Group story, internal tension (authorly)

[Colleen Thomas]

This is a kind of subjective question, but here goes. In a stroy with a group dynamic, say LOTR or Band of Brothers, does the internal conflicts within the group provide depth or is it just distracting? WE all know thre is an outsid eenemy, and the climactic battle will be with him, but what role does the internal divides play?

I ha vea few WIP's with a group dynamic involved, but I find myself forcing the internal bickering. I know that;s partly because I see the big picture and the disputes are trivial in comparrison, but I'm afraid I'll bore my readers to tears with the continous conflicts. On the other hand, it will strain credibility to just have them gloss over thir differences. there must be a balance there, but I'd like some input on where you think it neds to fall.

 

[entitled]

IMO at least some internal conflict is a good thing, as long as the MC's are able to pull it together when it comes down to something more important than that. Like in LOTR - there was major conflict to begin with that ended up being more mild ribbing than anything else by the end.

 

[Guest]

This is a kind of subjective question, but here goes. In a stroy with a group dynamic, say LOTR or Band of Brothers, does the internal conflicts within the group provide depth or is it just distracting? WE all know thre is an outsid eenemy, and the climactic battle will be with him, but what role does the internal divides play?

I ha vea few WIP's with a group dynamic involved, but I find myself forcing the internal bickering. I know that;s partly because I see the big picture and the disputes are trivial in comparrison, but I'm afraid I'll bore my readers to tears with the continous conflicts. On the other hand, it will strain credibility to just have them gloss over thir differences. there must be a balance there, but I'd like some input on where you think it neds to fall.

Personality conflicts are normal whenever there is a group together. If you gloss them over it makes them sound like the seven dwarfs, except even they had their difficulties.

To give charaters depth, they have to have their own personal dilemmas. Or disputes within the group. But you do a wonderful job Colleen, I don't think you have much to worry about

 

[chris 44]

Internal conflict

I'd agree with Danielle and Ent, almost go so far as to say it's vital for the depth and believability of the story Colly. You mention LOTR, well even Frodo and Sam had their differences when they struck out on their own, and remember how much that added to the storyline.
If you're having trouble with it, and the bickering doesn't quite ring true, try giving the characters certain traits that will annoy one or more of the group. Selfishness, greed, stupidity,aggressiveness. It's just a stick to stir the pot and see what comes bubbling to the surface.
A writer of your talent will soon get it sorted. If you want to bounce any ideas off the wall, you know where I am.
Hugs,
Chris

 

[Weird Harold]

... I find myself forcing the internal bickering.

If you have to force it, then it's probably not needed.

Not every group dynamic involves constant bickering and your characters sem to be telling you that they get along just fine without it.

Bickering and teasing are good tools for highlighting the character differences, but if your characters don't have quirks and foibles that irritate the other chracters there isn't going to be much to work with and you'll have to diffrentiate the characters with some other technique.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I think what tends to define individuals in the group is how they work together to handle whatever conflict they are facing as a group. The internal squabbles, to me, should be used to detail how each individual is coping with the greater problem that they are all facing together. Most often, in reality, it's the main problem that forces to the surface a character's individual personality strengths/weaknesses. How they overcome those individually and amongst each other is what makes them a full-bodied character to me.

 

[3113]

It's a really good question. Of course the answer, annoying as it is, is that it depends on the characters.

There are some stories where the characters were so annoying, and their bickering so trivial that, yes, it annoyed and bored me. But that's the characters, not the bickering, right? The writer didn't do a good job of either.

Here's the important thing: that the bickering not exist for bickering's sake, but to reveal the development of the characters--their internal development, their development with each other, the maturation of the fellowship and how they view the big picture.

In that regard, you don't have to toss aside the "big picture" to achieve good conflict in a group. In LOTR, everyone pretty much saw the big picture (Ring = bad!) to whatever degree they saw it (Pippin and Merry saw it at first as just a threat to their friend Frodo)--as the story went on, they saw more and more of it. Boromir's reasoning as to how to handle the big picture is certainly wrong, but it's no less big--and his conflict gives Frodo that push and epiphany as to what HE needs to do.

Thus, the bickering on that score--what to do BIG picture wise--serves the story on several levels. It not only creates tension and conflict within the group, but matures and deepens the charaters and leads to resolutions and action that otherwise wouldn't be taken.

Don't sacrifice the big picture. USE the big picture. Just because everyone can see that the Ring is dangerous doesn't mean they all agree on what must be done with it or how it must be done. Or that they can all resist its lure and danger.

Above all--don't force it and have fun.

 

[gauchecritic]

It seems to me that a group dynamic is a wimpy way of including sub-plot. Things going on that aren't directly concerned with the plot but do have an effect.

OK it's a while ago and my memory is poor but when each member of the group in LOTR who were actively trying to take the ring for themselves eventually sacrificed themselves for the good of middle earth it was a complete dissapointment to me. When Boromir (?) or whoever had an excellent opportunity to take the ring and command its powers (so he thought) when they were suddenly set upon by Orcs. What does he do? Instead of slicing Frodo's head off and taking the ring he tells him to run. (ok that's the easy bad turned good feelgood twist but it still sucked).

A more decent plot twist employed in the same book/film is that of Strider seemingly being one of the ring wraithes until you discover his identity (Aragorn?).

On the whole I'd say group dynamics are a poor substitute for sub-plot.

 

[TheEarl]

It seems to me that a group dynamic is a wimpy way of including sub-plot. Things going on that aren't directly concerned with the plot but do have an effect.

OK it's a while ago and my memory is poor but when each member of the group in LOTR who were actively trying to take the ring for themselves eventually sacrificed themselves for the good of middle earth it was a complete dissapointment to me. When Boromir (?) or whoever had an excellent opportunity to take the ring and command its powers (so he thought) when they were suddenly set upon by Orcs. What does he do? Instead of slicing Frodo's head off and taking the ring he tells him to run. (ok that's the easy bad turned good feelgood twist but it still sucked).

A more decent plot twist employed in the same book/film is that of Strider seemingly being one of the ring wraithes until you discover his identity (Aragorn?).

On the whole I'd say group dynamics are a poor substitute for sub-plot.

I'm sort of in agreement with what Gauche said, but not with the example. I'm no fan of the LotR books, but I thought the group dynamics were played quite well in them.

In your case, Colly, I think it does sound like you're trying to jemmy in a weak sub-plot with the internal conflicts. If you're having to force it, then it's obviously not right for the characters. I think you quite probably should have some form of conflict to add depth, but I think, at the moment, you've probably got the wrong one.

The Earl