Sometimes I watch animes where there's essentially no conflict, the only ripples are things like "OOPS forgot to the grocery store!" And it's like... "oh well, I'll go tomorrow".

And tbh, I wish it were more acceptable for books to be like that.

Like sometimes I want these big, daunting plots, but sometimes I want to just spend time with the characters, not waiting for that moment your stomach drops.

Sometimes I just really dread knowing that something "big" has to come next.

There's something truly exhausting in the idea that all stakes must be high and the main character must always "lose everything" before the climax.

Those things work, and sometimes, they're perfect, but sometimes I just... don't want alla that.

I do wanna say, I don't write these threads because I expect publishing to suddenly listen to me and change everything they do.

Rather, I feel like there are so many times people ascribe to certain tenants of writing as "fact" instead of questioning why.

More than anything, I'd just like people to start doing that questioning. Does this book *need* more conflict, or have you been conditioned to believe that's all that drives a story?

Are you strengthening the book or refusing to see the author's vision? It could be either.

At the end of the day, I think the more we question these things, the more types of stories we can tell & the more types of readers we can satisfy.

Even if that means only 1 book gets put out without the author having to constantly "raise the stakes", I think that's valuable.

Also, for reference, I write a lot of high concept books. I just don't think all books should strive to be high concept.

And even among books that *are* high concept, I think the amount of conflict we need varies. It shouldn't just be what makes "the most" conflict all the time.