Fixed Attitude and the Change character

It’s okay for a character (IC or MC) whose Throughline Domain is Fixed Attitude to change that attitude as part of their MC or IC Resolve of Change, isn’t it? So as part of adopting their Solution, they also change their attitude?

Followup question: is it required that such a character change their attitude? I think they’re only required to adopt their Solution, but I’m not certain on this.

(I was getting confused because of the recent discussion, and Jim’s recently referenced vault article, on how Situation and Fixed Attitude describe things that are “stuck”. I forgot that those can become unstuck by resolving the conflict and thus bringing the story to a conclusion!)

I’m no expert, by any means, but I think a Change Fixed Attitude character adopting the solution will change their attitude inevitably. The Binary nature of the elements makes sure of that.

Let’s say we have a story about Joan (our MC), and she is a determined racist (I never said she’d be likeable!). Joan has her fixed attitude that everyone except for her own race is inherently bad. During a Presidential Election, all candidates on both sides are not of her own race. As a result, Joan cannot find it in herself to support them. She protests their involvement, doing anything to avoid them getting power (Problem of Oppose). Over time, she will be faced with problems that test her attitudes through one way or another (I won’t illustrate all of that). But by the end of the story, Joan has seen and experienced more than enough to show her that supporting these people of other races and histories is not a bad thing (Solution of Support).

Joan went from a racist woman with an Opposition problem to a tolerant woman capable of Supporting those that she initially dismissed. That’s a big change in attitude, but it all stems from the Problem/Solution.

I think the transition from Problem to Solution, along with the MC Growth (if you’re working on an MC), will inevitably make the character change their attitude.

1 Like

Thanks Jamie. Great example.

I do wonder if it might be possible to have an MC (or IC) who Changes but sticks with her Fixed Attitude, growing in it, where that growth in the same attitude is shown by adopting the Solution.

Let me twist poor Joan’s story above (which sounded like a Judgement: Good story). Let’s say through the course of the story she sticks with her racist attitude – maybe she becomes even more intolerant – and eventually decides to Support a group of neo-Nazis who are planning to assassinate both candidates at the televised presidential debates. This sounds like Judgement: Bad but I think it’s still a valid Change Resolve, without changing the Fixed Attitude.

(I wonder if the Judgement is directly related, i.e. it tells you whether you restored balance to the MC throughline, and by not changing the Fixed Attitude you fail to restore balance hence Judgement: Bad?)

Sorry I seem to be representing Non-Accurate tonight – looking for the exception to the theory!

1 Like

A character that grows into their attitude is definitely a Steadfast character. Jim has a great article on that. They don’t change, but they become more ‘informed’ in their behaviour. I’d also say if an MC/IC doesn’t change their domain ‘topic’, that’s a very clear Steadfast character. If the Racist remains a racist at the end, but in a slightly different way (actively supporting an assassination), she’s still a racist – she’s just grown into her resolve (her mother must be so proud).

I’m not sure on what is the ‘correct’ way to approach Steadfast problem/solution because the theory has evolved so much (I continue to wish for an updated theory book!). That might be for @jhull or someone else that is an expert in the theory to clarify. At one point, the solution was the thing that would ‘satisfy’ what the IC was driven by. Now, I think the consensus is that the solution is the thing that demotivates the IC.

The Judgment seems to be related to an extent. The theory says that the decision to Change results in the audience judging the Outcome as Good/Bad. So that depends on your specific story. I’m going to write another example because it’s fun and I’m filled with political anger.

We have a Bank Robber (Jackson) who has a determined hatred of the government, and the goal is to rob the bank.

Jackson’s whole intention is to show the world that the government, media and banks are crooks, to make them stop “chasing the dream” and avoid any kind of lies the world is attempting to construct. Unfortunately, Jackson changes his mind on how to go about handling the situation constantly. Offered an easy opportunity to leave, or being offered ransom deals if he lets the hostages go, Jackson constantly changes his mind on what he wants (Reconsider). He starts to see that maybe his problems came about because of himself and his poor investments, his misplaced naiveté, or simple inability to make decisions. He thinks seriously and comes to the conclusion that maybe he was the problem, and the banks aren’t all that bad, that the government is okay and just as screwed up as the rest of us – after all, they’re trying to rescue the hostages (Consider). As he steps out of the bank to surrender, he’s shot and killed by the army without a second thought and paraded around the world as a terrorist.

Jackson changed from a guy angrily Reconsidering his place in the system to a guy that Considers the government the good guy. That change got him killed, resulting in a very bad ending for him. Obviously, the Outcome of that story would also be failure, but the point is that any Change character will definitely change from Problem to Solution in terms of whatever it is that the Domain says. The MC or IC will stop the problematic activities/the bad situation/the flawed thinking/the attitude that’s caused the problem.

Also, don’t apologise! We’re all students. Every question’s a good one.

2 Likes

These are both correct.

1 Like

This is not a Changed Resolve. The Fixed Attitude that was giving her a problem is still there and will likely cause her more problems. It can sometimes help to think what “Situation” she would move into during the Changed perspective. @jamjam1794’s example above you could see her becoming an advocate for minority rights, etc.

Thanks Jamie. I read your reply carefully and also read Jim’s article about Steadfast growth - great stuff.

I think I see the problem with my twist on the Joan example now – even when she decides to support the assassination, the character (Joan) is still driven by her opposition to the candidates, which is motivated by her racist attitude. So it’s not a valid "adopting the Solution" because she does not resolve her Problem, she is still driven by it.

Regarding the apologising, that was mostly my way of being able to make a Dramatica in joke!

1 Like

Thanks Jim. I cross-posted with you, but I basically came to the same understanding from Jamie’s post and your Surf’s Up article.

One super-important part of Dramatica that I did not initially get was how the thoughlines’ Domain / Concern / Issue / Problem are all different magnification levels of the same thing. It seemed to me that the Problem was the thing that needed to be resolved (it’s called Problem!) while everything else was just background setting / theme / character stuff. I now see that everything is much more interconnected!

In fact, when I first saw your examples of using gists to create story ideas without going down to the Problem or even Issue level (like some of the examples in your newsletter), I kind of felt you were cheating or not going deep enough. (I think that might be normal for people new to Dramatica, who can identify with the theme-y Variations and character-y Elements a lot better than weird-seeming Concerns or vague-seeming Domains.) I now see the rich meaning you can get even without going all the way to Element level. I might even use that technique to create a basic form for my series! Since I know the details of book one well but don’t have enough details on the series to storyform it all the way.

1 Like