In my story idea, I have a plot that somewhat involves a war between two kingdoms. If I removed the war aspect, it would change the story, so it is necessary to my plot. I could, however, make "excuses" and change a couple things so that nothing in the long run was altered. Maybe a couple details here and there. Now, the idea of a war sounds fine to me in theory, but the problem comes about at the end due to the fact that there is no conclusion to the war. The story doesn't affect it that much. It's a story between characters, not really between kingdoms. That's simply a small aspect that affects characters' opinions of each other. I've been told many times that if something isn't necessary to a story, get rid of it. Using that mentality, however, a lot of things could be omitted because they aren't "necessary" to the plot(s). So it makes a difference, but not a massive one, and there is no conclusion to said war by the end of the story because it's a story between characters. Should I omit the entire war aspect or run with it, since it does alter some details?
if the war is merely a sub-plot to your character-driven story...does it matter if it ends or not by the end of your story?
Indeed, is any particular piece of writing ever necessary at all? It sounds to me like you'd be ok to keep it...generally I wish people were more OK with ambiguous endings, but from how you describe it the war isn't even that central to the plot so the resolution of the war (or lack of resolution) isn't even the same thing as the ending of the story. Catch-22 doesn't end with the Allies winning WWII, and it doesn't need to.
A story can be set against a war background, even if no actual war is ever shown. For instance Gone with the Wind. The Civil War is going on in the background. Ok, here's where I must admit I don't really know the story or the movie. I think there might be a few war-related shots in the movie, maybe more than that. But most of the story involves people living in a time of war. How many movies made in the 50's and 60's took place against a setting of WWII, or Korea or Vietnam, without really showing the war itself—only for instance stranded survivors living on some tropical island with occasionally a plume of smoke as a ship goes by near the horizon? Or the drone of a squadron of planes that can barely be seen flying by overhead?
Or M*A*S*H. Set in a combat medical unit where they patch up soldiers so they can be sent back to the front lines or home. Lots of refrences to the war, but it's hardly ever shown. Sometimes the tent shudders and dust falls from the ceiling as bombs hit nearby, and the power goes out, but the surgeons must keep operating, by candle-light or whatever.
Also, Romeo and Juliet is set in the middle of a feud between families and I don't think it ever indicated how the feud ended (could be wrong on this though).
Or there's the way you don't want to do it. Sorry, but The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. As much as I like the whole Man with No Name trilogy, this one is a cumbersome mess, because the story is broken in three parts. The first and third part are the real movie, about the charactrers, and set against a background of the Civil War. But for about an hour or so there's a part that feels completely unrelated to me, where the main characters join the army and fight in the war. Leone wanted to make a sprawling war epic, and his way of doing it was to shoehorn a huge war into the middle of the movie. To me it completely breaks the actual storyline and all I wanted was to get the damn war part over with and get back to the real story.
Yes, indeed, the characters are changed by said war, but the story doesn't really need to see the end of the war. We don't know how it ends, although I do have an idea for an ending to said war that I could leave open-ended for a reader to assume whatever he or she may wish. Whether it works out or not in the end is up to interpretation. That idea would, of course, contribute to the character's development, so it isn't just a pointless plot addition that doesn't belong. This is an interesting example to me for whatever reason. I'll admit I've never read Romeo and Juliet, but I believe the feud is ended because both houses see how much the ridiculous feud has cost them, although I don't know if they reveal that in the actual play. Yes, this exactly. I would do my absolute best to avoid anything like this. The war would change the characters and shift opinions of each other and whatnot, creating both conflict and bonding moments. I think I'm going to keep it. It makes more sense, and I like the idea of the setting. It feels right.
Yeah, looking at it now there is a brief exchange between the patriarchs which ends the feud. But I still say that whatever event is the backdrop of the story doesn't need full resolution unless it IS the story. There are probably plenty of movies about Vietnam that don't end with a cease fire, or Fall of Saigon or whatever event considered to be the end of the conflict. On the other hand, if your book has a fictional war that no one has ever heard of, with warring Kings that are mentioned, readers may want to know what happened to them. But I think it would depend on how much you make them care.
I need to pop it in and watch it—it's been a long time. @Hippophile there's a very recent thread about fighting in stories (at least it was posted to very recently, or did I just happen to run across it the other day?) A war is nothing more than a really big complicated fight. A major point of the thread was how hard it is to make a fight meaningful in a story. Let me see if I can dig it up... Here, this one: How do I get better at writing combat?
Look at the end of the first Hunger Games. What was resolved? The games were still going on. Panam was still a dystopian hell hole. The characters were going home, but home was back in the slums. True, this larger plot is resolved over the course of the trilogy, but imagine for a moment of those weren't written. Hunger Games has a pretty satisfying ending by itself. Another example is The Road. I love that book. What was resolved in that book concerning the end of the world? Nothing. Where writers run into a problem is when they focus too much on the wider problem and not enough on the immediate conflicts. They spend far too much time discussing the politics and the armies and the other things that make the war turn, and then not enough on the immediate conflict.
sadly, I have a hard time imagining a world without a war somewhere. With less war--yes, but with no war--no. WWI, the Great War was supposed to end all wars, the last effort towards universal peace . . . I think it is hard to imagine with the current ideologies of giving value and of storing value. Ok, this is a consideration that might spark some theme for a story for myself, but I still wanted to write it down. To the OP--if a war is part of the background and if the MCs are not deciding or helping change the events of the war, then the war can stay the same and not be resolved, MCs don't need to all be heroes saving the world.
If are careful and you're sure you haven't made any implicit promises to the reader about the war that you will not have kept, then keep it in. I imagine (not having written about a war) that it would be easy to imply the reader is going to get some kind of progression of the conflict, if not necessarily full resolution. So I would be careful with that and maybe go as far as to lay out your anti-promises at the start, "Blimey this war is really going to put a crimp on our mutual character development arcs, isn't it? I don't expect it to finish any time soon either, so we'll have to work around it get on with our lives, I guess." (Though you could probably write a little less on the nose!)
As so many pointed out, you can have your war without delving too much into it. Another movie where a war was only briefly dealt with but had a big impact is Dances with Wolves. I would not point to any spaghetti western for any historicity - without exception, they are incorrect.
I'm having a war issue too, and likely to start my own thread. My MC life is completely shaped by the war, as is what happens to her, and the war is involved in the ending, but I am mainly writing a character-focused story that focuses on events between two individuals and the development of their relationship (not decided on their status of the relationship at the end). The war plays out in the background. I have no idea how much time I need to give to it, and I dislike writing that part. It's set far into the future but in a ruined world. But I'll start my own thread.
I once wrote a story with a big epic battle scene near the end. I thought it was going to be awesome and amazing, but when it came time to write it I couldn't work up any enthusiasm. I tried, and it felt totally anticlamactic. It was supposed to actually be the climax. So I ended up not really writing it (wrote a few small parts of it) but having it mostly happen between chapters, and be talked about in the following chapter. That actually worked out much better. You could get away with just having occasional reports of the war, coming in by whatever routes people get news in your world. And maybe show how the war affects things in the various towns they pass through.
I think said occasional reports of the war, or little hints in towns would be a really great way to help show the affects without making the plot about the war. Thanks for that suggestion The characters certainly will pass through towns along the route, and I think it would be a fun idea to explore.
Many stories take place during a war but aren’t about said war. If it impacts your characters in any way then I think you should keep it, despite not ending in the duration of the story. Some details aren't necessary but add things to your story; such as describing the colour of a characters coat, it isn’t impactful but adds more to the story.
I wanted to add a thought to the sentence I made bold--background events inform how characters behave, so if there is a war, even if the MCs don't do anything in regards to it (whether it is about resolving it or participating in it), the war will affect their understanding of how their world works, of who their enemies are, of how they are supposed to behave in certain situations entangled with the war (i.e.: when meeting someone from the other kingdom, or possibly a change of feelings towards those from the other kingdom they are working with), etc. The war might change the flow of resources and directly affect the ability to earn a living or a traveling project of the MCs. That is what happens in life, when the readers read that kind of situation they understand it to be "true" within a novel, so in that sense it becomes "necessary" to the story.
