Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
my friend linked to this on his FB.
it's a really interesting article, so I'll leave it here.
Can someone give me the jist of it?
its just not as overt as in western media.
if we rearranged the story to be present the boy asking the girl to get the drink, would it be conflict? the mere act of getting the drink?
or maybe the girl decided to get the drink without being asked.
either way, it isn't conflict. the rearrangement of the boy sitting and waiting into a plot twist of sorts gives the dynamism of traditional conflict but *without* the conflict.
Then im sure there is some internal conflict...
Most people who've studied western narratives will tell you a plot can simply be the gap between what you have and what you desire (e.g. the boy clearly either wants a drink and doesn't currently have one and the girl is solving that conflict or the girl is giving the boy a drink but he doesn't want to say he doesn't want one or the girl is giving the boy a drink to convey a message of friendship or romance that she doesn't feel able to express through words. Any one of these would meet the definition of a narrative conflict.
is part of his point I think, and one I kiiind of maybe agree with in general..? (not like in the sense of trying to give you a hard time over these specific examples)
And certainly what I'm talking about is from studying scriptwriting/reading scriptwriting books etc. My own view is that the article isn't talking about something that's hugely distinct from Western storytelling but something that is simply framed (and perhaps even understood by a Western observer) in a different way. But of course I might be reading it that way from a Western perspective.
But certainly I've never read anything that convinces me forms of storytelling massively differ from culture to culture, and plenty to suggest that often the same stories and myths crop up in different forms in widely different places and my instinct is to say that, whilst the presentation of stories changes from culture to culture, this is a framing of a narrative plot in a different manner, rather than an entirely different form of narrative plot. Certainly I don't think the basic story shown in the four frames is a story that fundamentally breaks Western narrative rules.
I think there's definitely some difference tho, and it seems like the idea that Kishotenketsu form is at least a bit less centered around conflict and solution seems to be a legitimate one, and to effect more than just movie plots. EG: http://www.japanintercultural.com/en/news/default.aspx?newsid=190
Storytelling has a lot of universal aspects for sure but there's some interesting differences, I mean, pretty much EVERY SINGLE american comic book ever is about muscly superguys saving the earth by punching each other, whereas in Japan you can have things like an 18 chapter comic in which the plot is "A guy goes for some nice walks around town. THE END." http://www.animenewsnetwork.co.uk/house-of-1000-manga/2011-12-29
not sure they had to get meta by using the article itself as an example though
playful and relevant.
anyway, it has got me thinking about stuff from a fresh perspective.
like, I walked past a road sign, one of those Z turned 90 degrees to the right signs, and I thought 'is that sign three-part, with the turn as conflict, or is the turn just a gentle four-part style twist?'.
with more worldly significance than road signs - not that you can't derive skewed observations on life through road signs.
While I agree that you can obviously create a narrative without conflict, you cannot create a plot with conflict. A plot is a narrative with drama, and drama is based in conflict.
The first one isn't a plot, it's a series of events. And besides, it's boring. >Girl buys drink and gives it to boy<. >Girl tries to buy drink but it doesn't work! and then it works< is something happening, a plot.
I feel like I should care about this more than I do though
either could be made interesting
He goes on about philosophy too much and didn't think enough about the shit boring story he's not trying to tell
This has annoyed me a bit, I don't know why
hmmm, if he's right then annoyance would be an understandable cognitive dissonance type reaction. :)
No fucking wonder I'm angry
you must be angry for some other reason i guess
I'll read this again after my dinner but I'm not expecting much
Still don't like it
It's worth having a listen to the commentary to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon if you like this kind of meeting of West and East. They talk about how the film combines two very different ways of telling a story because they wanted it to appeal to both audiences, so while Western audiences might find bits of it 'odd', that would also be true of Eastern audiences, but they would find different bits to be 'odd'.
As to the article, I guess I have a problem with using the kind of 'Here's how you write a script' classes Hollywood types get as if this is the only way to write a story in the West. I'd imagine people have done stories different ways.
I guess the real test, though, is whether the 'conflict' story is finding itself highly popular in China and Japan and whether this might show the public prefer it.
well, Yonkoma manga IS a massively popular form over there but then again so are 10000000-volume manga about guys kicking each other in the head till they explode sooo...
interesting non the less, but false premise.
Fabula seems to be about the chronological order of events as opposed the the order they appear but that's not what's being discussed in the article...?
The structure of the 'Eastern' plot creates conflict where none exists: not in the story but in the reader, because we present panel 3 as a non-sequitur so they then have a lot of questions and wonder why they've got panel 3.
So really we are still using conflict to generate interest. It's much the same way that we spend the period after the pop-tarts moment in Pulp Fiction expecting Jules to appear. If the movie had been chronological this would never have happened.
But the article's point seems to be that we're just calling that 'conflict,' rather than just something that's a change or difference, because we are used to thinking of plots/everything in terms of conflict
(didn't mean to ^this)
I read a load of reviews that said there was no conflict, no antagonist etc
but I reckon death could easily be seen to be the antagonist and there was definitely some conflict because of that
I can't really think of an interesting plot that didn't involve conflict at some stage but hmm it might be possible
then again I'm perfectly happy with narratives that are completely unconventional and I'll happily read/watch things that are essentially plotless
The idea was that difference is only violence if your thinking is built on the will to power. Under that system, yes; the kish?tenketsu structure remains violent. But to look at it that way begs the question: whether the will to power can be considered the most fundamental element of being is what’s at issue.
The nearest I could get was Nausea by Jean Paul Satre but that's more like an essay on internal conflict, so doesn't fit at all
just because the conflict is internal rather than external doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look at Tokyo Story for example.
the boy has a conflict with his desire to have a drink. Maybe he doesn't have any cash. the girl takes action to purchase a drink, possibly also as a symbolic gesture of friendship, affection or love. boy is delighted and surprised by the drink and the possible subtext of this purchase, which may create a nervous conflict with the girl is he fancies or, or if he doesn't fancy her.
so googled this kish?tenketsu:
Ki (??): Topic toss or introduction, what characters appear, era, and other important information for understanding the setting of the story.
Rambo is in jail following the events of The First Blood
Sh? (??): Receives or follows on from the introduction and leads to the twist in the story. Major changes do not occur.
Rambo gets out of jail and is sent ot Vietnam and rescue some soldiers who were left behind.
Ten (??): Turn or twist to another, new or unknown topic. This is the crux of the story, which is also referred to as the 'yama' (???) or climax. It has the biggest twist in the story.
Rambo kills the viet cong baddies, gets the soldiers into a helicopter
Ketsu (??): Resultant, also referred to as the 'ochi' (???) or ending, it wraps up the story by bringing it to its conclusion.
Rambo shoots a bazooka from inside a helicopter. the "fuck yeah!" moment provides a satisfactory air-punching moment to resolve the dramatic tension.
1. as I've touched on in other replies maybe you're just deciding that since conflict is important in a plot, then everything that happens in a plot must be a conflict even if it's a really small one, or you need to frame it as an 'internal conflict' or something
2. You've just shoehorned an existing plot that I don't wasn't really written in a "Kish?tenketsu" way into that structure and I'm not sure, why unless you're trying to suggest that Kish?tenketsu isn't a thing? Which it really is, regardless of the merits of what this tumblr article is claiming about it re: conflict
1. Rambo kills everyone
2. The End.
yes, I suppose I was what I was trying to say is that - sweeping generalisation - all stories share characteristics and elements and these would include conflict, or contrast, or whatever you want to call it, even if it is internal, or even if it is not resolved or even addressed during the course of the story. The lack of something, or the presence of elements that cannot coexist without hurting each other.
i thought you hated philosophy?
not normally mad keen on this kind of thing, though.