Conflict in a novel.

You don't agree that seeing things from one side makes them one-sided?

 

If handled well, I think seeing things from one side can be an exceptionally suggestive (to the reader) way of illustrating (showing) what might (or might not) be going on in the other side. I think the idea is that "human" perception is flawed (which is what makes a story character plausible), but that it's human nature to struggle to make sense of perceptions in a way that (especially in fiction) is characteristic of the person perceiving things. It seems to me that those very perceptions and misperceptions account for false turns, mistakes in communication, interpretation, and that kind of thing. Which, in turn, builds tension and conflict in a fictional story (both between characters and within them, and conveys all that to the mind of the reader, as well).

My own preference is for stories that permit an understanding of significance through the eyes of a single MC. But there are books and authors where that viewpoint (and its significance) is murkied up for a purpose. I think Saramago does a really good job of blurring that significance and raising the bar to something that suggests a different level of understanding on the part of the reader.

 

However, in terms of increasing the conflict, showing both sides of the equation can certainly ratchet things up a ways. It's the old Hitchcock effect- show two people walking into a cafe, sitting down at a table and being blown up by a bomb that was there the whole time, and you've got a two-second shock that no-one saw coming. But show the criminal planting the bomb, and then show the characters sitting down at the table, and having a long, meandering conversation interspersed with shots of the bomb, and you've got five, ten minutes of gripping tension, especially if you don't know when the bomb is going to go off. Letting the reader know the bad guy's plans before the main character does can be and has been used to great effect.

And playing the other side for sympathy can be exquisitely effective. From the same guy- If I show you a couple getting home from the theatre, only to find out they've been robbed, you think "how sad." But if I show you a burglar, and show him cutting his way through the chain-link fence, firing his tranquilizer gun at the dogs, clambering up to the bedroom window, cutting through the glass with a home-made glass-cutter, cleverly redirecting the laser alarms with a mirror, slipping into the room, before finally starting to pick the lock on the safe, and then show a couple getting home from the theatre, you think, "Hurry up, you're gonna get caught." And then you realise you're cheering for the criminal.

Find the tension where you can, and keep it taut- it works almost better than conflict, most of the time.

 

I would say that it is conflict. Aside from that minor technicality, I agree with you fully. I love when the tables have turned.

 

What if it is done to further the plot or to provide or forshadowing like in a movie?

Personally, I think it would depend on the writer and to what effect he uses pov for what effect he wants to portray in his book.

 

I love Koontz. I like how he gets me into the mind of the crazy villian by writing chapters from his POV. I get to see both sides of the story, the good and the bad. It also helps me get to know the villian better, to understand his motives, why he does what he does.

I alos loved this in Da'Vinci Code. I'm pretty sure, Da'Vinci Code wouldn't have been as awesome as it was if some of the chapters weren't written from the villian's POV.

I guess it all comes down to personal preference. Some like it; some don't.

 

I understand its usage in the context of foreshadowing and building tension, and while I don't necessarily like it, it has itsplace. As for moral ambiguity, this kinda of thing is the absolute antithesis of that. If you show me every character's point of view, there is no ambiguity - you are telling the me what the characters think, what their motives are, why they act the way they do. If yu only show me one, I then have to think for myself and say "why doesthis character behvae this way when this character does this?", questions like that.

 

Take advantage of your strengths. Write from the first person perspective about your trials and struggles, be them truth or fiction.

 

You misunderstand the meaning of "Moral Ambiguity." It doesn't mean "Why is he doing that?"- that's motive ambiguity. It means "Who is the good guy in this situation?" If I only show you a hero struggling against a villain, then there's no moral ambiguity- you side with the hero, and the hero's allies, agains the villain. Even if what the villain does sometimes seems motivated by things other than the usual villain tropes- megalomania, hatred, greed, lust- you still are unequivocally against them.

However, if I show you that the villain is motivated by, say, a desire to expel the demon that is inhabiting his body- and he has to steal parts of a powerful exorcism artefact to do so- and the hero is continually ruining his plans, then you have the start of a sympathetic villain, and moral ambiguity starts to enter the story. Would things have been better if the hero had done nothing? Could we have prevented all of this? Why am/was I cheering for someone who is just getting in the way?

Plus, it removes some of the "what the hell?" from the story. If the hero arrives home after a long, gruelling fight scene and then ninjas drop from the ceiling and he has to fight them too, it seems a bit arbitrary and there's very little question that he'll win. But if I tell you, during the gruelling fight scene beforehand, that the villain has dispatched some ninjas to his home to bring him down afterward, then I can have pages and pages of the hero walking home after the fight scene, reflecting on what he's won and lost so far, and tending to his various nigh-fatal injuries, and all the reader will think is, "oh jeez, he's gonna get home and get pounded by ninjas, and he might not make it this time." Then when it does happen, there's a payoff and his victory seems that much more dear and that much sweeter. It's the Hitchcock thing again.

 

Moral ambiguity, in when two or more choices each are the right choice by different ethical standards, but there are no choices that don't violate one of those ethical standards. This is also called an ethical dilemna.

An example would be that a friend tells you in strict confidence that he or she is planning to commit suicide. Do you tell someone who can intervene and save your friend's life, or do you honor your promise to your friend to keep the conficence? You may or may not believe your friend will really go through with it, but which ethical demand takes precedence? There is no absolute right answer - you probably consider your friend's life the overriding concern, but if you were a priest and the admission took place in confessional, you would be required to keep confidence.