Another successful Conflict Corner for the books! 
2 Likes
I want to clear up that I think what John is doing with Conflict Corner is awesome and it’s important to build that muscle.
My point was more that it might be easier for someone to quickly brainstorm a whole bunch of okay conflicts and then move into nailing it down in a more formal way after you have explored the space in a looser way, as opposed to trying to get a perfect conflict going right from the start.
Kind of like Jim’s Playground exercise style combined with the Conflict Corner exercises.
5 Likes
I can second this and find myself often working on the process workflow instead of writing.
However, doing some process rework after our discussion (in this thread) I made some good progress (with make better illustrations instead storytelling)
If you can pick two gists from the same element which speak to you (in terms of your scene/story’s subtext) it may help to get an illustration. You may also find some Dilemma without messing up too much with storytelling.
Here are some extracts/examples from a recent WIP which I consider as „interesting moment from which to write“ (@JohnDusenberry)
Attempting to Achieving Something vs. Looking for Something (Pursuit in Delay)
I can push to move on unless my counterpart wants to use the time to do something fun
Disagreeing with Someone vs. Showing Disapproval of Something (Oppose in Delay)
I can argue with someone to get an extra trip unless my partner shows disapproval with my way of doing things
Holding Someone Back vs. Spoiling Someone’s Plans (Hinder in Preconception)
I can keep quite in order to avoid getting involved unless my partner decides to let a stranger into our house
To get me startet, I use two or three words as a reminder what happens at the core plot-wise in the scene/story
3 Likes
The more you practice, the more it’ll become second nature to jot down a working source of conflict. Your sources of conflict are super close to what I would consider an actionable controlling idea.
This is almost there. I’m not totally seeing the element of Delay, and I’m not sure how the other half conflicts with the first.
Is it supposed to be lack of Delay? The main element here should be Pursuing while Delay-ing.
You can push to move on … for what reason? Why/how are you justifying pushing to move on.
It could also be stronger if the other half didn’t have to do with someone else pursuing.
First half is a great justification and feels like the elements. The second half doesn’t conflict with the first, though. You can argue with someone to get something WHILE your partner shows their disapproval, right?
Keeping quiet feels more like an element like Inaction to me. I might be missing some context, but Hindering should be more about actively holding them back. Unless, is this supposed to be a Lack of Hindering? In that case, I can see it working.
But if you’re actively choosing to hold someone back by not voicing up, the justification should just detail that out…
Something like: I can keep quiet to allow someone to get in their own way.
Making it clear that you’re intentionally keeping quiet as a means to hinder something/someone, right? Like a student intentionally keeping quiet in a classroom will hinder the teacher from finding out who threw the paper airplane.
Again here with the 2nd half, it feels to me like this justification is going from the MC to the IC or OS. It starts with “I should” … unless “You/They do this or that.” I think I know what you mean, but to really nail the mental struggle, the sources of conflict should all be in the “I” POV, or just describing the situation/circumstances or state of being/sense of self without mentioning actions or intentions of other people. Basically, just frame it in the eyes of the mind grappling with the dilemma.
Ex: I can keep quiet to allow someone to get in their own way, unless that brings danger to my door.
I didn’t add the context (storytelling). A couple is stuck on a light tower and is waiting to get picked up by a boat. As weather conditions are changing the mainland delays the pickup. As the husband doesn’t want to stay one night longer he pushes to get picked-up anyway but the wife sees an opportunity to enjoy the trip even longer.
Interesting, my thinking was … one half of the equation is seen from one POV/Player and the other half from another POV. Like … “I can only do xyz until I am forced by someone else/circumstances to do something else” … but ok, this is actually only 1 POV.
I left out the context as well and my translation from German might not accurate. Storytelling: A couple lies in the bed (still in the light tower) and they hear some noise (like a knocking). Is it the storm or something/someone else? The husband prefers to ignore it but the wife wants to investigate what it is. This results in … “a stranger comes into our house”
Right: The husband is on the phone and is pushing to get the pickup still today, but the woman doesn’t like what she sees and shows him her disapproval.
This is my intention, saying “to hinder” by saying nothing.
This is a great advice and answers my question of: Is each half of an equation/justification represented by a different POV? No, the justification is the presentation of a mental struggle of one mind. Like "I can push and get it my way unless I see somebody gets really hurt…)
1 Like
Working on further justifications, just found this one … a justification everybody can relate to and a good example how meaning is changed by just flipping the first with the second part:
Interdiction/Desire as Outcome
Fearing Something vs. Improving One’s Situation
I can be afraid of change unless I can improve my situation
Improving One’s Situation vs. Fearing Something vs.
I can improve my situation unless I am afraid of change
1 Like
Well put. The cool thing is that this dilemma that exists in the storymind can be shown in the in any number of ways. For example, maybe you show a character who is aware of the dilemma they face, and struggling with it. Or, maybe the character is just pushing for what he wants and isn’t aware of people getting hurt (or doesn’t care), but the tension exists because the story shows – even if just hinting at – the harm or potential for harm. Subtext.
2 Likes
Thats what I figured today too. The hard work is first, to condense it to a »simple« sentence and then can use it in many directions. But you need to get first this »simple« sentence, in order to make sure you understand the struggle of the POV and make sure you not just projecting bad things on others… like: I cannot change because someone stands in my way…
And I would suggest leaving it out. The main thing is to describe the conflict. It’s not the context I was missing… it’s how the second half feels like it contradicts the first, or that you can’t have both. Remember, these are meant to be a version of “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
The dilemma must stay in the same POV you’re in. So if it’s MC… both sides are from the MC’s perspective. It could involve other players, but it has to be reflected back on what the MC’s justification would be.
This conflict should be less to do with the wife wanting to investigate it, and more to do with the conflict of the MC. Their thought process is “It’s nothing, I should just ignore it… except what if it’s an intruder?!”
It should really have nothing to do with the wife. It’s the mental debate going on in that perspective.
To frame this another way, if this were in the IC throughline, it would be about the MC looking AT the IC. So if the wife was the IC, this same conflict would be phrased differently.
She needs to be delayed so she can come to understand the noise is nothing, unless waiting around instead of letting her investigate lets the bad guy inside… and she’ll get killed!
3 Likes
Depends on the throughline/ perspective what is the best way to do it? Using They, I, You, We like…
- (MC) I can make it a reality, unless I am forced to recognise the reality of something
- (OS) They can can throw the rules overboard, unless they cause trouble for themselves (Chaos)
- (IC) You can trick the system and feel like a rebel, unless you incite blind violence (Process)
- (RS) We can do what we up to, unless we step over our limits (Test)
2 Likes
Yes. Writing the source of conflict using They, I, You and “the relationship grows” helps you keep the conflict where it belongs. Forces you to think about it the right way.
I know these might just be examples of how to write it and not working sources of conflicts, but make sure each side argues a justification.
I can make it a reality … to do what? For what reason?
They can throw the rules overboard… to accomplish what? For what reason?
The one that can be a bit difficult to grasp is the RS throughline.
Better than saying:
Make sure you’re talking about “the relationship” instead of “We.” Using “We” makes it too easy to start talking about the Players involved in the relationship instead of the forces at play. And if you’re talking about the Players, that means you’re either talking about OS, MC or IC.
So you’d be dealing with a relationship going through testing. It can help to label the relationship so you remove yourself from the Players. You can call it something like “The Marriage,” but it’s better if you describe the state of the relationship so you can track it’s growth. What KIND of marriage does it start out as, vs how it ends?
The Dysfunctional relationship … which ends up Happy, or Broken, depending on which way it grows.
Then the final trick I use that helps, is to think about what stage of the relationship you’re showing in each Act:
S1: “The Dysfunctional relationship has potential to grow by Insert Element Here.”
S2: "The Dysfunctional relationship starts to grow by Insert Element Here
S3: “The Dysfunctional relationship continues to grow by Insert Element Here.”
S4: “The Functional relationship grows by Insert Element Here.”
So as you can see, we track the forces driving the relationship, not the players involved in the relationship. And to point out one thing about S4… it’s important that the relationship has a trajectory of growth within that final source of conflict. It’s grown from Dysfunctional to Happy, but it’s still growing.
Imagine a dysfunctional family who grows to become happy and functional. The story of that growth might be over, but there should be a sense that that relationship will continue to grow in that positive direction. There’s still a conflict happening, it’s just one that they’re willing to live with.
So to illustrate something like S4 with your element of Test:
The Functional relationship grows by trying a new way of doing things to maintain a feeling of peace, excepting rowing through uncharted waters is a terrifying situation.
Basically: How can the relationship try something to keep the peace if that something is terrifying?
This is a “livable” conflict. Another way to think about it is to compare it to a Steadfast MC in a Good story. That MC sticks with their dilemma, using it as fuel to stay the course.
5 Likes