force, object

[mrissa]

One of the interesting things about Scandosotan family dynamics* is that lots of people get cast as "irresistible force" or "immovable object" and are not in direct conflict with each other most of the time. Irresistible force people -- in which Scandosotan family dynamic category I place myself, in case I'm about to be too derogatory -- often make the mistake of thinking that they are winning, when in fact what is happening is that immovable objects aren't fighting them. The part where it gets interesting is when that stops happening for the first time in, say, forty-some years. Even a decade is enough for the results to be quite impressive, once immovable object decides that, really, no, they are in irresistible force's way, and intend to stay there.

This is one of the things that's going to show up in more than one piece of fiction, I think. And it will be interesting to see whether I can build it in so that readers from dissimilar family dynamics can see it, or whether the surface stuff still makes sense but the plate tectonics aren't clear. If I can't do either of those things, I'll have to scrap it and go for something a little different, as there's not much of a way to sell books only to people with taciturn uncles. "This interaction makes no sense!" "Is your uncles' sole conversation on a five-day weekend visit related to gas mileage?" "Err...no." "Then it wouldn't, I guess."

It's rare for me to deliberately take real people's character traits and put them into fictional characters. But real relationship traits into fictional relationships? Oh yah. All the time.

I've self-described as an irresistible force person, but I will admit quite readily that there are situations where my reaction is, "Shut your mouth, stick out your chin, and dig your heels in so far that they'd need one of those 'bunker-busters' to get you out of there." There's a reason that one of the Arlo Guthrie lines we quote the most around here is, "I'm not proud. Or tired."

(Even though I am kind of tired. And a little dizzy again. But not still! Again is much better than still.)

*This is characteristic but not unique. I'm not claiming Scandosotans are the only culture to behave this way, just that we do.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Is it more often that the immovable object people don't bother to fight, or that they don't notice someone is even trying to push them? Or is it sometimes one and sometimes the other?

(My father is the taciturn one in our family, but that's only only a relative scale. (I did not intend that pun until after I typed it.))

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was me.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I would say sometimes one and sometimes the other, and the balance depends on the specific circumstances and relationship. Some people are very often conscious of thinking, "Eh, it's probably not worth it to fight her on this." ("Her" is not always the case. But it is more statistically likely.)

[deepstarrysky.livejournal.com]

Hi, I'm here via friends of friends, hope that's cool.

Interesting! I've often had this problem, but haven't seen it described before. People around me think they're winning, until they get around to something I'm immovable about, at which point they get all pouty and surprised. Actually, put that in past tense - lately, I've been more careful about full disclosure of my potential immovability, and there have been fewer unpleasant surprises. And no, I'm not Scandosotan.

Looking forward to seeing how your writing turns out!

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

do you find yourself dating immovable objects? because lord knows, i do believe i'm also one of those irresistible force people with a definite preference for immovable objects this is me not mentioning my exhusband la la la.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Sure, welcome!

Anyway, I'm glad you found a way to communicate that makes everybody happier about knowing what's going on. You would think that a subculture where this sort of thing is common would evolve better methods of dealing with it....

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Let's call that a yes. Choice of icon utterly coincidental, of course.

[writingortyping.livejournal.com]

Laughing out here - mostly because I'm from a family of mostly "irresistible force" types, of a particular subtype that is inclined towards vociferous argument, often without support. After I went to law school, I became (oddly enough) a little more tweaked towards the immovable object line, mostly by way of citing sources. Still a member of the irresistable force army, but it nonetheless changed my family dynamic. A representative example:

Aunt J (the uber-irresistible force in the family): blah, blah, blah, anise, blah, blah.

Me: Anise or licorice?

Aunt J: Same thing

Me: Goes for the nearest reference book, which happens to be a dictionary. For these purposes, it'll do. Leaves through the A's, finds reference, lodges a finger, goes to L, lodges another finger, flips back and forth, checking something.

Uncle C (Husband of Aunt J, and one of the much-needed married-in varieties of immovable objects): Well?

Me (Delivered as neutrally as possible, as I have found that qualities of the immovable object are helpful in conflict situations and Aunt J is 6' 2" and has always been a bit.... difficult. There are reports that she once tried to run my grandmother down with a car - they may or may not be exaggerated): They're not only not the same plant, they're not even the same genus.

Uncle C: HAH!*


*It's nice that he survived this expression of unholy glee. It is, however, possible that he is still paying for that syllable.

[mkille.livejournal.com]

I used to be an irresistible force, but these days I'm more of an immovable object, after a few too many experiences in my younger years with hurting people who would have rather resisted but couldn't, and a few too many experiences in my less younger years with politicking a bit too gleefully. I'm not a very obvious immovable object, though, because I'm not very particular as a general rule. Still, on the wrong (or right, as the case may be) matters, it's definitely "you shall not pass" time, and those balrogs can wave the fiery whips around all they want, for all the good it will do them.

[deepstarrysky.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I thought about this a little bit. (Please add standard disclaimers about not having studied the culture in depth, etc., etc.) I theorize that the whole forcefulness/immovability dynamic was the best optimization the culture could come up with to cope with the strong interdependence and close quarters of long winters. Now that folks aren't quite so interdependent and shut in, there's room to find new patterns, or adapt old ones. Does that sound like it applies at all to your experiences?

For myself, if I didn't have the option of walking away from untenable confrontations, I'd be a lot less outspoken about being sometimes-immovable.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

This is how I approach the phenomenon of Minnesota Nice, almost exactly, so your outsider perspective is not steering you wrong here, I don't think.

[seajules]

Oh, yeah, this is familiar. Of course, I'm Scandegonian, and it's possible the Scand- part of the equation accounts for the familiarity.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, there were some Oregonians with very familiar mannerisms and speech patterns, the summer I was out there.