(i.e. May I question your definition to expose the truth?)

No thanks :p.
There's no problem to explore new definition. And I joined because I like them.
Only some question seems to me better than others. Like the one talking about jokes.

o Must jokes have conflicts?

That's good.
I suggest only to analyze a little more the question we propose. Because otherwise it's difficult to find the good ones.

Internal Conflict is a conflict where its component intentions belong to the same entity.

Antagonist is an entity with an intention to hinder the protagonist.

Obstacle is an object that blocks an otherwise viable path to a goal.

I agree with these statements.

Def 3: A conflict is a situation where two or more intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.

I don't agree with this. At least with the word "intention".
Since to have an "intention" we need a sentient being. And to have a conflict we can have also only one sentient being against a plain ostacle.

Intention1: You want ice-cream
Intention2: You want sandwich
State1: You buy the ice-cream
State2: You buy the sandwich
Conflict: Intention1 makes you want State1 to occur, Intention2 makes you want State2 to occur, but State1 and State2 cannot coexist.

Looking at your example you can also try this:
Conflict is a restriction of choices (of a main character).

But this avoid the main element. The obstacle is needed to explain the conflict, for example the main charcter do not have time, or money to have the two of them at the same time.

Discussing the structure of a langauge
Re: dr Jack

Semantics forms a type of language. A definition can only be evaluated by other definitions within its set. For example, say I make up the word 'JedKal' that means a bridge for a fantasy language, it is not a valid argument to say that 'JdeKal' is a redundant word because 'bridge' already exists, because they are from different languages.

Therefore, by the same token, it is not valid to use your definition of 'obstacle' to evaluate my definition of 'conflict'. To evaluate my definition of 'conflict', you need to use my definition of 'obstacle' (this is also what I would need to do about your definitions if I were to evaluate it).

However, your question is about completeness--whether a language can express all possible situations. This type of question is valid and it is the main way of evaluating a language. Your question would be phrased like this:

Instead of:
"I don't agree with this. At least with the word "intention". Since to have an "intention" we need a sentient being. And to have a conflict we can have also only one sentient being against a plain ostacle."

You would ask:
"What do you call the situation when an entity is going against a plain obstacle?"
(i.e. If JedKal means bridge, what do you call ridge?)

In the language of Def 3, that would probably be called a "collision", which does not require intention. A vase falls down a balcony collides with the ground. There is no intention required.

Threat is the perception of an approaching danger.
Concern is the perception of a projected predicament.

A difference between threat and concern is that in a threat, the source of danger could move to you even if you don't move. If you are walking in a park and there is a water puddle on the side that you could avoid by walking around, the water puddle can be considered an obstacle, but does not pose a threat. If your kid decides to walk right in the water puddle, then it generates a concern (that they would slip and fall, or that they will get you totally splashed). If you are walking in a park and you see a loose dog that looks angry, that is a threat, because even if you don't move, it could come and harm you.

Other situations that aren't necessarily a conflict:
o Maze
o Obstacle course
o Journey

Do you agree that in your defintion, a Journey is always a conflict? In your definition, am I allowed to map the destination of a Journey to the goal, and the distance between the starting point and the destination the 'obstacle'?

Similarly, in your definition, am I allowed to justisfy that "I go to the kitchen to fetch soda" qualifies as a conflict? Goal: to get the soda; Obstacle: the refrigerator door that I need to open.

But if that is the case there is a contradition, because no matter what you do, as long as there is a purpose and any form of hinderance, there is a conflict. So you would have said that

(c) Alice goes to the movies but forgets to bring money for the ticket
(d) Alice goes to the movies only to find that the tickets are sold out

are also conflicts.



Def 1: A Conflict is opposition between forces
Def 2: Conflict is a struggle between a goal and an obstacle
Def 3: A conflict is a situation where two or more intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.
Def 4: Conflict is a restriction of choices

[Edited by - Wai on December 28, 2010 9:30:30 AM]

Quote:Semantics forms a type of language. A definition can only be evaluated by other definitions within its set.

I completely agree, and I'm trying to do it. If I made any mistake, I'll try to handle them.

Quote:You would ask:
Instead of:
"I don't agree with this. At least with the word "intention". Since to have an "intention" we need a sentient being. And to have a conflict we can have also only one sentient being against a plain ostacle."

You would ask:
"What do you call the situation when an entity is going against a plain obstacle?"

Yeah. That's a good question. Maybe purpose could be a better word, but the issue remains for the Def 3, since the things you call "intentions" are not the same thing.
One is wider group (the obstacles) and could be a sentient beings (at least a little sentient) or simple events, while the other element (the main character) is a smaller group, who needs to be a sentient being (at least a little).
I prefer to avoid to use the same word for two different groups.

Quote:Do you agree that in your defintion, a Journey is always a conflict?

Depends. If the goal is to arrive in a place yes the journey is a conflict (and it could be too easy conflict).
I can map also the goal in "having fun" and the journey as a choice to gain the goal.

Quote:Similarly, in your definition, am I allowed to justisfy that "I go to the kitchen to fetch soda" qualifies as a conflict? Goal: to get the soda; Obstacle: the refrigerator door that I need to open.

That's not a compelling conflict, but yes is a conflict.
And the same events could be conflict also applying the def 1 and 3.
Intention (or force) of the refrigerator: stay close.

Quote:(c) Alice goes to the movies but forgets to bring money for the ticket
(d) Alice goes to the movies only to find that the tickets are sold out

are also conflicts.

Only if Alice wants to go to the movies.
If she want to avoid the movies these are solution, not conflicts.

You talk about "purpose", if you use the word "purpose" as what I mean for "goal" and you said the two cases (c and d) have a purpose as prerequisite. Ok.
They become conflicts.
And they become conflicts for all the 4 definitions.
Let's use the example c:
-Def 1 (A Conflict is opposition between forces) -> alice (force a) want to enter, the cinema, or ticket office (force B) don't let her in if she doesn't pay.
- Def 3 (A conflict is a situation where two or more intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.)
Intention B are the ticket office who didn't want people who enters for free.
- Def 4: (Conflict is a restriction of choices) No money = less choices.

But Def 1 and 3 can be used also for a collision of meteors. And that is an "event" (or at least I use that word) and Def 4 is really too wide.

I think the definition 2 is the best (between the four we have at the moment). Because it imply that we needs a sentient being (at least) and an obstacle.

Re:

Given that you now know my definition and I know yours, do you agree with this translation:

Using Def 3: What do stories without conflict use to attract an audience?

is equivalent to:

Using Def 2: What do stories that do not have entities with intentions that lead to actions that hinder one another use to attract an audience?

Yup. Those two question can be equivalent, given our definitions. At least until you agree with me that for a conflict we need a sentient being. (Also a humanized object could work, or any animal with emotion and decision power.)
Using the def 3 you can make the question more simple and divide it in two.

Using Def 3:
- What do stories without a sentient being with a goal use to attract an audience?
- What do stories without an obstacle use to attract an audience?

Only one explaination to fit your definition:
Obstacle for me is anything with an intention against the goal.
It could be anything from an object, an event, an antagonist or even an internal emotion. Anything that blocks the sentient being to achieve the goal.

Re:

Quote:Using Def 3:
- What do stories without a sentient being with a goal use to attract an audience?
- What do stories without an obstacle use to attract an audience?

These are not correct. According to my question, there could be sentient being with a goal, as long as there is not another sentient being doing something that gets in the way. It takes two intentions for a conflict to occur. Also, there could also be an obstacle, because obstacle could exist with an intention.

Quote:Those two question can be equivalent, given our definitions.

"Can be equivalent" is not good enough, for us to understand each other they have to be "completely equivalent". I was asking whether those statements express exactly the same thing.

But I don't object discussing the follow, so we might as well:
a) What do stories without a sentient being with a goal use to attract an audience?
b) What do stories without an obstacle use to attract an audience?

Quote:Obstacle for me is anything with an intention against the goal.

Did you mis-type something? Perhaps you meant:

Def 2: Obstacle is anything against achieving a goal.

Quote:

Quote:Obstacle for me is anything with an intention against the goal.

Did you mis-type something? Perhaps you meant:

Def 2: Obstacle is anything against achieving a goal.

No mispelling. I was trying to use the word "intention" as you defined.
Can you explain me what do you mean by intention?

But I can accept the last definition of obstacle.

Re: fireside7.
Yup, I know the definition of conflict in literature and I was using that one.
I totally agree with your position (that's the position of the fiction rules, it applies also for movies, comics, manga etc. Conflict is a general concept.).

But trying to contest a concept can find out something (such as some interesting definition), who knows.
And more it's funny.

Alas, I agree also that we're going a little too deep for the discussion.

By the way. About Jokes.
I can accept the possibility that there are some jokes without conflict. But I don't remember anyone without conflict.
So, for now, I'm thinking that jokes need conflict like any kind of story.

I don't think that the question is

Quote:what stories can be written that don't use overt conflict, such as harming another individual?

At least I hope so. Since I didn't find any reference to this in the other messages.
(And the answer is simple.)

Definitions
Re: fireside7

To keep the length of each post short, I am only going to focus on the main point that would dissolve the misunderstanding. We don't have the same definitions for the word "conflict". Consider the definitions:

Conflict[1] is drama between two opposing forces. [Link]
Conflict[3] is situation where two or more intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.

We know that the Conflict[3] and Conflict[1] defines two sets of things, some of the things belong to both sets, some belong only to one. For now, consider the types of Conflict[1], and see their membership in Conflict[3]:

a) Character Struggling Against Another Character -> Member of Conflict[3]
b) Character Struggling Internally With Self -> Member of Conflict[3]
c) Character Struggling Against Forces of Nature -> Not a member of Conflict[3]
d) Character Struggling Against Society -> Can be a member of Conflict[3]
e) Character Struggling Against Fantasy/Supernatural/Technology -> Can be a member of Conflict[3]

(* Note that there are additional situations that belong to Conflict[3] but not Conflict[1]: the above is not evidence that Conflict[3] is a subset of Conflict[1].)

Because the definitions are fundamentally different, Conflict[3] cannot be nicely defined by terms of Conflict[1]. As an analogy, imagine the difference between the orthogonal coordinate system and the polar coordinate system. An object that is easy to define in one system may not have a simple boundary in another system. The primary task is to know how coordinates of one system maps to another.

Once it is recognized that such a mapping exists, the discussion can continue, regardless what definition you use. Regardless whether a point is described in polar or rectangular cordinate, it is still a point in space.


Minor Details
The following are branching points of the discussion:

o In definition [1], how do you define "force". Do you know whether definition [1] includes things you want and excludes those you don't? Do you know whether definition [1] contains unintentional meanings? How do you know that definition [1] is an objective definition? One that includes what you want to talk about, but also many other things that you would have to choose to ignore to make the definition meaningful? How would one inject more science into defining words? How would you go about testing whether a definition is valid?

o In definition [1], since Conflict is defined as a type of drama, what other types of drama are there? If you read the sentence the same way I do, the statement implies that there exist drama that is void of conflict. To question whether concrete examples of drama without conflict exist, is to question the validity of the definition. Accepting that definition means you understand that there are dramas without conflict.

o An example of drama without conflict[1] is Hachi, which I gave earlier. It main plot is about a dog that kept waiting for its departed owner. The story expresses loyalty by showing behaviors due to loyalty. To the dog, there may not be any opposing force, it is just a way of life. But its persistence make the audience question what they would do themselves. If you change the audience such that the audience is used to this type of loyalty, the movie would be incredibly boring: The audience would think, "Why is that interesting? I do that every day. Doesn't everyone do that?" Here, you see that the quality that attracts the audience does not reside in the story, but in the contrast between the events in the story and the audience's expectation.

Therefore, you actually have to agree that there are examples of drama without conflict. A summary of the reasons:

1. Hachi
2. The author of this knew it, if she knew what she was talking about.

By citing the second reason I am not endorsing the article. I don't think that the definitions there are meaningful or inspirational. For instance, can you justify why each type of conflict[1] is described as a struggle? Why can't there be a conflict[1] that has no struggle? Why do conflicts always involve a character? When you read something like that you know it is aimed at casual thinking who have no clue what conflict could mean, so any clue would be a step up. In other words, the article is a simplification of the truth. It tells you what looks nice, what looks palatable. It is not a critical article.

Think about how you would have to do to critique a definition. Is it only restricted to citing authority? Majority rule? What is the science in definitions?