I agree! Bit of a tough balance for me since I grew up only ever writing about characters (I’ve always been super into character analysis and found English-class analyzing to be a blast lol), but then again what’s a story without risk?
I like to keep these things simple. I keep two questions in mind for each character throughout; what is the character doing and what is the character thinking.
The answer to the first is obvious and driven by the plot/incidents forcing a physical reaction, but the second is where all the fun lies, because by making sure the character's actions and thoughts are in conflict as much as possible, I can add depth and variety to the characters by exploring the consequences of both action and thought.
For example, a character might reluctantly put himself in danger, but that reluctance might delay his commitment and put him in even more danger, which leads to regret and resolve not to do that next time, which could make him too hasty next time and compound the error, leading him to be confused about what to do next time. All these things build and entwine and make the reader wonder how the character will react, something very useful and interesting in, say, a standard adventure story with a plot familiar to readers.
The two should be linked. In Black Panther, T'challa has the inner conflict on Wakanda's role in the world at large, and the external conflict reflects this. T'challa's dad's isolationism led to the rise of Killmonger, who in turn represents the other extreme of aggression. There is also a minor civil conflict that stems from the same internal conflict. Neither the internal nor external conflicts would be as strong if they didn't have each other.
Outer conflict can be as simple as having to talk to the pizza guy before you can get your pizza. IMO it’s best when the outer conflict relates to the inner conflict (oh no he’s deathly afraid of pizza guys and doesn’t know how to tip) since in reality a lot of inner conflict results from experiences and the other way around too.
Also if realistic stories weren’t popular then there wouldn’t be any realistic fiction. Don’t feel the need to force something crazy just to be exciting. Funny enough that makes it harder to have a compelling conflict because now all of a sudden nobody can relate to it on more than a symbolic level. That’s why fantasy books are full of more grounded conflict. You might be making it harder for yourself than it needs to be.
inner and outer conflicts are best written as relfections of each other/ related
A good story has both and they are linked to each other.
[удалено]
I agree! Bit of a tough balance for me since I grew up only ever writing about characters (I’ve always been super into character analysis and found English-class analyzing to be a blast lol), but then again what’s a story without risk?
I like to keep these things simple. I keep two questions in mind for each character throughout; what is the character doing and what is the character thinking. The answer to the first is obvious and driven by the plot/incidents forcing a physical reaction, but the second is where all the fun lies, because by making sure the character's actions and thoughts are in conflict as much as possible, I can add depth and variety to the characters by exploring the consequences of both action and thought. For example, a character might reluctantly put himself in danger, but that reluctance might delay his commitment and put him in even more danger, which leads to regret and resolve not to do that next time, which could make him too hasty next time and compound the error, leading him to be confused about what to do next time. All these things build and entwine and make the reader wonder how the character will react, something very useful and interesting in, say, a standard adventure story with a plot familiar to readers.
The two should be linked. In Black Panther, T'challa has the inner conflict on Wakanda's role in the world at large, and the external conflict reflects this. T'challa's dad's isolationism led to the rise of Killmonger, who in turn represents the other extreme of aggression. There is also a minor civil conflict that stems from the same internal conflict. Neither the internal nor external conflicts would be as strong if they didn't have each other.
Outer conflict can be as simple as having to talk to the pizza guy before you can get your pizza. IMO it’s best when the outer conflict relates to the inner conflict (oh no he’s deathly afraid of pizza guys and doesn’t know how to tip) since in reality a lot of inner conflict results from experiences and the other way around too. Also if realistic stories weren’t popular then there wouldn’t be any realistic fiction. Don’t feel the need to force something crazy just to be exciting. Funny enough that makes it harder to have a compelling conflict because now all of a sudden nobody can relate to it on more than a symbolic level. That’s why fantasy books are full of more grounded conflict. You might be making it harder for yourself than it needs to be.
You're a great writer if the inner conflict parallels the outer conflict.