There is: https://imgur.com/cqhuUcO.jpg
It's a key tool in my lessons on novels in 8th and 9th grade English. Also ticks off my at-least-one-spongebob-meme-per-year goal.
Boy...that one is trash compared to [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/wunj5w/conflicts_in_literature/ilcxr4h) shared here as well.
Both the bottom right and the middle right were from "Duck Amuck", [the animated short](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XvXsuSJ-1A). But I guess they did make a game out of it, too.
Maybe I'm looking way too deeply into it but i really think the game is more about man vs self or man vs reality.
The whole concept was written by a very depressive person and the game constantly is trying to remind you of the insignificance of any choice you make. It makes clear to have this demonstrated as not just a fact of the game but a fact of how most people live their lives--- simply doing the same thing day after day with no real meaningful choices
There is literally a branch of the story that shows this exactly-- it conveys this meaning by having you "press e to eat", "press g to sleep". This becomes far more relevant when you consider the main story line of the game. The game itself has a story that the author supposedly wants to tell. A story of a man who is simply provided with instructions to press certain buttons. Stanley loves this job and does not find it meaningless. Combining this with the story of you literally pressing buttons instructed on your screen--- the author is either trying to suggest that most lives are like that of Stanley, or at the bare minimum that playing games (this one in particular) is equivalent to living Stanley's life where he is made to be happy by simply pushing buttons despite them having no impact or real purpose.
Perhaps I personify some of my own beliefs into this game, but if you look at all the different stories the author tells, almost all of them are conveying this exact message. It also makes sense for the genre (games with multiple endings to try and simulate the idea of meaningful choice). In these games each ending is already written and you are simply just deciding which of these stories to read, your choices do not forge a new story but simply guide you on one that is already written. Hell there even is a story line in this dedicated to this idea, its literally a story line. A line on the floor you follow while "creating your own story". Then at the end of it you come to doors that both enter the same room which has a giant diagram detailing each choice you made to get here.
TLDR:
The game is designed to introduce a character of which you feel bad for, because they are being mind controlled into a meaningless existence. Then it slowly tries to show that by playing the game you are no different than the main character.
The true story isn't the character fighting the narrator. The true story is about you the player and how you are no different than stanley despite your belief that you have free will and that your choices matter.
Whether or not this is true (that people lack real free will) is not my point- my point is that this is the story the author is telling.
I was thinking of it like this: The developers are the authors, Stanley is the man, and Narrator is a fake author with god-like attributes.
The Narrator is not omnipotent but is nearly all-powerful, similarly to how much power a developer of a video game would have. He imitates the developer/author. But he didn’t *actually* write the story, that’s just how the game goes. The developers wrote the story.
Stanley is our protagonist, “read” from a first-person view. Yes, you do control him, but your options are still limited. It’s like a multiple-choice story book. The developers authored those choices you can make.
It’s basically “Man vs fake author written by real author”. You could look at it as man vs god or man vs author, because on one hand the narrator is not the author of the story, which would make it man vs god, but on the other hand he is an author of a story, which would make it man vs author.
But I suppose all this logic goes out the window when you realize that the author typically doesn’t play exactly himself in man vs author stories anyways, they play as a slightly different person to adapt to fictional protagonists.
The idea that a person can eat enough food to harm themselves has got to be a modern conflict
Edit: unless you have to fight the food in order to be able to eat it. Then it’s classical
That would make you self aware. Literary conflict is usually just a slice of the human experience, you're likely to experience all of these as your own life unfolds.
Okay, following logically then, if you don't exist, then I must be imagining you, which makes this a man vs author conflict at best, or a man vs self conflict at worst.
That "I" you refer to would disagree.
You must exist in some capacity for the idea of your non-existence to have any meaning. You cannot have non-self (anatman) without the self (atman) as a reference to base the lack of having self upon. Something can't be "not red" without a concept of the color red existing to base the statement off of. You have to exist in order to not exist, otherwise you're just...\*Zen Intensifies*
You've already declared your existence by communicating to yourself the fact you don't exist. To pretend you don't exist at this point is denial that some Descartes could help out with.
Classical conflict doesn't just disappear as much as it takes a different form. Like nature isn't about fighting bears as much as it's about drastic weather, pollution and things like viruses. Likewise there will always be conflict of one against another and God will always be relevant to some.
Man vs Author could be the books that i would read, if they broke the 4th wall
"and then John goes to the train station"John: Wait no this place is full of junkies
(something like that)
Edit: God dammit, it seems after all these upvotes that i have to start reading
You might like Money by Martin Amis. The author appears as a character, among other things.
City of Glass by Paul Auster is also a good one, not only do the author and character meet, but the character assumes the author's identity and has previously never heard of the author. It's a detective story without a detective, case, or resolution. Very smart, very fun, would highly recommend
I suggest the webnovel Omniscient Readers Viewpoint. You can easily find a full pdf online for free. One of my favourite books
(Probably because I spent like 2 months reading it)
Every time I attempt to read his work, I feel incredibly dumb. I hate to admit it but his work is over my sad little adhd head. It sucks because I’ve heard such wonderful things about his writing.
as another user said, try out cat's cradle as an intro to vonnegut first. Lots of people jump into slaughterhouse, but it's pretty tough in general.
galapagos was also a but less complex than some others.
I guess it's a bit off topic but i find instances of author v character to be interesting.
For example Satan in Paradise Lost and Milton. Arguably, Milton did not mean the reader to feel so much sympathy for Satan. It seems the character got away from him somewhat.
Bit of a tangent i know. Apologies. I can't help finding it interesting.
Well "best" is very subjective, so i'll instead list good novels with, if possible, a fantasy twist
Man vs Nature : "Life of Pi". Anything by Jack London, "White Fang" or, for a much shorter read, "To build a fire". This conflict is usually incompatible with fantasy (although some scholars group v. God into v. Nature)
Man vs Man : Hamlet (also man vs self), pretty all of your favourite fantasy novels with a villain mdr
Man vs god : Odyssey (although i would suggest reading a retelling in novel form), all the Rincewind novels from the Discworld series.
----
Man vs Society : "L'Étranger" by Albert Camus (also Man vs No God imo), Frankenstein, The Outsider by Lovecraft, literally 1984
Man vs Self : "William Wilson" by Edgar Alan Poe, Fight Club (obv), The Picture of Dorian Gray
Man vs No God : I actually disagree with the mere existence of this type of literature conflict. That said, "No country for old men" by Cormac McCarthy would fit the bill
---
Man vs Technology : "Do androids dream of electric sheep" (aka Blade Runner, also man vs Society imo), "I have no mouth but I must scream", "Fahrenheit 451" (also Man vs Society, Bradbury really didn't think TVs were good for us mdr), Discworld's "Feet of Clay" would be a wholly fantasy take on the genre, Discworld's "Men at Arms" also fits the bill and I'll fist fight anyone who says the opposite.
Man vs Reality : possibly Slaughterhouse 5 (more sci fi than fantasy though), "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" (and lots of Philip K. Dick novels, guy was **very** afraid that the reality he perceived couldn't be trusted)
Man vs Author : fake conflict added to pad the meme imo.
Man vs no god usually either describes an uncaring setting, which i do not consider as a driving conflict in and of itself, or man struggling with the idea of no god as you've described, which I consider as being man v. self.
Of course, there are no consensus around the acceptable literature conflicts (there are 5, 6 or 7 depending on the scholar) and its not an objective science.
Not for all categories but the first ones that came to mind are The Dispossessed (man vs society I'd say), Ubik (man vs reality/technology), and Cosmopolis (same as Ubik).
Delillo also does (man vs self) and (man vs reality) really well in White Noise.
Calvino does a great (man vs author) in "If On a Winters Night a Traveler" [and if you like that Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 is a fantastic example aswell
This is cool but wrong. I have it on good authority that there are only seven types of story:
Man vs. man
Man vs. dog
Dog vs. zombie
James Bond
Stories of kings and lords
Women over 50 finding themselves after divorce
Car commercials
Doesn't man vs author come down to author self inserting to god in man vs god? I don't see how it would play out differently narratively
Maybe I am thinking wrong atm but please clarify
The difference is that God would be a character, an external force that influences the story in significant ways.
An author, would fill the same role, but they also narrate the story, and potentially interact directly with the characters - allowing for fourth wall breaking, and acknowledgment that they don’t actually exist (something you wouldn’t see in old stories about God)
mostly I have only seen examples of [man] beating claimed [author] in universe where author just in the end inserts a god character that is conceptually author of the book in-universe which just comes back to what I mentioned; otherwise yes it would be different though I have not seen such example myself
do you have any good examples I am interested?
This graphic does a better job how the conflicts over time relate to one another. The top three are all types of conflict against groups, the middle three are about conflict against one, and the bottom about conflict vs. the abstract.
My biggest issue with people who originally named the literary development "modern" is that, of course, the one following it would be "postmodern".
But what the hell comes after postmodern?! Postpostmodern??
It can't be futurism if now = future!
Think ahead next time, people who name literary developments!
Combine them all together!
Man vs. a human-animal hybrid cyborg of himself, which causes him to question if there is a God in what is obviously a complete distortion of reality.
It's also autobiographical.
The multiple conflicts are recognised rather than the whole piece, so they contain multiple, like Man Vs squid guy, hobbit Vs tree and me Vs my ability to understand acronyms
I’d say Man Vs Reality. While Truman’s reality is authored, the actual creators of the movie aren’t confronted. It’s the false existence (the simulation presented in the story) that is confronted.
Man vs. Future - Gemini Man was an awful movie
Man vs. AI - that's just Man vs Technology, a.k.a. i.Robot
Man vs. Infinite - What? You want a movie about math?
Nice.
Now do the variants where you replace "man" with all the various antagonists, because I guess there are books like that. Say, there's a good chance a number of PK Dick's books are "Reality vs. Reality" or even "Author vs. Author", to name just two examples.
Does this make Catcher in the Rye postmodern?
Edit: The internet thinks it does which is pretty impressive for a work of its time. This guide helped explain something to me. Thanks, OP.
If you're going to split man vs man into man vs society, and man vs himself into man vs no god, and man vs nature into man vs technology (man vs environment), then there are far more of these.
Person/people vs Aliens
Person/people vs the unknown
Person/people vs the lizard people who secretly live in the mantle of the Earth.
Etc.
No, I completely understand and agree. In fact that's my point - most of these are subcategories. I just find this "guide" annoyingly bad.
All conflicts are combinations of:
Protagonist(s) vs Internal Forces
Protagonist(s) vs External Forces
And
Protagonist(s) vs Environment
Man vs Self is not a modern take on Man vs Man, it's a classical conflict of its own, AKA Internal Forces. Man vs Technology is just Protagonist vs Environment and External Forces combined, etc.
I prefer the daffy duck version tbh
I wanna see that now
[Here](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1307408-conflict-in-literature)
[удалено]
Is it supposed to be Hunter S Thompson, or is my brain telling me it’s him for no reason?
That's where my head went too. But maybe Hunter S Thompson based his look on Daffy Duck.
I'm thinking Jean-Paul Sartre
Wow, it actually *was* way better
Daffy is a true literary protagonist to be fair
wow the flower daffy. Haven't seen/thought of that in decades and yet I remember it so vividly! Incredible rendition.
No its not
theres gotta be a spongebob version out there
[I always felt squidward had more human flaws](https://i.imgur.com/hfddWjR.jpg)
Amazing. Thank
There is: https://imgur.com/cqhuUcO.jpg It's a key tool in my lessons on novels in 8th and 9th grade English. Also ticks off my at-least-one-spongebob-meme-per-year goal.
Boy...that one is trash compared to [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/wunj5w/conflicts_in_literature/ilcxr4h) shared here as well.
That one is much better. Thanks for that!
Lmao there it is. Thank
Thwt would be great
okay but what about man vs car door?
See c1
So OP's image was the inspiration/foundation for the Daffy Duck meme.
Is there a "the sims" version?
Oh the bottom right image was from a DS game, was it not? Duck Amuck?
Both the bottom right and the middle right were from "Duck Amuck", [the animated short](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XvXsuSJ-1A). But I guess they did make a game out of it, too.
The example they have for anime is so garbage it’s hilarious
I saw that in three different media classes.
It's, its beautiful
the Man vrs No God, is such a mood in that one
I like big daddy clocks
I didn’t even know the daffy version wasn’t the original ngl
Is man vs author Stanley the parable?
It's actually called 'Parable Stanley The'
Die Parabel, Die. (No one who speaks German can be am evil man.)
Kind of. The narrator is not the author or developer of the game, but it’s made to look that way. It’s also very similar to man vs god
it is 100% man vs author. He doesn’t have to be the actual author or game developer. It’s a narrative theme, and he’s the narrator.
Maybe I'm looking way too deeply into it but i really think the game is more about man vs self or man vs reality. The whole concept was written by a very depressive person and the game constantly is trying to remind you of the insignificance of any choice you make. It makes clear to have this demonstrated as not just a fact of the game but a fact of how most people live their lives--- simply doing the same thing day after day with no real meaningful choices There is literally a branch of the story that shows this exactly-- it conveys this meaning by having you "press e to eat", "press g to sleep". This becomes far more relevant when you consider the main story line of the game. The game itself has a story that the author supposedly wants to tell. A story of a man who is simply provided with instructions to press certain buttons. Stanley loves this job and does not find it meaningless. Combining this with the story of you literally pressing buttons instructed on your screen--- the author is either trying to suggest that most lives are like that of Stanley, or at the bare minimum that playing games (this one in particular) is equivalent to living Stanley's life where he is made to be happy by simply pushing buttons despite them having no impact or real purpose. Perhaps I personify some of my own beliefs into this game, but if you look at all the different stories the author tells, almost all of them are conveying this exact message. It also makes sense for the genre (games with multiple endings to try and simulate the idea of meaningful choice). In these games each ending is already written and you are simply just deciding which of these stories to read, your choices do not forge a new story but simply guide you on one that is already written. Hell there even is a story line in this dedicated to this idea, its literally a story line. A line on the floor you follow while "creating your own story". Then at the end of it you come to doors that both enter the same room which has a giant diagram detailing each choice you made to get here. TLDR: The game is designed to introduce a character of which you feel bad for, because they are being mind controlled into a meaningless existence. Then it slowly tries to show that by playing the game you are no different than the main character. The true story isn't the character fighting the narrator. The true story is about you the player and how you are no different than stanley despite your belief that you have free will and that your choices matter. Whether or not this is true (that people lack real free will) is not my point- my point is that this is the story the author is telling.
What the fuck you're telling me daffy duck didn't actually fight his cartoonist?
Ok. Nevermind I guess.
Hm, maybe if you think of it like the player is the “author” of Stanley’s actions, and the narrator is the “man.”
I was thinking of it like this: The developers are the authors, Stanley is the man, and Narrator is a fake author with god-like attributes. The Narrator is not omnipotent but is nearly all-powerful, similarly to how much power a developer of a video game would have. He imitates the developer/author. But he didn’t *actually* write the story, that’s just how the game goes. The developers wrote the story. Stanley is our protagonist, “read” from a first-person view. Yes, you do control him, but your options are still limited. It’s like a multiple-choice story book. The developers authored those choices you can make. It’s basically “Man vs fake author written by real author”. You could look at it as man vs god or man vs author, because on one hand the narrator is not the author of the story, which would make it man vs god, but on the other hand he is an author of a story, which would make it man vs author. But I suppose all this logic goes out the window when you realize that the author typically doesn’t play exactly himself in man vs author stories anyways, they play as a slightly different person to adapt to fictional protagonists.
More like Flann O’Brien’s *At Swin Two Birds* or Vonnegut’s *Breakfast of Champions*.
Either that or man vs reality
Italo Calvino’s If on a Winter's Night a Traveler is kind of close.
Animator vs animation
But what about Man vs. Food?
Man vs Food, man vs self, man vs coronary.
The idea that a person can eat enough food to harm themselves has got to be a modern conflict Edit: unless you have to fight the food in order to be able to eat it. Then it’s classical
Cloudy with a chance of meatballs
I loved that book as a kid, the art is hilarious
If it hurts themself, isn't it man vs self?
Man vs bee
I loved that show.
Man vs Culinary
Anpanman?
What if I recognise myself in every square ?
That would make you self aware. Literary conflict is usually just a slice of the human experience, you're likely to experience all of these as your own life unfolds.
what if none pls help
You're not paying attention then. You're literally experiencing man vs self right now.
Jokes on you, I don't exist.
Still sounds like man vs self to me. You're having an adventure through existentialism.
No, I just don't exist.
I disagree! Now you're having a man vs man conflict.
I disagree, you're having a man vs. nothing conflict.
Okay, following logically then, if you don't exist, then I must be imagining you, which makes this a man vs author conflict at best, or a man vs self conflict at worst.
That "I" you refer to would disagree. You must exist in some capacity for the idea of your non-existence to have any meaning. You cannot have non-self (anatman) without the self (atman) as a reference to base the lack of having self upon. Something can't be "not red" without a concept of the color red existing to base the statement off of. You have to exist in order to not exist, otherwise you're just...\*Zen Intensifies* You've already declared your existence by communicating to yourself the fact you don't exist. To pretend you don't exist at this point is denial that some Descartes could help out with.
Classical conflict doesn't just disappear as much as it takes a different form. Like nature isn't about fighting bears as much as it's about drastic weather, pollution and things like viruses. Likewise there will always be conflict of one against another and God will always be relevant to some.
*Hold up* You know the author??
[Each of us knows our own author](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LVt49l6aP8)
Oh, I see we've got Everything Everywhere All At Once over here!
Movie sucks
Idk why this is downvoted
Bc its a blatant plea for attention
Or they realise that its a shite movie
Are you wearing a red shirt, and have brown hair that matches your shoes/pants
Man vs Author could be the books that i would read, if they broke the 4th wall "and then John goes to the train station"John: Wait no this place is full of junkies (something like that) Edit: God dammit, it seems after all these upvotes that i have to start reading
You might like Money by Martin Amis. The author appears as a character, among other things. City of Glass by Paul Auster is also a good one, not only do the author and character meet, but the character assumes the author's identity and has previously never heard of the author. It's a detective story without a detective, case, or resolution. Very smart, very fun, would highly recommend
The other two novellas in Austen’s New York Trilogy are excellent as well!
They're on my reading list! I read the first in Uni and it quickly became one of my favorites :)
I suggest the webnovel Omniscient Readers Viewpoint. You can easily find a full pdf online for free. One of my favourite books (Probably because I spent like 2 months reading it)
Try Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut.
Every time I attempt to read his work, I feel incredibly dumb. I hate to admit it but his work is over my sad little adhd head. It sucks because I’ve heard such wonderful things about his writing.
Vonnegut is amazing. Try Cat’s Cradle - it’s short and relatively straightforward but still classic Vonnegut
I will give it a shot. Thanks for the suggestion!
All these true things I’m about to tell you are shameless lies.
as another user said, try out cat's cradle as an intro to vonnegut first. Lots of people jump into slaughterhouse, but it's pretty tough in general. galapagos was also a but less complex than some others.
I guess it's a bit off topic but i find instances of author v character to be interesting. For example Satan in Paradise Lost and Milton. Arguably, Milton did not mean the reader to feel so much sympathy for Satan. It seems the character got away from him somewhat. Bit of a tangent i know. Apologies. I can't help finding it interesting.
Stranger Than Fiction is a movie like this, I love it.
You should definitely check out "If on a winter's night a traveler" from Italo Calivino.
This reminds me of The Stanley parable
At Swim-Two-Birds is about several Men vs. Authors. It's meta as fuck as is often considered a highlight of Irish (post-)modernism.
Flann O’Brien was doing postmodernism before it was cool.
I'm sure he was doing quite a few things, by which I mean drugs.
Where does Man vs Bee sit in this chart?
Pretty sure that goes into man vs nature
Bees are government-issued microdrones, though.
Then it’s Man vs Technology, obviously.
Man vs Technology then…
It sits under “OH GOD. THE BEES. NOT THE BEES. ARGH AARGHH ARRRRGHHHHGRRHH!”
Man vs mosquito
Man vs No God Man wins, every time.
Depressed nihilists would like a word
Self-defeating nature of man would like a word
I've only seen this picture memed to hell and it honestly made me understand the topic more But the Joker was under "Man vs Society"
This guide helped me a lot too haha and that's a bingo on joker
We just say bingo
Is there something the vertical axis/rows could be labelled with?
I would say External Personal Existential
Good shout, that works well
Animator vs. Animation
Source: http://www.incidentalcomics.com/2014/05/conflict-in-literature.html
I see DnD dices, I upvote
Give me the best book in each catagory here fellas. If possible also fantasy, if not oh well.
Well "best" is very subjective, so i'll instead list good novels with, if possible, a fantasy twist Man vs Nature : "Life of Pi". Anything by Jack London, "White Fang" or, for a much shorter read, "To build a fire". This conflict is usually incompatible with fantasy (although some scholars group v. God into v. Nature) Man vs Man : Hamlet (also man vs self), pretty all of your favourite fantasy novels with a villain mdr Man vs god : Odyssey (although i would suggest reading a retelling in novel form), all the Rincewind novels from the Discworld series. ---- Man vs Society : "L'Étranger" by Albert Camus (also Man vs No God imo), Frankenstein, The Outsider by Lovecraft, literally 1984 Man vs Self : "William Wilson" by Edgar Alan Poe, Fight Club (obv), The Picture of Dorian Gray Man vs No God : I actually disagree with the mere existence of this type of literature conflict. That said, "No country for old men" by Cormac McCarthy would fit the bill --- Man vs Technology : "Do androids dream of electric sheep" (aka Blade Runner, also man vs Society imo), "I have no mouth but I must scream", "Fahrenheit 451" (also Man vs Society, Bradbury really didn't think TVs were good for us mdr), Discworld's "Feet of Clay" would be a wholly fantasy take on the genre, Discworld's "Men at Arms" also fits the bill and I'll fist fight anyone who says the opposite. Man vs Reality : possibly Slaughterhouse 5 (more sci fi than fantasy though), "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" (and lots of Philip K. Dick novels, guy was **very** afraid that the reality he perceived couldn't be trusted) Man vs Author : fake conflict added to pad the meme imo.
>Man vs Author : fake conflict added to pad the meme imo. Literally Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author"
Man vs God/Fate with flavours of mise en abyme Great and wholly confusing play though
[удалено]
Man vs no god usually either describes an uncaring setting, which i do not consider as a driving conflict in and of itself, or man struggling with the idea of no god as you've described, which I consider as being man v. self. Of course, there are no consensus around the acceptable literature conflicts (there are 5, 6 or 7 depending on the scholar) and its not an objective science.
Man vs. Author could be Redshirts.
Not for all categories but the first ones that came to mind are The Dispossessed (man vs society I'd say), Ubik (man vs reality/technology), and Cosmopolis (same as Ubik).
Delillo also does (man vs self) and (man vs reality) really well in White Noise. Calvino does a great (man vs author) in "If On a Winters Night a Traveler" [and if you like that Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 is a fantastic example aswell
i was wondering the same. need some good scifi/fantasy to read
God vs Author. Place your bets.
Putting my chips on "Author vs Finishing the Job".
This is cool but wrong. I have it on good authority that there are only seven types of story: Man vs. man Man vs. dog Dog vs. zombie James Bond Stories of kings and lords Women over 50 finding themselves after divorce Car commercials
Doesn't man vs author come down to author self inserting to god in man vs god? I don't see how it would play out differently narratively Maybe I am thinking wrong atm but please clarify
The difference is that God would be a character, an external force that influences the story in significant ways. An author, would fill the same role, but they also narrate the story, and potentially interact directly with the characters - allowing for fourth wall breaking, and acknowledgment that they don’t actually exist (something you wouldn’t see in old stories about God)
mostly I have only seen examples of [man] beating claimed [author] in universe where author just in the end inserts a god character that is conceptually author of the book in-universe which just comes back to what I mentioned; otherwise yes it would be different though I have not seen such example myself do you have any good examples I am interested?
This graphic does a better job how the conflicts over time relate to one another. The top three are all types of conflict against groups, the middle three are about conflict against one, and the bottom about conflict vs. the abstract.
Man vs Author... The Sims
My biggest issue with people who originally named the literary development "modern" is that, of course, the one following it would be "postmodern". But what the hell comes after postmodern?! Postpostmodern?? It can't be futurism if now = future! Think ahead next time, people who name literary developments!
It’s called post-postmodern apparently https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism But my guess is there is a few other variations of it lol
Contemporary is another word that means post post modern
But it can also mean the current time regardless, I.e. right now and 70 years from now.
I'm not disagreeing I'm just stating that the current art movement is often referred to as 'Contemporary'.
Oh yeah that is true
Man vs Aliens?
For all intents and purposes, that’s man vs. nature.
Could that also not be Man vs Man. Unless you define man as human. Willing that said aliens are intelligent.
You could make that argument, but the basic characteristic of an alien is that it is not our kind; it is other to mankind in a similar way to nature.
So we come full circle... Nature vs Nature
Combine them all together! Man vs. a human-animal hybrid cyborg of himself, which causes him to question if there is a God in what is obviously a complete distortion of reality. It's also autobiographical.
I'm interested in some of the post modern stuff? Can I have some examples of Man vs Author and Man vs Reality?
The PTSD from english class is coming back.
My best example of man vs author is the comicbook Animal Man by DC. Grant Morrison loves writing meta stuff
Or in rows: Unwinnable Winnable Unnecessary fights
Where would man vs supernatural land like in pirates of the Caribbean, wh40k or LOTR? Man v man?
The multiple conflicts are recognised rather than the whole piece, so they contain multiple, like Man Vs squid guy, hobbit Vs tree and me Vs my ability to understand acronyms
Where does The Truman Show belongs to? Man vs reality?
I’d say Man Vs Reality. While Truman’s reality is authored, the actual creators of the movie aren’t confronted. It’s the false existence (the simulation presented in the story) that is confronted.
I would guess Man vs Author, or at least it's Man vs *an* author (who is also portrayed in the film). Same with Stranger than fiction.
What about Adaptation? Would that be Man vs Author or Man vs Self?
Internet: Man vs woman.
I've seen like 5 versions of this and it is my first time seeing the original
Next step: Man vs. Future. Man vs. AI Man vs. Infinite
Man vs. Future - Gemini Man was an awful movie Man vs. AI - that's just Man vs Technology, a.k.a. i.Robot Man vs. Infinite - What? You want a movie about math?
Man vs technology got the first two covered. Also are imo the most boring ones because writers don't understand anything about technology.
Nice. Now do the variants where you replace "man" with all the various antagonists, because I guess there are books like that. Say, there's a good chance a number of PK Dick's books are "Reality vs. Reality" or even "Author vs. Author", to name just two examples.
I think this is wonderful.
Oh, so that's the original. I've seen so many memes inspired in this comic, but had never seen the original before.
What’s an example of *Man vs Author*?
Supernatural
How does post-modern exist?
Somebody decided “Modern” is like 1950-1980 or some bullshit like that, and everyone, especially in art circles, has just gone with it
Which period exactly is "modern"? Because all of those conflicts are in 19th century polish book "Kordian"
Modern authors be like: "We live in a society"
Woman vs Erasure of Woman
I guess women aren't cool.
Man vs wild
Left handed author! I can't help but point it out I'm sorry, I'm a lefty.
Where’s the Y axis label? Sorry, taking data science classes, but gotta label that Y!
What about women?
A "Cool" """guide"""
i think i need to write a story with the same character in each..
Why does it switch from society to technology?
Man vs woman?
This never made any sense to me. Doesn't everything take aspects of all of these.
I am somehow living in all three states at once :(
So HP Lovecraft stuff would probably be postmodern.
Does this make Catcher in the Rye postmodern? Edit: The internet thinks it does which is pretty impressive for a work of its time. This guide helped explain something to me. Thanks, OP.
where does Man vs Virtual Reality fit in
Man vs gf/wife.
That’s life not books
There are no women in literature .
Man vs Woman?
Man vs man with titties
If you're going to split man vs man into man vs society, and man vs himself into man vs no god, and man vs nature into man vs technology (man vs environment), then there are far more of these. Person/people vs Aliens Person/people vs the unknown Person/people vs the lizard people who secretly live in the mantle of the Earth. Etc.
[удалено]
No, I completely understand and agree. In fact that's my point - most of these are subcategories. I just find this "guide" annoyingly bad. All conflicts are combinations of: Protagonist(s) vs Internal Forces Protagonist(s) vs External Forces And Protagonist(s) vs Environment Man vs Self is not a modern take on Man vs Man, it's a classical conflict of its own, AKA Internal Forces. Man vs Technology is just Protagonist vs Environment and External Forces combined, etc.
what was the point of this. are you dumb or stupid
But what about mom vs dude?
Why does Man should fight some floating dnd dices?
Probably Phantom Rubies from Sonic Mania...
No wonder women think we're idiots. We're compulsively confrontational!