I’ve been thinking about posting about conflict and how it’s something we throw in like motivation when we find writing about writing about writing about other things to be too hard, too difficult, I was going to point at a million books who succeed without conflict…
But hey, someone here says it way better than I ever could
Anyway conflict is like motivation for characters for me, it feels like a crux, like a cliche. It’s like some big checklist of all things all writers should do in a writer’s workshop, and a lot of books I love have non-motivated characters, have no conflict, have no plot. They exist, and they are still readable, and they grasp for something larger, something more human. They are gunshots in the dark aiming for the heart and missing and firing at stars instead. But it -is- possible more than possible. It is very likely and easy to do it, to break all of those writing rules handed down from grand pubahs that host workshops but never publish (well, if they do they self publish) and who make most of their income explaining some stupid how-to list for writers. This goes back to my original thoughts: break all the rules. There are no rules. Rules should be seen as challenges to be smashed apart, coat hangers that hang lesser writers from the ceiling.
I guess you could say, stale, backwards things like plot, motivation, conflict are all the calling cards of writers who write genre fiction and wish to be the pulpy pulp best. But I think we can strive beyond the cheap hollywood imitations, don’t you? Shouldn’t we strive for more than a movie deal or a tv series out of our book? Shouldn’t we strive for more than wanting to ride the coat tails of some other hot thing that’s out and burning our intellect until it’s ash suffocating by ash?
These ideas are archaic, are dusty and grimy and rusty. How can they even speak to our world, our minds, now that we’ve succumbed to the endless onslaught of information that suffocates us every day?