MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

gmw · 04-20-2015, 09:00 AM

Hmm ... Why use of the word "premise"? A story may need those three things, but does the premise? It seems a strange use of the word (at best redundant). And if you leave out the word premise, then you can find the same advice pretty much anywhere.

A premise is the structure or assumption on which something else depends. A story's premise is usually something like: what if a man-made virus killed most of the population? (The Stand). Or, what if the reason vampires can't be out in the sun is because they go all glittery (Twilight). Those are assumptions that the stories are built on, but they say nothing character, goal or conflict.

But let's assume for a moment I was more polite and hadn't argued about the word "premise", I think the advice is good but overly simplistic. Let's see...

I've got Postman Pat (character), he wants to deliver a letter (goal), but the dog won't let him through the gate (conflict).

I might be able to make a kid's story out of this, or maybe a brief comedy, but if I'd been thinking of writing an 80,000 word serious adult novel then I'm in trouble. Which leads to the first piece missing from the advice: the writer needs to have their own goals (what they want to write, and who for), but there's lots more.

A story needs a setting, and it needs background. More often than not it needs a sense of urgency - that's often what conflict is for, but it's not the only possible source. Characters need to be interesting, and preferably some way that the reader can connect to them (love, late, annoy, there are lots of possibilities). Goals need to difficult, sliding an envelope through a slot doesn't really qualify, so it's just as well our conflict gets in on the act. Which is an important point, it's not just enough to have these ingredients, they all need to be interrelated. For example, if I'd said the conflict was with Postman Pat's neighbour (for whatever reason) then I'd have nothing to make the story's goal more difficult; and if Postman Pat wasn't a postman he'd have less reason to be delivering a letter. It's all connected. That's what stories do.

But none of these are fixed rules. Many thrillers have cardboard cut-out characters, but still work because they make up for it in other ways. There are books in which can be difficult to identify conflict, or where the urgency comes through in subtle ways. There can be strange stories where you're wondering what's going on, why the author is telling you all this ... until the end where suddenly the connections become clear (I have a Ted Chiang short story, Story of Your Life, in mind as I write this).

So there's nothing wrong with the advice that stories need characters, goals and conflict, but that's leaving a lot out.

04-20-2015, 09:00 AM	#4
gmw cacoethes scribendi Posts: 5,818 Karma: 137770742 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650	Hmm ... Why use of the word "premise"? A story may need those three things, but does the premise? It seems a strange use of the word (at best redundant). And if you leave out the word premise, then you can find the same advice pretty much anywhere. A premise is the structure or assumption on which something else depends. A story's premise is usually something like: what if a man-made virus killed most of the population? (The Stand). Or, what if the reason vampires can't be out in the sun is because they go all glittery (Twilight). Those are assumptions that the stories are built on, but they say nothing character, goal or conflict. But let's assume for a moment I was more polite and hadn't argued about the word "premise", I think the advice is good but overly simplistic. Let's see... I've got Postman Pat (character), he wants to deliver a letter (goal), but the dog won't let him through the gate (conflict). I might be able to make a kid's story out of this, or maybe a brief comedy, but if I'd been thinking of writing an 80,000 word serious adult novel then I'm in trouble. Which leads to the first piece missing from the advice: the writer needs to have their own goals (what they want to write, and who for), but there's lots more. A story needs a setting, and it needs background. More often than not it needs a sense of urgency - that's often what conflict is for, but it's not the only possible source. Characters need to be interesting, and preferably some way that the reader can connect to them (love, late, annoy, there are lots of possibilities). Goals need to difficult, sliding an envelope through a slot doesn't really qualify, so it's just as well our conflict gets in on the act. Which is an important point, it's not just enough to have these ingredients, they all need to be interrelated. For example, if I'd said the conflict was with Postman Pat's neighbour (for whatever reason) then I'd have nothing to make the story's goal more difficult; and if Postman Pat wasn't a postman he'd have less reason to be delivering a letter. It's all connected. That's what stories do. But none of these are fixed rules. Many thrillers have cardboard cut-out characters, but still work because they make up for it in other ways. There are books in which can be difficult to identify conflict, or where the urgency comes through in subtle ways. There can be strange stories where you're wondering what's going on, why the author is telling you all this ... until the end where suddenly the connections become clear (I have a Ted Chiang short story, Story of Your Life, in mind as I write this). So there's nothing wrong with the advice that stories need characters, goals and conflict, but that's leaving a lot out.