Kishotenketsu - Still Eating Oranges

The significance of plot without conflict
In the West, plot is commonly thought to revolve around conflict: a confrontation between two or
more elements, in which one ultimately dominates the other. The standard three- and five-act
plot structures–which permeate Western media–have conflict written into their very foundations.
A “problem” appears near the end of the first act; and, in the second act, the conflict generated
by this problem takes center stage. Conflict is used to create reader involvement even by many
post-modern writers, whose work otherwise defies traditional structure.
The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops

and Internet “guides” to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as
to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in general–arguably even
philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No.
Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and
Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak.
Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as
kishōtenketsu.
Kishōtenketsu contains four acts: introduction, development, twist and reconciliation. The basics
of the story–characters, setting, etc.–are established in the first act and developed in the
second. No major changes occur until the third act, in which a new, often surprising element is
introduced. The third act is the core of the plot, and it may be thought of as a kind of structural
non sequitur. The fourth act draws a conclusion from the contrast between the first two “straight”
acts and the disconnected third, thereby reconciling them into a coherent whole. Kishōtenketsu
is probably best known to Westerners as the structure of Japanese yonkoma (four-panel)
manga; and, with this in mind, our artist has kindly provided a simple comic to illustrate the
concept.
Each panel represents one of the four acts. The resulting plot–and it is a plot–contains no
conflict. No problem impedes the protagonist; nothing is pitted against anything else. Despite
this, the twist in panel three imparts a dynamism–a chaos, perhaps–that keeps the comic from
depicting merely a series of events. Panel four reinstates order by showing us how the first two
panels connect to the third, which allows for a satisfactory ending without the need for a
quasi-gladiatorial victory. It could be said that the last panel unifies the first three. The Western
structure, on the other hand, is a face-off–involving character, theme, setting–in which one
element must prevail over another. Our artist refitted the above comic into the three-act structure
to show this difference.
The first panel gives the reader a “default position” with which to compare later events; and the
second panel depicts a conflict-generating problem with the vending machine. The third panel
represents the climax of the story: the dramatic high point in which the heroine's second attempt
"defeats" the machine and allows the can to drop. The story concludes by depicting the
aftermath, wherein we find that something from the first act has changed as a result of the
climax. In this case, our heroine sans beverage has become a heroine avec beverage.
What this shows is that the three-act plot, unlike kishōtenketsu, is fundamentally confrontational.
It necessarily involves one thing winning out over another, even in a minor case like the one
above. This conclusion has wide-ranging implications, since both formats are applied not just to
narratives, but to all types of writing. Both may be found under the hood of everything from
essays and arguments to paragraphs and single sentences. As an example, the reader might
re-examine the first two paragraphs of this article, in which a “default position” is set up and then
interrupted by a “problem” (namely, the existence of kishōtenketsu). The following paragraphs
deal with the conflict between the two formats. This paragraph, which escalates that conflict by
explaining the culture-wide influence of each system, is the beginning of the climax.
As this writer is already making self-referential, meta-textual remarks, it is only appropriate that
the article’s climax take us into the realm of post-modern philosophy. It is a worldview obsessed
with narrative and, perhaps unconsciously, with the central thesis of the three-act structure.
Jacques Derrida, probably the best known post-modern philosopher, infamously declared that
all of reality was a text–a series of narratives that could only be understood by appealing to
other narratives, ad infinitum. What kinds of narratives, though? Perhaps a benign,
kishōtenketsu-esque play between disconnection and reconnection, chaos and order? No; for
Derrida, the only narrative was one of violence. As a Nietzschean, he believed that reality
consisted, invariably, of one thing dominating and imposing on another, in a selfish exercise of
its will to power. The “worst violence”, he thought, was when something was completely silenced
and absorbed by another, its difference erased. Apparently, Derrida was uncontent with the
three-act structure’s nearly complete control over Western writing: he had to project it onto the
entire world. Eurocentrism has rarely had a more shining moment.
Kishōtenketsu contains no such violence. The events of the first, second and third acts need not
harm one another. They can stand separately, with Derrida’s beloved difference intact. Although
the fourth act unifies the work, by no means must it do violence to the first three acts; rather, it is
free merely to draw a conclusion from their juxtaposition, as Derrida does when he interprets
one narrative through the lens of another. A world understood from the kishōtenketsu
perspective need never contain the worst violence that Derrida fears, which would make his call
for deconstruction–the prevention of silence through the annihiliation of structure–unnecessary.
Is it possible that deconstruction could never have been conceived in a world governed by
kishōtenketsu, rather than by the three-act plot? Is the three-act structure one of the elements
behind the very worldview that calls for its deconstruction? Can the Western narrative of the will
to power remain coherent in the face of a rival narrative from the East? This writer would prefer
to ask than to answer these questions.
Now, dear readers, comes the aftermath. The dust left over from the climax is settling.
Kishōtenketsu has been shown to generate plot without conflict, which reveals as insular
nonsense the West’s belief that they are inseparable. The repercussions of this extend to all
writing; and, if this writer's conclusion is to be believed, to philosophy itself. Despite this, it
should be noted that many of history’s greatest works have been built on the three- and five-act
structures. By no means should they be discarded. Rather, they should be viewed as tools for
telling certain types of stories. At the same time, this writer would like to end by calling for a
renewed look at kishōtenketsu in the West. It offers writers the opportunity to explore plots with
minimal or no conflict. Perhaps it could even change our worldview.
Still Eating Oranges

Kishotenketsu - Still Eating Oranges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kishotenketsu - Still Eating Oranges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kishotenketsu - Still Eating Oranges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The significance of plot without conflict

The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops

Still Eating Oranges

You might also like