Re: A response to Walt

[Bob <mantic@brightok.net>]

Literature studies really miss a fundamental point of fiction. Fiction
is not, ever, a mere sequence of events. Lit students are also presented
innumerable useless classifications and components, obscuring the
meaningful definition of fiction.
        When the IF/IS/idrama communities can stop grasping at the tail
and trunk and legs of the beast and have a look at it as a whole the
medium may start to develop as a form of literature.


>>The issue you raise concerning conflict raises all sorts of interesting questions in my mind.
>>It seems to me that conflict is an abstraction based on a character-centric view of storytelling,
>>i.e., conflict exists only between two characters. What's confusing to me is that conflict can
>>also be described as a plot element. Is conflict the right abstraction to chase?
>>It certainly seems like a worthy one, but we'll need lots of supporting abstractions to make it
>>work.
> 
> Conflict as something that can exist only between two characters is way on
> the narrow end of the spectrum of definitions of conflict used in literature.
> Most of my lit teachers and professors taught a broad definition of conflict
> encompassing enumerated subtypes ("man versus man," "man versus nature," "man
> versus society," "man versus himself," and so forth). The conventional view
> that conflict is fundamental to all stories requires a broad definition, so
> that e.g. "The Old Man and the Sea" can be shown to be not without conflict.
> (Or, more or less equivalently, we can expand the definition of "character"
> to include the sea, the fish, fate, human nature, etc.) The other approach is
> to stay with a narrow definition of conflict, with the understanding that not
> all stories revolve around such conflict. In this model, instead of
> enumerating categories of conflict we enumerate categories of stories, as the
> Damon Knight essay Laura referenced: "conflict stories" versus "decision
> stories" versus "discovery stories" versus "puzzle stories" and so forth.
> 
> I'm interested in abstracting conflict in interactive storytelling systems
> because I see that as a step toward generating and/or managing endings (for
> subplots as well as for whole stories). The minimun requirement, I believe,
> for giving a story an ending is that at least some of the conflicts in the
> story go away. That's why even a very poor ending ("Then they all got run
> over by a truck") is easy to distinguish from no ending at all.

        Here again, the overanalysis of literature scholars obscures the
obvious. Fiction, or plot, is nothing but conflict seeking resolution.
Subcategorizing the term is a waste of time and effort; every year new
authors are finding subtle new ways of illustrating conflict. Of more
value is the broad definition: the meeting of opposing forces.
        In fiction this is always illustrated on two levels
simultaneously. The meaningful level is within the viewpoint (VP)
character, where the conflict is between opposed desires, drives or
emotions. The other level is a physical manifestation, the outward, and
allegorical illustration of the turmoil within the character. Some
authors manage to weave the conflicts of many characters into the
outward illustration, as in Tolstoy's War and Peace. On the other end of
the spectrum is pulp fiction, where a very simple internal struggle is
illustrated with powerful physical conflict. A good example would be
Robert E. Howard's Conan.
        So, certainly an abstraction of conflict in IF systems is key.
How can there be story without recognition of the most fundamental
nature of the beast?


                                                                Grumbly
yours,
                                                                   
--Bob