Is it possible to write interesting fiction that has no conflict or violence?
I am very good with writing lengthy descriptions of places, their ambiance and atmospheres, people and cultures, architecture and sense of place, even their histories. (I’m not bragging here— if you don’t believe me, then just assume its true for sake of answering the question) — and I have been good at such writing since my early teens.
Furthermore, about 90% of what I write about is made up—mostly inspired by real places, of course. In my head and computer files, journals and thousands of pages. I have vivid and credible descriptions of made-up places.
Although I like writing bizarre horror stories (since they fit in with the odd and curious atmospheres best), most of the (few) people I know do not like suffering and conflict which horror (and really ALL) fiction entails. Fiction without conflict seems very bland and pointless— and even mild conflict, such as the incidents and characters on The Andy Griffith Show, would not be pleasant if they were happening to us or in our inner circle (conflicts).
How do you write fiction without conflict or stress or suffering? .
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
Ask Laura Ingalls Wilder.
No. But it sort of depends on what is meant by ‘conflict’.
The essence of most literature is how characters act in different situations and among themselves. If characters always got along (i.e, with no conflict) then most plots would shrivel away for lack of anything to say.
Even a picture book on weather patterns has conflict – clouds versus sun, arid verus moisture, and so on,
Violence, I imagine, can be omitted. But conflict – again, depending on how it is defined – really is essential.
@Jak It’s certainly true that some of her early novels were written for children, very happy and ignoring the struggles that her family endured. But, have you ever read “The Long Winter,” when the Ingalls nearly starved to death, or “The First Four Years,” about the many hardships of her new marriage?
@Yellowdog I recommend reading some of F.Scott Fitzgerald’s short stories, then read the stories published by his wife, Zelda. She was a talented writer who crafted beautifully and could turn a phrase, but her writings are flat and lifeless. There’s no conflict or tension in her stories, just lovely words. Even when Scott wrote about nothing more than young people falling in love, he could insert some element, an edginess perhaps, that kept his stories from becoming prosaic.
I’m no fan of violence, but it does seem that conflict, of some type, is the seasoning that distinguishes bland from intriguing.
Write for the New York Times.
Dunsany’s short story ‘Idle Days on the Yann’ is a description of sailing down an imaginary river and though it contains no violence it is absorbing as it is so beautifully written you can’t put it down.
Off hand, I would say that fiction blander than the Andy Griffith isn’t going to be very interesting.
The positive resolution of conflict is what makes fiction pleasurable and interesting.
The friction or conflict need not be violent
There doesn’t need to be violent conflict, but something needs to be happening. There needs to be some tension. Even if it’s the emotional tension of moving from one place to another.
Just describing places would get boring fast. No matter how beautifully it’s done. So unless you want to write for a travel magazine, you need to expand your skill-set.
There doesn’t need to be violence, but I think in nearly all stories there has to be some sort of problem. I’m sure therr are some books that don’t have any problems, but I don’t think I would find it very easy to write something like that.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
