In this paper I claim that Earman and Norton's hole argument against substa
ntivalist interpretations of General Relativity assumes that the substantiv
alist must adopt a conception of determinism which I argue is unsatisfactor
y. Butterfield and others have responded to the hole argument by finding a
conception of determinism open to the substantivalist that is not prone to
the hole argument. But, unfortunately for the substantivalist, I argue this
conception also turns out to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, I search for
a conception of determinism that is both independently plausible and capabl
e of blocking the hole argument.