ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: arianne on July 06, 2010, 04:11:54 PM
-
Okay, so this may be a stupid question, but most of the "writing craft" books I've read deal with conflict on a one-to-one basis; by that I mean they assume that there are only A and B in one scene, A wants to do this, B wants to stop him.
A pokes B's defenses
B defends himself
A attacks
B attacks back (aka rising conflict)
Climax
B surrenders
A raises fist in victory
Volia, conflict!
My question is, can someone explain briefly about how to deal with conflict on multiple levels? Such as, when there are four or five people in the room, A wants to do something, B wants to stop him, C is in love with A but disagrees with A's idea, D hates C and agrees with B's idea etc etc.
I mean, one can't do a directly rising conflict sequence like the one above when there are so many people involved. A and B fight, but before they can get to the climax, C cuts in with a comment that dissolves the tension and we're back to square one. D jumps in with a remark, and B starts to fight with him....
Anyway, hope you guys get what it is I'm trying to ask! :) Thanks in advance for any advice.
-
My question is, can someone explain briefly about how to deal with conflict on multiple levels? Such as, when there are four or five people in the room, A wants to do something, B wants to stop him, C is in love with A but disagrees with A's idea, D hates C and agrees with B's idea etc etc.
I mean, one can't do a directly rising conflict sequence like the one above when there are so many people involved. A and B fight, but before they can get to the climax, C cuts in with a comment that dissolves the tension and we're back to square one. D jumps in with a remark, and B starts to fight with him....
I think that what you are describing is a perfectly reasonable way to answer, if you are trying to do it all in one scene, which is hard. When I try to think of multidimensional conflicts I like they are all quite a bit longer than that, and you get different people's interactions as pairs or as smaller groups before they get pushed into a multidirectional clash.
Scenes don't have to build the way you describe your two-person example, if you're writing for anything more subtle and realistic than an argument between Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Particularly if your viewpoint is inside the head of one of the characters and you have them figuring out consequences and worrying about pushing things too far and figuring out smarter solutions than a fistfight.
-
I'm sure there are as many ways to do this as there are writers, but I tend to do it in stages, as I have a hard enough time keeping track of my own characters and all their varied motivations as it is. First I write the "A" conflict: Bob and Carol are arguing about X, which happens to be the main conflict that furthers the plot. I get the gist of their argument written; then I go back and add Ted, who has his own agenda, to the conversation, creating a "B" conflict as well as a bit of character development for Ted. Meanwhile, Alice, on the sidelines, just wants to find the ladies'--that's "C". Then Tom chimes in--he really, really needs to talk to Carol about something RIGHT AWAY, and it can't wait; that's "D". Dick tries to get Ted, who's had a few too many, to calm down, and you have your "E". Meanwhile, Harry insists upon playing the background music at concert level, and they all have to scream over it, until somebody suggests taking the whole thing outside. And so on.
-
I wonder what the distinction between calling the first four characters in such an example Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, rather than, say, John and Paul and George and Ringo, says about a writer ?
(If they were Bob and Carol and Ted and Ringo, it would mean you were a Judge Dredd fan from the 1980s.)
-
I wonder what the distinction between calling the first four characters in such an example Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, rather than, say, John and Paul and George and Ringo, says about a writer ?
(If they were Bob and Carol and Ted and Ringo, it would mean you were a Judge Dredd fan from the 1980s.)
In my case, it means that I've been spending far too much time on TV Tropes lately, as they tend to use those names when giving hypothetical examples of anything. (I never saw the 1969 film or the sitcom based on it, so I can't comment.)
-
Thanks, LizW65. That example did help clear up some questions. I was always worried that my mutiple conflicts would have no climax (or big bang moment, as I call it), because the tension gets defused and the rising conflict tends to get watered down when there are a bunch of people weaving in and out between the two main characters.
-
I'm sure there are as many ways to do this as there are writers, but I tend to do it in stages, as I have a hard enough time keeping track of my own characters and all their varied motivations as it is. First I write the "A" conflict: Bob and Carol are arguing about X, which happens to be the main conflict that furthers the plot. I get the gist of their argument written; then I go back and add Ted, who has his own agenda, to the conversation, creating a "B" conflict as well as a bit of character development for Ted. Meanwhile, Alice, on the sidelines, just wants to find the ladies'--that's "C". Then Tom chimes in--he really, really needs to talk to Carol about something RIGHT AWAY, and it can't wait; that's "D". Dick tries to get Ted, who's had a few too many, to calm down, and you have your "E". Meanwhile, Harry insists upon playing the background music at concert level, and they all have to scream over it, until somebody suggests taking the whole thing outside. And so on.
Reading the above reminded me of what takes place in play's a lot, especially comedies (Suggested reading or viewing: Noises Off by Michael Frayn). Basically, you have a bunch of one on one squabbles happening at the same time, with an attempted attack or defence in one squabble between A & B inadvertenly tips the scales of another squable between C & D in D's favor, but A & B are on C's side, so now A, B, and C have to stop D, but then E comes in and starts squabbling with C, but D could care less about A & B and would really like that Thing C took from him back, but now E has it and both C and D are trying to get the Thing from E, who is A's best friend, so A tries to protect E from D and asks B to help so D won't get the Thing, but E is B's ex husband and she'd rather see D get the Thing than help her ex in any way, that rat bastard, and desides to break a vase over E's head instead.
The tension is built by a rising fustration level as each person takes an action.
Don't see why the same weaving couldn't be appied to a dramatic scene.
-
Heh...Noises Off is quite funny. The movie's pretty good for a play adaptation, too. Great cast. And that one you kinda have to see to get a really good idea of how it all fits together.