Relationship fixed attitude

questions
#1

Hi everyone, new to the message boards and finding them helpful, but there is one topic I’m struggling to wrap my head around – Relationship Story with a domain of “fixed attitude.”

Do the MC and IC have fixed attitudes about each other, or the nature of the relationship, or life in general?

I was looking at the examples of “RS, fixed attitude” on the theory pages, but the summaries all seem to describe each character and how their attitudes are “fixed” which seems more like MC/IC issues, rather than a “we” issue.

Any insight would be appreciated! Thanks!

#2

This link with a number of examples from various films may be helpful.

#3

Thanks! Yes, those examples are what I was referring to and what led me down this line of questioning. I’m struggling with understanding the difference between the MC and IC having differing opinions/beliefs (which is going to happen in any story) and how those “Fixed attitudes” come into play when the RS is in the “fixed attitude” domain.

In other words, what makes a RS with “fixed attitude” different than say a RS with a domain of “situation”, where the MC and IC have opposing opinions/beliefs?

#4

Keep in mind the RS examines the source of the conflict within the relationship. Your question regarding the domain of situation actually points toward fixed attitude. An RS focusing on a situation would examine the source of conflict between an MC and IC as being based in a situation - for example, in To Kill a Mockingbird, MC Scout and IC Boo Radley have an RS of Situation, the conflict between them born from their being situated in close proximity/sharing the same neighborhood. Regardless of what Scout’s attitude of Boo might be, it stems from their being situated in the same neighborhood. In a fixed attitude RS, the MC and IC would butt heads as a result of their fixed attitudes. In activities, the activity (or activities) would be the source of the conflict.

1 Like
#5

My take is that the RS is about the source of conflict but doesn’t necessarily describe the entirety of the conflict. Yes an RS in Situation will find the source of its conflict in a Situation, but that doesn’t stop the characters from also disagreeing about different attitudes or arguing over actions or whatever.

The source of conflict between competitors would be a competition, but they might also argue other things ("you shouldn’t have said that about me to the reporter " or “stay away from my sister” or whatever).

Look at the Braveheart description. William hates the English and Robert accepts his dad’s attitude. This is what the conflict is about. But the last line of the description says neither is willing to yield. This is why there is conflict. If one were willing to yield regarding what they were determined to do, the others attitude would not be a problem.

Now look at the description for The Fugitive. The description makes it sound like the fixed attitudes are Kimbles insistence that he is innocent and Gerard’s belief that Kimbles innocence is irrelevant. But Kimbles innocence isn’t an attitude, it’s a fact. And if Gerard thinks his innocence is irrelevant, then he has no problematic fixed attitude about it. So that’s what they are conflicting about. The reason why they are in conflict though is because Gerard is determined to take Kimble in rather than let him clear his name or whatever. If Kimble quit claiming innocence, there would still be conflict because he still needs to clear his name. If Gerard determined that Kimble was innocent, there’d still be conflict because he still needs to bring him in. But if Gerard weren’t determined to bring Kimble in the conflict between them would disappear.

#6

I think everyone’s comments are pretty good, so I just wanted to add that I struggle with the same problem. I frequently look at every Throughline and think, “Well, it’s about their attitude towards the Problem, right?” :sweat_smile: In the end, I think every character is powered by belief–belief in their Purpose, belief in their Methods of Evaluation, their Motivation, or their Methodology, what have you. But in Situation & Activity stories, that belief is funneled through the problematic situation or activity. Because they are in a bad situation, their belief causes trouble. Whereas for Fixed Attitude, their belief causes them to have a troublesome mentality.

Perhaps as an experiment, you can try and figure out the difference between Pursuit under Situation, Pursuit under Activity, Pursuit under Fixed Attitude, and Pursuit under Ways of Thinking. If the OS Problem is Activity-Pursuit, and the IC Problem is Fixed Attitude-Pursuit, how do those manifest differently in the story? I’m not totally sure about the answer myself, so it’s probably worth considering.

1 Like
#7

I agree that finding what’s “upriver” is key. It can be easy to cite examples from all four Types in many throughlines in many stories, so one needs to parse out cause and effect. If you find a stream, look for its spring.

#8

Their RELATIONSHIP experiences difficulties because of a state of mind. Though it is presented many places as the “emotional argument” between MC and IC, I think you’ll find a greater sophistication of storytelling if you think of the Relationship itself as an actual character.

The worst is when you encode a Relationship Story with he said/she said storytelling. I think eventually it would spread out into individual attitudes about things, but the core of it–the real source of trouble with the two of them coming together–that’s the Fixed Attitude part.

Like Witness–though the examples probably say otherwise–it’s not so much that they have different attitudes about life that creates conflict (that shows up in MC and IC Throughlines), it’s more that this RELATIONSHIP introduces inequity into the narrative because a state of desire exists between the two of them.

It’s much harder to wrap your head around, but I believe in the final analysis you’ll actually create a more rounded, more full story if you start to think of the Relationship as an actual entity and avoid just crafting positions where they both have fixed attitudes about each other.

#9

Thanks for the clarification, Jim. It’s starting to make more sense to me now. Especially when looking at it from the view of what is source of conflict in the relationship. Your blog and podcast have been greatly helpful too!

1 Like