Stories need conflict. I agree with that. For the plot to progress, for characters to develop, for readers to engage with each twist and turn, something has to happen, and it has to matter.
However, I don't agree that stories need evil. I'm thinking mostly about crime writing at the moment, because that is my favourite genre. Sometime in the 1960s, conflict became synonymous with evil for some writers. It wasn't enough that someone had murdered someone: suddenly, the murder had to be gory, the motivation had to be disgusting, and the reader had to see it all from the villain's sick point of view. Now, I'm not saying that this only started in the 1960s, or that all crime writers started doing it, but I have noticed that it's a decided trend (and I think if you read Martin Edwards' Life of Crime you'll see what I mean).
To me, this trend toward equating conflict with evil is a sad state of affairs. Conflict can be just as intriguing when it's two decent people with ferociously clashing agendas, instead of a 'good' person pitted against Satan's son. Murder mysteries can be just as gripping when the motive is thwarted love, rather than a psychotic urge to slice someone to ribbons. It isn't necessary to turn the reader's stomach to gain their attention.
Of course, I'm sure there are many people who will disagree with me, and that's okay. Conflict is necessary. But just to let you know, you don't have to be evil.
Comments
Post a Comment