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.
I think it’s relatively easy to interpret any story ‘without’ conflict as having conflict if you look at it from the right direction. If there’s a “reconciliation” phase (possibly it could also be thought of as a synthesis phase), then there must be some sort of conflict that needs to be reconciled.
In this case it’s reconciliation of the story structure—not reconciliation of the characters. The fourth part shows how the apparent non-sequitur is actually related to the first two parts.
Daughters of Itoya, in the Honmachi of Osaka. The elder daughter is sixteen and the younger one is fourteen. Throughout history, generals killed the enemy with bows and arrows. The daughters of Itoya kill with their eyes.
Of course, the above is also a story about conflict . . . Perhaps Kishōtenketsu is engaging because it induces conflict in the mind of the reader (is that what you were referring to?) and also because it’s a poetry form. (This position recommends taking care to avoid arguing about the definition of ‘conflict’.)
I would be very interested in reading examples of Kishōtenketsu in longer (significantly text-oriented) works that otherwise avoid conflict (physical, emotional, environmental, social). Unfortunately I’m not aware of any myself.
I just read the page that you linked. I have to say, that if we hadnt read that interesting bit about how the third act is supposed to be a non sequitur, and I had viewed that strip in isolation, it would have been a pretty lame piece of work.. I suppose it was an interesting way to get the idea across, but it doesnt answer the question as to how effective a form of writing it will be and whether it will be powerful enough to hold the attention of a reader.
I also disagree that this concept is alien to western culture. Many stories use this device in the form of mini sub-plots that may go un-noticed.
Not sure I follow. Why is the conflict here not “Man vs. Thirst”? Just because we are only made aware of the conflict as it ends, doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening in-universe during the first three panels.
There are apparently forms of Asian storytelling that don’t rely on conflict.
I think it’s relatively easy to interpret any story ‘without’ conflict as having conflict if you look at it from the right direction. If there’s a “reconciliation” phase (possibly it could also be thought of as a synthesis phase), then there must be some sort of conflict that needs to be reconciled.
In this case it’s reconciliation of the story structure—not reconciliation of the characters. The fourth part shows how the apparent non-sequitur is actually related to the first two parts.
For example (from Wikipedia):
Of course, the above is also a story about conflict . . . Perhaps Kishōtenketsu is engaging because it induces conflict in the mind of the reader (is that what you were referring to?) and also because it’s a poetry form. (This position recommends taking care to avoid arguing about the definition of ‘conflict’.)
I would be very interested in reading examples of Kishōtenketsu in longer (significantly text-oriented) works that otherwise avoid conflict (physical, emotional, environmental, social). Unfortunately I’m not aware of any myself.
I just read the page that you linked. I have to say, that if we hadnt read that interesting bit about how the third act is supposed to be a non sequitur, and I had viewed that strip in isolation, it would have been a pretty lame piece of work.. I suppose it was an interesting way to get the idea across, but it doesnt answer the question as to how effective a form of writing it will be and whether it will be powerful enough to hold the attention of a reader.
I also disagree that this concept is alien to western culture. Many stories use this device in the form of mini sub-plots that may go un-noticed.
Not sure I follow. Why is the conflict here not “Man vs. Thirst”? Just because we are only made aware of the conflict as it ends, doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening in-universe during the first three panels.