Despite what I think is exceptionally good advice from many about adding conflict to a
tale, I wonder if you cannot overpower the readership with extended conflict. I enjoy conflict in novels and lots of it so was intrigued by this post. I agree it is essential (except in very few novels) and the more the merrier. As far as I am concerned. Yet, during even the most conflict filled novels the reader needs a rest. Or some humor, an oasis if you will.
Even "Olympos" (don't worry my spelling is correct, I did not mean "Olympus") by multi award winning author Dan Simmons, who tells of a multi-faceted display of eternal conflict that starts on "Mount Olympus" home of the Grecian gods during the siege of Troy but lasts for so long a time that it continues on "Olympos Mons" (the highest mountain on Mars which dwarfs Everest).
Oh yes, Zues and the other deities of the Greek Pantheon, supported by the ancient greek heroes are besieged by the heroes of Troy with the help of a machine intelligence from one of the moons of Jupiter, Scientists, and soldiers from throughout the ages and upon Olympos Mons in an endless war the last gods of Greece must make a stand.
Athena and Hera, with the help of Odysseus and Demeter ravage the humans and swat aside nuclear weapons as Archaeon, Paris, and a bunch of twenty-second century marines, mine the lower fringes of Olympos Mons.
Dan Simmons meant it to be the ultimate conflict novel but even he had to take a breath here and there and if you have read his other novels this was as clever and majestic as most. He was always a clever writer wither writing about American history, Polar expeditions or nineteenth century England. Lol- he just decided to really go for it in this one.