You've mapped out your story. The protagonist wants something, the antagonist stands in their way, and boom—conflict. Except when you read it back, something feels off. Your detective conveniently finds the critical clue at exactly the right moment. Your villain makes bizarrely poor decisions that only exist to move your plot forward. Your characters argue dramatically, but readers ask "Why didn't they just text each other?"

Welcome to the world of forced logic, where your conflict creates more problems than it solves.

Here's the counterintuitive fix: Robert McKee's Oblique Approach to conflict. Instead of characters confronting problems head-on (which often requires contrived circumstances to work), they pursue their goals indirectly, through the angles and opportunities actually available to them. This technique doesn't just patch plot holes—it prevents them from forming in the first place.

What Is the Oblique Approach?

In his book Story, Robert McKee distinguishes between direct confrontation and oblique strategy. Direct conflict means your character charges straight at their obstacle. Oblique conflict means they come at it sideways, adapting to circumstances, using available resources, and sometimes pursuing one goal as a means to achieve another.

Think of it this way: In direct conflict, your character needs a locked door opened, so they find the key. But where did the key come from? Why was it findable? The plot often strains to provide it.

In oblique conflict, your character needs that door opened, so they befriend the security guard over several weeks, learning about his sick daughter, eventually getting invited to bring soup to his family, gaining his trust—and only then asking for access "just this once" for an invented reason that seems small compared to their established relationship.

One approach requires you to engineer circumstances. The other flows naturally from the world you've built.

Why Plot Holes Love Direct Conflict

Direct conflict seems efficient. Your hero wants X, villain blocks X, they fight over X. Simple, right?

But reality is rarely so accommodating. When you force characters into direct confrontation, you inevitably face the "why don't they just..." questions:

- Why doesn't the hero call the police?
- Why doesn't the villain just shoot them immediately?
- Why do they keep meeting in the same café?
- Why doesn't anyone use Google?

Each question represents a potential plot hole you have to patch with increasingly elaborate explanations. Your character can't call the police because... uh... the police are corrupt! The villain doesn't shoot because... they want information first! They meet at the café because... it's their special place!

These aren't necessarily bad answers, but they're patches. You're creating new logical requirements to justify your existing conflict structure.

How the Oblique Approach Eliminates Plot Holes

The Oblique Approach works by aligning your conflict with natural human behavior and circumstantial reality. Instead of asking "What must be true for this confrontation to happen?" you ask "Given what IS true, how would someone actually pursue this goal?"

This reverses the engineering process. You're not forcing circumstances to justify conflict—you're discovering conflict that emerges organically from circumstances.

The technique has three core steps:

1. Map Your Character's Actual Resources

List what your character genuinely has access to: relationships, skills, information, money, time, location. Not what they need for your plot—what they actually have based on who they are and where they've been.

2. Identify Indirect Pathways

Instead of "How do they get X?" ask "What could they get that might lead toward X?" or "Who might help them reach X if they provided something in return?"

3. Let Obstacles Redirect Strategy, Not Block It

When characters hit walls, they don't break through or conveniently find doors. They go around, adapt their goals, or pursue different angles. Each obstacle changes their approach, creating new scenes rather than requiring logical gymnastics.

The Oblique Approach in Action

Let's examine a concrete example. You're writing a thriller where your protagonist needs to access a criminal's financial records to prove their guilt.

Direct Approach (Plot-Hole Prone):
Your protagonist hacks into the bank. Now you need to explain why: the bank has weak security (undermines stakes), your protagonist is secretly a hacker (comes from nowhere), or they hire a hacker who conveniently succeeds (removes protagonist agency). Each solution creates new logical problems or character inconsistencies.

Oblique Approach:
Your protagonist can't hack anything. But they notice the criminal's accountant at a local gym. They:
- Join the gym (using resources they actually have: time, money for membership)
- Strike up conversations over weeks (using their established personality—maybe they're naturally friendly, or they force themselves despite being introverted, adding character dimension)
- Learn the accountant is frustrated with their job, feels morally compromised
- Create an opportunity for the accountant to "accidentally" leave documents visible during a coffee meeting
- The accountant doesn't hand over files (too risky), but mentions specific discrepancies your protagonist can investigate through public records

Notice what happened: Instead of one contrived scene (the hack), you have a sequence of believable interactions. Instead of straining credibility, you've added texture—the accountant becomes a real character with motivations, the protagonist demonstrates resourcefulness that fits who they are, and readers never think "why didn't they just..."

The plot hole never forms because you never created the circumstance requiring it.

When to Apply This Technique

The Oblique Approach is particularly powerful when you find yourself:

- Writing "As you know, Bob" dialogue to explain why characters can't do the obvious thing
- Creating convenient coincidences to enable your conflict
- Having characters behave uncharacteristically to maintain your plot
- Facing reader feedback about "unrealistic" character decisions

These symptoms signal forced direct conflict. The Oblique Approach provides your escape route.

The Beautiful Consequence

Here's the bonus: Stories built on oblique conflict feel more sophisticated because they mirror how intelligent people actually operate. We rarely charge directly at obstacles. We negotiate, manipulate, befriend, trade, wait, distract, and maneuver.

Your antagonist doesn't confront the hero in the street—they undermine the hero's reputation with their employer. Your detective doesn't magically find evidence—they cultivate informants over time. Your lovers don't declare their feelings—they create situations where closeness becomes natural.

Each oblique approach eliminates a potential plot hole while adding depth, realism, and often surprise.

Getting Started

Review your current manuscript for scenes where characters directly confront their obstacles. Ask: "Given what this character actually knows, has access to, and is capable of, would they really do this?" If the answer requires justification, you've found your opportunity.

Rewrite the scene as a series of indirect maneuvers. Watch your plot holes seal themselves and your story gain dimension in the process.