Daniel Dennett spends a good bit of time defending the possibility of a compromise position on the reality of beliefs and desires. It will be claimed that a puzzle remains in the interpretation of Dennett's position. In earlier works one finds a theme, which we can call 'near-fatalism', which has not been integrated with the kind of middle ground he describes. But the near-fatalism theme is dropped in later work. Is it because it is felt to be incompatible with that middle ground compromise? It is not obviously so.