I feel like one of the best examples of conflict in fiction is the gangs demise in Red Dead Redemption 2. SPOILERS: The conflict between Arthur and Dutch is incredible. Arthur, who has realised his morality and the consequences of his actions after his diagnosis, wants the best for the gang and people around him. For example, he wants John to leave the gang and become a family man. Also, he wants the Wapiti tribe to stop the conflict with the army and help Rains Fall. Dutch, whose mental state is in decline and is leading the gang towards its demise with his never ending plan, only wants the best for himself: violence and a never ending sense for money. For example, him manipulating the younger members of the Wapiti tribe to fight the army just for a "distraction" Peak examples I think
So many writing channels on youtube. and only you don't feel like a funnel to sell your own books through your youtube. You're a real one. You do this for love of writing, writers and readers, not the money!!!
Thank you! Yeah, although it might be a better business plan, that isn't why I am doing this. As you said, I just want writers to write the best story they can. Thank you again for watching!
I think there's one way to deal with inconsistencies of characters, in case they are needed for the progress of the story: not letting the respective character act in a vacuum, but having their surroundings (other characters) recognize the change - and address it, amongst themselves or right into the respective character's face. And to make it work, there must also be a reasonable explanation to why the inconsistency happened, even if that reason is only addressed / revealed far later in the story. No deus ex machina, but an actual explanation. In other words, it feels very wrong if it doesn't happen deliberately, but if there's a realistic cause and a natural reaction, it can be great. Sadly I can't think of a good example at this point.
It sounds like you're referring to an unreliable narrator! Which is common and used in a lot of media/fiction. I am sure you will know immediately when it's presented to you. But, yes. This is a good way to create conflict among other characters. Also, the point about characters not existing and acting within a vacuum is exactly right. Thank you for watching and for your comment!
@@wrestlingwithwords you're right, if it's about the protagonist it probably takes an unreliable narrator to have the audience not know what caused a shift in the first place. Side characters don't necessarily need that, because the protagonist and the audience don't know everything that's going on in that other character's life. The important thing is that everyone else doesn't take the shift for granted, without at least wondering. Otherwise it just comes out as BS, because in the real world people would notice if someone is suddenly acting inconsistently. And a very good reason for the shift is absolutely required, other than 'because the story needed it.'
Did he? I swore he went to save Harvey Dent. Regardless, I think the point still somewhat strand, as a decision had to be made between the two characters.
@@wrestlingwithwords the joker tricked him into thinking he was saving rachel, when the joker actually swapped the two characters, giving batman misleading info.
Not really related to the video but you talking about having two protagonists at 11:47 made me want to take some advise I need. I have this huge issue with my story. My main character doesn't really go through a hero's journey, he doesn't go through an inciting incident/catalyst, he doesn't go through the call to/refusal of adventure aka debate etc. and he already knows the truth, meaning he won't change and will have a flat arc. (His morals are unethical but since he is the main character we will root for him) Meanwhile a side-character who opposes my main character is the one going through the hero's journey! He goes through the call to adventure (the adventure which is offered by the main character, he is actually willing to go that's why there is actually no refusal of the call, and the inciting incident is a step the characters are willing to go, meaning they are not unprepared for the journey) and he changes etc. But I don't ever want to change my main character so I decided to have two main characters by making that opposing side character a second main character. Would this be an issue? Would it be difficult to maintain two POVs who are at a semi-soft conflict with each other? And can we/should we balance the rooting/supporting the readers will have for each protagonists?
I think that is a fine way to structure your story. There are plenty of duel or concurrent main character stories out there. The two main things that come to mind that you will want to check are that your world count isn't too high and that there is enough tension and conflict in each character's plot. There are a lot of tricks you can play too with duel POV making there be more tension with one character (and the reader) knowing something or while the other character doesn't. Thank you for watching and for your comment!
In my story you'll notice shadows, darkness, and negative emotions as well as thoughts play a huge role, literally and figuratively, throughout my entire story and world conflicts. The religion in my world is based on a world view to purify if not maintain positivity and avoidance of negative traits. This force or curse, if you want to call it that, literally causes the enemies, villains, and mass conflicts to happen in a variety of ways. You'll see the first main villain starting out as someone "aiding" the protagonist only to easily toss him aside and eventually once defeated you learn why he became the way he was only for another character to take his place in a cliff hanger. At the point of the second villian appearing you will already know that 2nd villains tragic past and now understand how villains form and why you'll understand without even seeing that the second villain will be much worse.
Character Arcs Explained: ruclips.net/video/57dximorVSM/видео.html
How to Write Stronger Characters: ruclips.net/video/ky3VK5hHLUc/видео.html
I feel like one of the best examples of conflict in fiction is the gangs demise in Red Dead Redemption 2.
SPOILERS:
The conflict between Arthur and Dutch is incredible. Arthur, who has realised his morality and the consequences of his actions after his diagnosis, wants the best for the gang and people around him. For example, he wants John to leave the gang and become a family man. Also, he wants the Wapiti tribe to stop the conflict with the army and help Rains Fall.
Dutch, whose mental state is in decline and is leading the gang towards its demise with his never ending plan, only wants the best for himself: violence and a never ending sense for money. For example, him manipulating the younger members of the Wapiti tribe to fight the army just for a "distraction"
Peak examples I think
Conflict is something that I think I do well, but sometimes struggle with pacing it through my writing. Thank you for the helpful information!
I'm glad you found the information helpful! Pacing can be tricky, but with practice, you'll get the hang of it.
So many writing channels on youtube. and only you don't feel like a funnel to sell your own books through your youtube. You're a real one. You do this for love of writing, writers and readers, not the money!!!
Thank you! Yeah, although it might be a better business plan, that isn't why I am doing this. As you said, I just want writers to write the best story they can. Thank you again for watching!
Some good thoughts. Thanks for the video.
@@bgtyhnmju7 thank you so much for watching!
I think there's one way to deal with inconsistencies of characters, in case they are needed for the progress of the story: not letting the respective character act in a vacuum, but having their surroundings (other characters) recognize the change - and address it, amongst themselves or right into the respective character's face. And to make it work, there must also be a reasonable explanation to why the inconsistency happened, even if that reason is only addressed / revealed far later in the story. No deus ex machina, but an actual explanation. In other words, it feels very wrong if it doesn't happen deliberately, but if there's a realistic cause and a natural reaction, it can be great. Sadly I can't think of a good example at this point.
It sounds like you're referring to an unreliable narrator! Which is common and used in a lot of media/fiction. I am sure you will know immediately when it's presented to you. But, yes. This is a good way to create conflict among other characters. Also, the point about characters not existing and acting within a vacuum is exactly right. Thank you for watching and for your comment!
@@wrestlingwithwords you're right, if it's about the protagonist it probably takes an unreliable narrator to have the audience not know what caused a shift in the first place. Side characters don't necessarily need that, because the protagonist and the audience don't know everything that's going on in that other character's life. The important thing is that everyone else doesn't take the shift for granted, without at least wondering. Otherwise it just comes out as BS, because in the real world people would notice if someone is suddenly acting inconsistently. And a very good reason for the shift is absolutely required, other than 'because the story needed it.'
Great advice!
Thanks for watching!
What novels etc. have you written and where can I find your work?
In Dark knight he chooses Rachel. The Jocker tricked him.
Did he? I swore he went to save Harvey Dent. Regardless, I think the point still somewhat strand, as a decision had to be made between the two characters.
@@wrestlingwithwords the joker tricked him into thinking he was saving rachel, when the joker actually swapped the two characters, giving batman misleading info.
Not really related to the video but you talking about having two protagonists at 11:47 made me want to take some advise I need.
I have this huge issue with my story.
My main character doesn't really go through a hero's journey, he doesn't go through an inciting incident/catalyst, he doesn't go through the call to/refusal of adventure aka debate etc. and he already knows the truth, meaning he won't change and will have a flat arc. (His morals are unethical but since he is the main character we will root for him)
Meanwhile a side-character who opposes my main character is the one going through the hero's journey! He goes through the call to adventure (the adventure which is offered by the main character, he is actually willing to go that's why there is actually no refusal of the call, and the inciting incident is a step the characters are willing to go, meaning they are not unprepared for the journey) and he changes etc.
But I don't ever want to change my main character so I decided to have two main characters by making that opposing side character a second main character.
Would this be an issue? Would it be difficult to maintain two POVs who are at a semi-soft conflict with each other? And can we/should we balance the rooting/supporting the readers will have for each protagonists?
I think that is a fine way to structure your story. There are plenty of duel or concurrent main character stories out there. The two main things that come to mind that you will want to check are that your world count isn't too high and that there is enough tension and conflict in each character's plot. There are a lot of tricks you can play too with duel POV making there be more tension with one character (and the reader) knowing something or while the other character doesn't. Thank you for watching and for your comment!
In my story you'll notice shadows, darkness, and negative emotions as well as thoughts play a huge role, literally and figuratively, throughout my entire story and world conflicts. The religion in my world is based on a world view to purify if not maintain positivity and avoidance of negative traits. This force or curse, if you want to call it that, literally causes the enemies, villains, and mass conflicts to happen in a variety of ways. You'll see the first main villain starting out as someone "aiding" the protagonist only to easily toss him aside and eventually once defeated you learn why he became the way he was only for another character to take his place in a cliff hanger. At the point of the second villian appearing you will already know that 2nd villains tragic past and now understand how villains form and why you'll understand without even seeing that the second villain will be much worse.
That is really interesting! I appreciate you sharing information about your story and the conflict that is taking place.
bruce didnt decide to save harvey over rachel - he was tricked into saving him - he thought rachel was at that location
Yeah, I think I misspoke on this detail--I do get things wrong sometimes! Thank you for your comment and for watching.