A couple take up rock climbing to work out their trust issues, but when they witness a murder half way up a 200 meter cliff, they become the killers next targets and must work together to get out alive.

Freewill:

Thanks for the clarification of the ideas you're playing with in the story.? Risk taking is substantively different from trust issues between characters.? Or characters trusting themselves.

>>> with climbing being a metaphor for more mundane risks and the need to trust both yourself and others in life.

Trust is necessary -- but, really, is it sufficient?? You can trust yourself fully and fall to your death because your confidence is not backed up with commensurate competence.? Ditto if you place your trust in someone who doesn't have the competence.

>>> an experienced climber who's risk aversion

That strikes me as an oxymoron.? Because if he was truly risk aversive (as yours truly is), he wouldn't be a rock climber.? And if he's experienced, he would know better than to partner up with someone who lacked the competence and confidence to be a safe climbing companion.? No, not even out of love because that's the kind of love that could get them both killed.

Risk taking should not be confabulated with recklessness.? The latter necessarily entails the former, but? the logic is not bidirectional: the former does not necessarily entail the latter.

Whatever, you have the issue of risk dissipated among 4 characters instead of concentrated on one.? To be sure, you are thinking along the right line by having every character embody a facet of the theme, positively or negatively.

But it is usually best if one character is the focal point character of the theme, the one who embodies the most important facet of the theme, who is also the natural alpha character of the group . IOW: it is usually best if the logline clearly designates a protagonist.

fwiw

Freewill:

Thanks for the clarification of the ideas you're playing with in the story.? Risk taking is substantively different from trust issues between characters.? Or characters trusting themselves.

>>> with climbing being a metaphor for more mundane risks and the need to trust both yourself and others in life.

Trust is necessary -- but, really, is it sufficient?? You can trust yourself fully and fall to your death because your confidence is not backed up with commensurate competence.? Ditto if you place your trust in someone who doesn't have the competence.

>>> an experienced climber who's risk aversion

That strikes me as an oxymoron.? Because if he was truly risk aversive (as yours truly is), he wouldn't be a rock climber.? And if he's experienced, he would know better than to partner up with someone who lacked the competence and confidence to be a safe climbing companion.? No, not even out of love because that's the kind of love that could get them both killed.

Risk taking should not be confabulated with recklessness.? The latter necessarily entails the former, but? the logic is not bidirectional: the former does not necessarily entail the latter.

Whatever, you have the issue of risk dissipated among 4 characters instead of concentrated on one.? To be sure, you are thinking along the right line by having every character embody a facet of the theme, positively or negatively.

But it is usually best if one character is the focal point character of the theme, the one who embodies the most important facet of the theme, who is also the natural alpha character of the group . IOW: it is usually best if the logline clearly designates a protagonist.

fwiw