Talk:Conflict (narrative)/Archive 1

Untitled
AFAIK, the concept of "Antagonist" arose in the American playwriting tradition, and has nothing to do with the ancient Greek tradition. The prefix "pro" in "protagonist" is illusive -- it isn't the "pro" as in "pro/anti", but actually "proto" (first) as in "prot-", "deuter-", "tri-", with the protagonist, deuteragonist and tritagonist being the first, second and third fighter -- i.e., the leading role, the second leading role and the third. In other words, this wasn't directly tied to the concept of conflict, as is suggested by the opposition between "protagonist" and "antagonist". (Indeed, as far as I have been able to tell from the text, Aristotle doesn't even mention the concept of conflict in his "Poetics".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.113.223 (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger
Second the merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.102.33 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes to merger. Feralfeline 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes to merger. Actually, can't we just merge all the Man vs. -- articles into this one? They're all very stubby.... Mukk 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oui, oui: That's a good idea ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

One type of conflict is nature. There are 4 different kinds of conflicts.The 5 different kinds of man vs. are man vs. man, man vs. self, man vs. nature, and man vs. society. Man vs. man is when a protagonist is being harassed by the antagonist in the story. Man vs. self is if the main character in the story is going to make a choice. Man vs. society is when everyone is doing something and you (the main character) does not know whether to do it or not. Man vs. nature is man vs. mankind. Man vs. Person vs. Supernatural, the item under which this topic came up in the article, is external. Person vs. _______ are terms used to discuss conflict, yet these items are referred to as themes several times within the article. In looking at the article on theme that is linked to the conflict article, the interchangeable usage of the word "theme" with the word "conflict" is not justified. 70.132.234.126 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Man versus Fate? That doesn't seem to fit exactly into any of the 6.

What about Man verses Animal, such as the film Jaws, where a shark is the antagonist. Does that fall into the Man vs. Nature category, or is nature more environmental and elemental forces of nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.21.80 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Generic entry (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)The original text makes the unverifiable and non-neutral claim of there only being 5 basic types of themes, then follows with a contradictory claim of 6. The cited source only specifies 4 types, not 5, and is totally silent on the issue of man vs. machine/technology entirely. "In modern times" is unnecessarily vague, and the sentence implies that this conflict did not exist prior to that. Any specific number of basic themes is unnecessary to explain conflict, and it is unclear what constitutes a basic theme or merely a theme, and this section seems to demonstrate the fecklessness of such a enterprise, anyhow. Changed language to reflect the issue of exemplifying common themes, not definitely enumerating or type them.Generic entry (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Bold text

another type of conflict not mentioned in the article
Couldn't Man vs. Circumstances be classified as a separate type of conflict, such as a person struggling to get a job, or would that count as Man vs. Man because each employer that rejected the main character would be counted as an opponent of the protagonist?

What about Man vs. Institution, such as a character trying to expose the actions of a corrupt company that keeps trying to discredit him/her and his/her evidence? Web wonder (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
The character vs. self part is severely vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.41.29 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. Joshua Scott (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, this is a bit ED or Uncyclopedia-ish, don't you think
"This article appears to have been written by an illiterate. Please help improve this article by rewriting it in a less imbecilic fashion." Can't very well take the article seriously now, can I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.23.13 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. at least there needs to be some effort to delineate exactly what the nature of such conflicts "self vs. nature" "self vs. society" are rather than just generalizing and giving examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.106 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The seven stories/plots
Maybe this could be included somewhere as well?: 1. 'Tragedy'. Hero with a fatal flaw meets tragic end. Macbeth or Madame Bovary. 2. 'Comedy'. Not necessary laugh-out-loud, but always with a happy ending, typically of romantic fulfilment, as in Jane Austen. 3. 'Overcoming the Monster'. As in Frankenstein or 'Jaws'. Its psychological appeal is obvious and eternal. 4. 'Voyage and Return'. Booker argues that stories as diverse as Alice in Wonderland and H G Wells' The Time Machine and Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner follow the same archetypal structure of personal development through leaving, then returning home. 5. 'Quest'. Whether the quest is for a holy grail, a whale, or a kidnapped child it is the plot that links a lot of the most popular fiction. The quest plot links Lords of the Rings with Moby Dick and a thousand others in between. 6. 'Rags to Riches'. The riches in question can be literal or metaphoric. See Cinderella, David Copperfield, Pygmalion. 7. 'Rebirth'. The 'rebirth' plot - where a central character suddenly finds a new reason for living - can be seen in A Christmas Carol, It's a Wonderful Life, Crime and Punishment and Peer Gynt. 84.210.46.108 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Politically correct is, in this case, wrong
There are no sources I can find that name the conflicts using "Character vs." (or "Person vs." on the Fiction page. It is "Man vs.", as in mankind, as in humankind. It's even used that way in the actual listed source (archive). — trlkly 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone changed these phrases again today from the IP 2604:6000:1519:639:E419:5531:1014:D4F1 (talk). I reverted these edits back to the existing phrases, which are classic names for the common conflicts and are cited from dependable texts. If anyone believes these should be reworded, they should first discuss it here and be prepared to cite reputable sources.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts to original comment - i have no idea what this has to do with 'politically correct' phrasing - if it's in the listed source, then keep it that way, but the "man vs" doesn't mean "as in mankind, as in humankind" neccesarily, as demonstrated in "man vs man" which basically means characters vs other characters. I'm not talking about one wording or the other being better - i'm just confused what PC has to do with anything in the article or cited by the article. 173.48.54.18 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Conflict is a method of obtaining conflict.
"Conflict is a concept in literary studies that seeks to analyze plots by finding their driving sources of conflict."

I, for one, am strongly against this definition. It's like saying "dairy products are products made of dairy." You cannot define something as just being itself. I understand that the usage of 'conflict' differs slightly, but not substantially enough for it to be used in the definition. How about "Conflict is a concept in literary studies that seeks to analyze plots by finding their driving sources of tension." or "Conflict is a concept in literary studies that seeks to analyze plots by finding their driving sources of emotion."? If neither are deemed acceptable, then I nevertheless think a rewording is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdtheory (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)