Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35461
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35461
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It depends. In these matters, it always depends. It it advances or enriches the story, leave it in; if not, leave it out. There is no general rule that says such and such a thing always advances the story or such and such a thing never advances the story. It is always about the role it plays in the context of a specific story.

I'd frankly be more worried about whether the argument itself will feel contrived or boring if it is being used to tell us something about a secondary character that does not matter much to the main story. If you don't feel the need to finish a story arc, you should seriously question whether you needed to start the story arc.

If the argument matters enough to be in the story, then presumably the resolution of the argument matters enough to at least be mentioned in the story. You could, of course, accomplish this simply by saying "Tom and Mary made up later after he apologized and she made his favorite dessert for supper."

But if you are working in a narrative mode that allows you to say things like that (horrors! telling!) then you could reveal the information you want to reveal about Mary in the same way. "Mary never felt confident in public speaking after an unfortunate incident in the grade two play that involved three lines of poetry and a desperate need to pee."

Original score: 7