all fiction into the "conflict" rubric. Is it a story about someone discovering things? Then it's "conflict between the protagonist and unknown facts". Is it a story about self-doubt? Then it's "conflict between the protagonist and the existential void." Is it a nonsense story? Then it's "conflict between the protagonist and logic." (The same line of reasoning is used to defend the equally absurd proposition that all humor is about cruelty. What about nonsense jokes, then? Oh, they're "cruelty towards logic.") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:03:04 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: os/ conflict Well, you make a good and thought-provoking case. Thank you for giving me food for thought. I think that dramatic conflict may be a means to a more basic end in drama: giving the story a sense of direction, a sense that the story =needs= to move in a particular direction, that it =matters= what direction it moves in and where it ends up. This is the essence of "stakes," which is classically considered to be an essential element of dramatic conflict: "stakes" means that the outcome matters. Dramatic conflict, including "stakes," are a means to giving a story a sense of urgency, an impetus to movement, a sense of direction, and for the audience a feeling that the outcome matters and that the outcome that we desire may be in jeopardy. But I think that you have an insight that "conflict," in the usual sense of that word, is not the only means to achieve that. OTOH, what you perceive as the expansion of the meaning of the word may be due to the fact that the word "conflict" has been used by dramatic writers as the generic label for =whatever= creates that sense of urgency of direction. IOW, there doesn't seem to be any other handy label available for it, so this is how the word is used. But the analysis of drama is like linguistic analysis of the grammar of a language -- the structure of the language already exists long before anyone attempts to codify it after the fact. Or, perhaps we could make a better analogy here with music: scales and harmonic progressions and so on existed long before anyone came up with words like "tonic" and "subdominant." (I understand music theory, harmonic progression, etc, thoroughly, but I have long forgotten a lot of the terminology for what I know.) People have been trying for thousands of years to codify what makes good drama, and while what has been discovered becomes useful tools in the hands of the talented and inspired, unfortunately, as you observe, hack writers can turn those principles into formula. (Much like hack composers who learn the formulas for harmonic progression and apply it without inspiration.) The inspired, OTOH, constantly push the boundaries farther. And, just as knowing music theory can give a greater appreciation of what a truly inspired composer does, so does studying the craft of dramatic writing (and its subset, screenwriting) give me a much greater appreciation of a master like Joss Whedon. Anyway, thank you for your thought-provoking insights. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:28:58 -0700 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: off topic comment At 04:45 AM 1/28/00 -0500, Gayle wrote: > 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. The author's name is Lajos Egri. Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #21 ****************************