Has anyone read James N Frey’s How to Write Damn Good Fiction (and/or its partner How to Write a Damn Good Novel)?

I’m reading the Fiction one at the moment (but I’m probably going to get hold of the Novel one as well. Although something tells me I’m reading them the wrong way round.)

Anyway, Frey makes much of the Premise as the basis for all good fiction: a statement, he says, of what happens to the characters as a result of the core conflict in the story.

For example: Economic necessity destroys idealism, or Obsessive love leads to loss of love.

Frey says that many stories fail because the writer has no clear idea, or no idea at all, of what the premise for the story is. And if they don’t know what the premise is, how can they judge what is or what isn’t needed in the plot, and whether the whole thing (the novel/ short story, etc) works?

Any thoughts?

And does this make the premise the starting point for the writing activity? Rather than a story or plot idea?

Or is this just another of those pseudo-rules that Frey talks about so much?

jumbo

It's tosh, my dear. Tosh.

OK, it works for some but not for me. I speak as the accomplished author of 1 (one) novel only, which is as yet unpublished (although my sister thinks it's good).

I think it helps to know what your novel is really about, obviously. Otherwise it is highly likely that you will drift off into some morass or other, and get distracted. There is so much room to make mistakes in novels. But I don't think that it's essential to know your premise from the start.

Incidentally, I have done a bit of work on the process of writing: how different writers write, how genre and technique are interrelated. And it seems to me, very roughly (and it's pretty obvious stuff), that genre writers do more plotting, planning and premise-writing than non-genre writers. And that the more literary your work the more obsessive you are likely to be about it, and the more likely you are to prefer writing whilst locked in the dark in the understairs cupboard. That's my personal preference, I'll admit.

Jumbo,

This is a very interesting point, but I'm not sure just the word 'premise' does it justice. Mind you, I'm not sure what else to call it. Another way of coming at what I think Frey is talking about is, for me, to ask myself the question, 'Why are you writing this book?'. Now, if I'm a genre writer who just wants to make some money, then the answer is straightforward, i.e. the reason is contained in the action and its outcome, and doesn't really need defining. This applies to the reader too, who is not interested in anything other than what he expects to find by the design on the cover, the author's previous books of similar kind, the shelf on which it sits in the bookshop, etc.

But if you're a writer whose first considerations are not money-making, or genre-fitting, then the question of premise is much more important. And where I agree that it can be useful to pin down the premise in a pithy sentence, as Frey does, I don't think that's the whole shape of the thing. For instance, I'm writing a sci-fi novel at the moment. It has an idea within it that I think is fairly unique; however, a unique idea is not enough to carry a story. What's more important is what happens to the main character. In this case, I started from the premise – although I would say it was more of a feeling – of a young girl who's sucidal, not just because life is grim but more because she can't find a way to be of any use to the world, then she's given a purpose which totally changes her life but later she has to question the basis of that purpose and thereby risk her new-found role in life. Although the book has already changed in the writing, and will continue to do so, I expect that premise to remain a core driver, because it's so closely tied in with the character's emotional/spiritual journey. But I like to have a bit more room to move within the premise than these definitions appear to allow. I want my characters to have the chance to surprise me while still remaining true to their needs.

But overall, I strongly believe that a good book is one that has a premise, just not necessarily one so simply defined as Frey appears to suggest. Without the author having any premise, they will tend to write stories that wallow around in his or her 'thing' and which never really grab the reader's attention.

Terry

Jane

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

I don't know how many of these damn novel things you have to write before you eventually hit your stride and find your preferred method (I'm working to complete my third at the moment) but it seems to me that we should always remain open to how other people manage the process.

I'm glad your sister likes your completed novel, I hope you manage to get it published.

Thanks again

jumbo

Terry

Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts.

It has certainly helped to make Frey's writing clearer for me, and reinforced the need that a premise needs to exist in some form at some level.

And thanks for sharing the way in which this has impacted on your current work.

If I could ask - which came first for you, the 'premise' or the plot-idea?

As always, I'm much obliged for your help with this.

All the best

jumbo

<Added>

...the need that a premise needs to exist... Mmmmmm!

Jumbo,

As I said, this is a really good question. I'm not exactly sure which comes first, premise or plot-idea. Basically, I have to get excited about a book, and feel there's notions and ideas and situations to be explored within that particular story-shape. When I was in my 20s, I had no permanent ties – moved around the country a lot, lived in rented rooms, did jobs that just came up, and so on. For example, a friend asked me to go share a flat with him in Burnley – he'd just started a job running the arts centre there. He said I could get work with the theatre company, for a start. Once there, I switched from the theatre company to a street theatre company into huge performances (check out 'Parliament in Flames' that I've stuck somewhere on WW). Anyway, the point is that I went to Burnely because there were new possibilities there, new adventures, new romances, etc. 'Parliament in Flames', for instance, was one of the highlights of my life. Well, for me, starting a novel has got to have that same feeling, of heading into a new, unexplored, territory. When you're young, you can do it with your life, then when you're getting too old to take off on a whim, you can do it with your writing instead.

Hey – I've never put this into words before; thanks for the chance to do so.

Terry

I'm very much a novice writer, currently on second children's novel and the experience of writing the first makes me feel that yes of course there does need a central or underlying premise to make a story work well, but I'm not sure that it has to make itself manifest to the author right at the start - i.e. I can't imagine sitting down and thinking 'what is the premise here?' before starting. With my first book a story just came into my head, but after I'd been writing for a while it became fairly obvious to me that there was an underlying premise in terms of how I wanted or expected the characters to be changed by their experiences, and that then showed me things which needed changing in the text.

Conversely, with the second one that I'm writing now, I was probably much more aware of what I wanted to write about at the start, but this has made me sometimes put in stuff which labours the point a little too much and I find myself taking it out again very quickly and trying to leave the story to do the job.

As I say, I'm new to this so my rambles may not be useful - thought it was an interesting question.

Veronica

'Parliament in Flames'? Would that be Welfare State International, which I saw in Catford, London, in 1982? (Can't find the archived piece.) Very impressive, and I agree, life-changing. 'Premise' as a notion is something I've mainly come across in guides to drama and screenwriting, rather than novel writing (or short story for that matter). But I would say you can write yourself into a 'premise', you don't have to sit down and manufacture some pithy proverb or epigram, like you were working for a greetings-card manufacturer. I like Terry's notion of impulse and exploration leading you. Sometimes a single static image is all it takes. And this might even be the image at the end of the book.

Joe

Interesting point and to a degree I suppose I agree. You have to have a premise. My only thing would be if that premise then stops the novel becoming multi-dimensional, by which I mean you know where you are headed and then go for that point. I suppose it can help focus your novel, but can it also take away from it, if you don't allow yourself to expand on an interesting play in the wings, or a character which perhaps, at first, is perpheral, but is so interesting should be given more airtime?

I read Dostoyevsky's The Idiot recently and that had a strange feature where the first 100 or so pages is about this man of letters who is kept my a woman of some standing in the community. But, after the first 100 pages, he isn't really part of the story, but knowing about him and the intellectual debate at the time which he sort of embodies does add to the story.

I know that you don't have to sacrifice all the detail to a premise, but I would want to urge caution that your story may become too simple and less rich if you do?

Just a thought

Actually, I've read Frey's book and all he means by it - to quote the man himself - is "a statement of what happens to the characters as a result of the core conflict of the story". It's really a very simple idea, and at the same time horrendously difficult. It's a bit like the concept of reasonable doubt in law: you know it when you see it, but damned if you could actually explain it in the abstract. All of which makes "premise" extremely difficult to handle, because it only tends to emerge AFTER you're halfway through the writing. At least it does for me, since what I start writing often bears no affiliation to what appears after twenty or thirty pages. It's a real "chicken and egg" poser.

Yes, I have the book. Thought it was pretty useful.

What Frey calls Premise is what New Novelist calls Story Concept. It’s the central core of what you want to say. It’s the impression readers are left with at the end of the story. It can change during the writing of the novel but I do believe it’s needed at the start. Otherwise the plot will simply meander.

When writing a scene, introducing a new character, another thread, whatever, we have to ask the question what does this contribute to the story. What we’re actually doing is measuring it against the premise/story concept. If it doesn't fit, it shouldn't be there.

Dee

I assume that the meaning of the word 'Premise' is 'an underlying assumption'. The examples given by Jumbo would conform to this definition.

The only other meaning is associated with discussions of a Philosopical nature where it is essential that agreement on definitions of phrases and words is mutually accepted.

I do not agree that it is necessary to establish any such premise when it comes to writing. If it helps you... fine, but I can see how such an attitude that looks for or even demands a premise before writing in order to conform, can, itself, be a block to creative thinking and plot development. I would even suggest that setting a premise, in order to deliberately show that the premise is not correct, can result in truly creative work.

Len





<Added>

By the way, Terry. Recently I have seen you refer to your age and your suggestions that you are 'well-advanced' in terms of years.

Believe you me, you are not! You have many productive years in front of you. So keep up the good work with a young mind, pen and attitude.

'Old' friend.

Thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread. Just the diversity of the responses is interesting in itself.

I can see the argument that having to develop such a baseline or premise or story concept (call it what you will) before starting to write could be stifling rather than energising.

But, at the same time, I like the idea of having something to check back on to see if what I am writing is staying 'on track'. Even if that baseline itself shifts and changes as the story progresses.

Surely there must be some advantage - musn't there? - to saying that my novel is about how obsessive love leads to murder, rather than it's the story of how Jack Williams, a south London dentist comes to murder Angela Swainwright, even if only because it forces me to ask, as Dee suggests, is this scene in the basement of the turbine factory at RAF Wittering in which Williams is found watching steam-locomotive movies is relevant to the story. (I must write this!)

So thanks for your thoughts - and, BTW, Terry, you're welcome - and VM - your rambles are much appreciated.

jumbo

Joe,

If you click on my name it will take you to my page where there's a link to P in F. I was at the Catford version too, since I live just down the road from there. It was interesting to compare with the 1976 version. Then, Welfare State were probably more raw than in 1982, living in caravans on an old waste site. They'd just lost half the company (went off to form the more political 7:84), which was why they took me and others on. I would say the Catford version was much more sophisticated – remember those amazing giant ships that battled each other in the night sky? But there was something truly awe-inspiring about the first one, probably because no one had seen anything like it before. As I think I say in the piece, the crowd really were standing with their mouths open in wonder. I believe Welfare State have moved on to doing commissioned events more in keeping with what, say, the local people in a town want; and working with individuals to produce unique weddings, funerals, etc. I'd recommend anyone checking out their website: www.welfare-state.org/general/artists/artists.htm.

Terry

I still am uncomfortable with the idea of premise, as outlined by Mr Frey, despite what so many of you say. I have read his book, but thought that it was more aligned to commercial genre fiction than the stuff I write, which is literary fiction (pretentious!). I find that the premise changes as I write: so I start off with one, but then it moves as the characters develop, and the story usually leads off into an entirely new direction. All this adds to the excitement and flexibility of the story, and so long as I keep watch on how it is all developing then I don't get lost in meaningless ramble (unlike some of my postings here!).

However: I do recognise that my way of working is not for everybody. I don't write seqentially: I get an idea of the people, and what is going to happen to them, and then write key scenes as they come to me. Things happen that I hadn't planned for: they lead to new scenes being needed to link the various storylines, and to connect the novel into one whole. I have tried working in a more linear way but find it frustrating, and dulling. I get obsessed with organisation, and have folders full of notes and a heap of card indexes in my efforts to control it all: but it works for me, so I am reluctant to change it now.