The main reason for a Premise is to keep your work true to the plot, and to keep you from wandering off in several different directions in your story line. I'll explain by telling you what a premise is.
The Premise can be compared to a Theorem: A proposition embodying something to be proven. Simply put - whether it's a novel, short story, or a screenplay, all works implant a suggestion in the reader's mind. And these suggestions come from ideas the writer is willing to prove.
The idea may be something borrowed from past works such as `Crime doesn't pay', in which case you might create a work similar to an old gangster movie such as WHITE HEAT with James Cagney, or BONNIE AND CLYDE with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. The criminal always paid in the end in those movies, sometimes through a lengthy jail sentence, and sometimes through death from a shoot out with the police.
This was largely due to a Code of Ethics and Morality laid down by film and publishing censors in the past. I mean, God forbid the crook got away with the money and the public got the wrong idea; that crime is good and stealing profitable. So the censors ruled with a heavy hand, and if your thief went free at the end your work was discarded.
Since past writers didn't have the freedom writers enjoy today, most premises had ready-made conclusions. Now, however, because of a lack of censorship your premise does not have to come to an `I know how this is going to end' sort of conclusion.
Today's writers can say, `Crime does pay', and write a novel to prove their theorem with the thief taking his money and fleeing the country as the audience cheers him on. And the reason the audience is cheering him on is because the writer has proven his point: `Crime either does pay, or in some instances it should'. The thief should go free, so the writer makes it happen.
For instance: A great plot twist in today's writing is to have someone rob a bank and get away with it because of where the money came from. Say for example, after a bank heist, an armed robber discovers he has two million in cash when there was only supposed to be half a mil lion in the bank's vault. Reports of the robbery on television and in newspapers keep insisting the thief should have less than he has. But he can count. He has two million, not the reported half million. How come?
Then the answer for the difference in funds crops up when there is a scene between the president of the bank, and a mobster, during which time it's discovered where the difference in the money count came from. Half a million dollars actually was a part of depositors' funds. This was the amount reported to the police.
The rest, the 1 1/2 million, was money the banker was laundering for the mob. So the banker can hardly report the correct amount of cash stolen because it's not from deposits. It's mob money. If the banker reports the extra cash, and explains where it came from, he's going to jail.
At this point, you know the principal character, the armed robber, should go to jail because stealing is wrong. But when you discover that the banker is actually the bigger thief in this plot, you say to your self, hey, the banker was wealthy, and he was a thief, let the robber have the money. The robber's kids are starving. He's been out of work for a year. His wife works two shifts as a waitress. His mother needs an operation. His house is in foreclosure.
His motive wasn't greed. It was survival. Let him keep the money and not go to jail. A perfect example of this sort of premise is the motion picture CHARLIE VARRICK, starring Walter Matthau in which Matthau robbed a bank where mob money was being laundered.
To further explain premises, I will give you some examples - first of the premise - then the work it came from.
1. Some people are not fit to live in society. For this example we could well use
the best selling novel SILENCE OF THE LAMBS that later became a
blockbuster movie with Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling, and Anthony Hopkins
as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The idea of not being fit to live in society came from
dealing with one of the primary characters, Dr. Lecter.
(Also known as Hannibal the cannibal, Dr. Lecter was a brilliant psychiatrist
turned madman who liked to devour his clients. Because Dr. Lecter was such a
threat to society as a whole, not only was he put into a mental institution, he
was placed in a type of cage that insured no human being would ever have to
come in contact with him unless absolutely necessary. At those times when his
room had to be searched, he was muzzled and strapped to a metal dolly while
wearing a strait jacket. He was definitely not fit to live in society).
Other examples of premises and the works they come from are:
2. To a large degree, our problems with the American Indian were of our own
doing. DANCES WITH WOLVES with Kevin Kostner.
3. The sins of the father are visited on the children. THE GODFATHER by
Mario Puzo.
4. One man who stands alone against all odds can win. MR. SMITH GOES TO
WASHINGTON with Jimmy Stewart.
5. Doing the expected isn't always right. AWAKENINGS with Robin Williams.
6. Guilt is not always evident. PRESUMED INNOCENT by Scott Turow.
7. Faith can conquer affliction. MY LEFT FOOT by Christy Brown.
8. Young love is ill-fated, and you cannot win. ROMEO AND JULIET by
Shakespeare.
9. War is a terrible, destructive thing. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, the
Ron Kovic story; APOCALYPSE NOW, the Francis Ford Coppola
blockbuster.
10. There is life after death. GHOST with Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore, and
Whoopi Goldberg.
Changing Times - Changing Premises.
A main point to remember is that today's premises, or theorems, do not necessarily reflect the past. As times change, so do our points of view. For instance, during World War II books were written and movies made with the idea in mind of keeping the public psyched up about win ning the war. So while most books and movies of that era showed the horrors of war, they were also upbeat with a lot of flag waving and heroics.
Also, many movie companies depended on not only the generosity of subsidies from the Federal Government to make their movies, but also on the use of free government advisors to help alleviate the possibility of mistakes in battle scenes and in time frames as well. So being upbeat about war was a good idea when Uncle Sam was footing part of the bill for your movie.
You don't see this in today's war movies, or even read it in today's novels about war. Writers today don't care about psyching the public because winning is not always the issue. If there is controversy over a war, or police action, today's writers show it.
Additionally, writers no longer have to go back to World War II to do a war novel. Since then we've had Korea and Vietnam, which were alleged police actions, and the Gulf War, better known as Desert Storm. Since these events hadn't taken place as of the forties or early fif ties, war novels will now contain new locations, new characters - Gener al Schwarzkopf instead of Eisenhower - and new reasons why we had war to begin with.
You may therefore want to adopt contemporary premises surrounding these and other current events. For example:
1. Why the Gulf War had to be. Or, why we should've stayed out of the Gulf
War.
2. Space travel and exploration. Why we should or shouldn't settle on the moon.
3. The Soviet Union should have remained united. Or the opposite: Why the
breakup is beneficial.
4. Stories about AIDS, a disease of the 80s and 90s. Victims deserve our help,
not scorn.
5. The new Central Intelligence Agency - Should we trust them? According to the
new director of the CIA, since there is Solidarity in Poland, and Russia is
divided, and the Jews and Palestinians are involved in peace talks, the CIA
no longer needs to be as aggressive as it was in years gone by. The question is
again, should we trust them?
6. Our changing morality. Is sex without marriage a good idea? Is sex with
multiple partners a good idea? Or are monogamous relationships still the best
kind?
7. Single parenthood; can one person be both mother and father and succeed?
A good point to remember when formulating a premise, though, is that they are not engraved in concrete. You may start out trying to prove a point or an idea, and in doing research, something comes along to change your mind and you do a complete reversal.
Instead of trying to prove as simple an idea as `Poverty always leads to crime', you may find yourself proving the opposite: `Poverty can lead to strong character development and a greater sense of sharing'. However, whatever your final premise, believe in it. Be willing to prove it. And don't mix them. No more than one premise to a story or your work can become confusing and possibly even contradictory.
And too, be careful how you prove your premise. The premise should not stand out like a sheep in a lion's den, turning your characters into puppets following a predictable plot. In well-constructed short stories, novels, and screenplays, the premise is the silent message the audience retains without its being stated.
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is an excellent example of this. In no in stance in the story does anyone actually come out and say, "Some people are not fit to live in society." But by the end of the story, the audi ence is convinced this is true. You should prove your theory by showing us not telling us.
As a footnote to this lesson, I was watching a recent Behind the Scenes segment on the Entertainment cable channel featuring a man by the name of Taylor, a producer of a children's show called Goof Troop. According to Taylor, he has been in cartooning for over thirty years, and has worked on such notable Disney productions as the Mickey Mouse Show.
In meeting with his staff to go over the latest plot for the Goof Troop show, Taylor mentioned the importance of the Premise - the idea - and the seriousness of each story line.
The lesson in this is: Most people take cartoons, and their subse quent story lines, for granted. I, too, once suffered from the illusion that they were put together with nothing more than slapstick comedy in mind. But they're not. Even a cartoonist is concerned with the premise.
MOTIVATION - INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
Motivation means doing something you may or may not want to do, such as going to work each day even if you hate your job. You see, most people like to eat, have a roof over their heads, and have money to buy clothing, and a car or two depending on need. So even though we hate our jobs, we work for basic necessities. This is our motivation.
In short, what are your dreams? Your goals in life? What burning desire keeps you going? Think about it. Then transfer this emotion to your work because in writing, motivation is the force keeping your characters striving towards their goals in relation to the plot, although it's not always evident from the start. Let me explain.
When your story begins, your characters' motivation may or may not be tied in with the premise. In fact, they may have no motivation to speak of. But somewhere between mid-point and the end of the novel, their motivation should be tied in with the premise.
For example: Say you've chosen the following as your premise; AN UNDERDOG CAN BECOME CHAMPION AGAINST ALL ODDS. The principal character is a born loser, a failure at everything he attempts, almost like ROCKY BALBOA in the first ROCKY movie. He has a low paying job, no future. We'll call him SAM. Unlike ROCKY BALBOA, SAM also has some physical problems - his hips are out of whack, and he has bad feet. He walks funny.
As your plot unfolds, SAM is always depressed because he's loved the same woman for years. We'll call her RACHEL for the sake of the story. RACHEL is an executive secretary for an athletic sportswear company; the same firm SAM works for. But since SAM is a janitor he's never had the courage to approach her. He could never give her the material things he feels she deserves, so he's stayed away from RACHEL.
Enter two Olympic coaches from opposing sides. They've come to the athletic sportswear company to purchase equipment for their athletes. We have NEAL, the good guy/coach, and STEVE, the bad guy/coach. As the scene opens they're arguing over the making of Olympic runners.
FOR A SIDE NOTE: According to the old Code of Morality and Ethics, I would never have been allowed to make an Olympic coach a villain. These coaches were always supposed to have an image of purity and good ness. After all, they represent our country in an important worldwide event. But because of the lack of a Code, and the weakness in censor ship, I now have the freedom to do this.
To return to our story about SAM and RACHEL: Enter two Olympic coaches from opposing sides who have come to the athletic sportswear company to purchase equipment for their athletes. They're arguing over the making of Olympic runners.
NEAL, our good guy/coach, feels anyone with heart and the proper training can become another JESSE OWENS. STEVE disagrees. STEVE feels someone has to be born with the ability to run like the wind or they're not Olympic material.
As they're debating the issue at the sportswear company SAM hob bles by and is spotted by STEVE. And since STEVE is the bad guy/coach, and is extremely deceitful, he keeps pressuring NEAL into accepting a small side bet. STEVE says, "You say you can turn anyone into a cham pion, how about him?" Then STEVE points to SAM. NEAL moans with dismay. But STEVE has already taken the challenge to a point of no return, so NEAL is trapped into accepting the chal lenge
NEAL approaches SAM half-heartedly with a proposition to train as an Olympic runner. SAM gives him a `You've got to be kidding', look and then says no. But NEAL - the good guy - has been challenged by STEVE - the bad guy - and cannot take no for an answer.
NEAL pressures SAM daily until SAM begins daydreaming about run ning track in the Olympics. He often sees himself at the top of a dou ble-tiered platform accepting the gold while RACHEL sits in the bleach ers mouthing the words, "I love you."
At this point, SAM yields and tells NEAL he'll go into training. Great! But let's not forget SAM'S problems with his hips and feet. And let's not forget about STEVE, the bad guy/coach who hates to lose a bet and will pull every underhanded trick in the book to stop SAM from winning.
Let's look at Motivation here:
SAM - Loves Rachel. He's training for the Olympics out of love. He doesn't really
expect to win. He just wants Rachel's attention.
NEAL - the good guy/coach - He doesn't expect Sam to win for his team. But he's
compelled to carry through with Steve's challenge. He has to do his best to
make Sam look good in the upcoming elimination trials lead ing to the
Olympics.
STEVE - the bad guy/coach - He thinks the whole idea is a joke. He's not in the
least worried about Sam becoming a champion.
RACHEL - She really has no motivation at this point.
As the story progresses, NEAL realizes SAM'S physical problems can be solved by wearing athletic shoes with steel arch supports. Once SAM has the shoes he runs like a deer and quickly breaks the running records of previous champs while still in training. SAM is amazed by his own hidden talent. His dream of being a champion is beginning to look like a sure bet.
NEAL is astonished. He sees the Olympic gold coming closer each time SAM runs. NEAL'S motivation is beginning to parallel the premise. NEAL now sees SAM as an underdog who can become champion against all odds.
STEVE, meanwhile, learns of the miracle with SAM and begins pull ing every trick in the book to stop SAM from being a contender in the upcoming trials.
RACHEL has noticed a change in SAM at work. She has heard rumors about his running track in the Olympics. And although SAM is the butt of many jokes at work, RACHEL begins to cheer him on, eventually falling in love with him for his courage.
Let's look at the change in Motivation here:
SAM - He still loves Rachel, but at the moment he's more taken with winning than
with wooing Rachel. He's the underdog who wants to be champion against
all odds - which is the premise of the story.
NEAL - He knows Sam has a better than average chance of winning. He's not so
concerned with proving a point to Steve. He wants Sam to win the gold!
STEVE - He's worried about Sam winning. He cannot stand to lose a bet. He
becomes more vicious and underhanded in his attempts to stop Sam.
RACHEL - She loves Sam, and will stand by him - win or lose.
By now, SAM'S motivation also matches the premise about an under dog winning against all odds, although it didn't in the beginning. As I've already said, your characters' motivation must at some point begin to parallel the premise. In other words, you must use your characters' dreams and inspirations to prove your point.
And if you will take note here, each character's motivation is in some way involved with the premise, either directly or indirectly. SAM, for instance: His motivation is directly connected to the premise, and so is NEAL'S in the sense both now believe an underdog can win against all odds.
STEVE'S motivation, on the other hand, is indirectly related to the premise. He may or may not believe in SAM as a true contender. In fact, STEVE may be doubtful as to whether or not SAM will make a good showing against his own champion in the elimination games. But SAM'S ability has him scared enough to react. He will stop SAM at all costs just in case SAM does have a chance of winning.
RACHEL'S motivation is also indirectly related to the plot. RACHEL knows nothing about running track, time scores, and the rest. All she knows is what SAM and NEAL are telling her, which may not be enough to prove SAM can win. But she's standing behind him and hoping he will win for his own sake.
Getting back to our story about SAM and the Olympic medal, as we are approaching the end of our plot, STEVE'S bad guy methods to stop SAM have become life threatening. Because of this some of our motivations will again change.
SAM - He still loves Rachel, but may chance losing her because she wants him to
drop out of the trials. He won't. Even if it costs him his life. He's
somebody now and he won't give it up.
NEAL - He's no longer concerned with winning the bet between Steve and
himself. He tries to talk Sam into quitting to save his life.
STEVE - He's still vicious and mean.
RACHEL - She no longer backs Sam in his quest for the gold because his life is at
risk. She wants him to drop out of the trials. When he refus es she leaves
him, saying, "I love you too much to watch you die."
We've all read books and have seen movies with this sort of basic plot. Now that we've examined the individual changing motivations, ask yourself if each writer who wrote a different version of this same story line happened on this pattern by chance. Or were they following a set technique called Motivation?
If you have any questions concerning Lesson One - the Premise and Motivation - you may submit them to me, Edwina Berkman, in writing at P.O. Box 2318, Pine land, FL. 33945-2318, and I will respond as soon as possible.
If there are no questions, I'd like you to submit the following on Lesson One. First of all, most of you have a pretty good idea of what you wanted to write before taking these lessons. If you don't, now is the time to start thinking about getting into writing on a serious level. Mull over your ideas, choose one, and stick to it.
Then, write a short premise based on the theme of your work. What are you trying to prove? After you have your premise, then jot down what motivations your characters will need to help prove your point.
After doing this, submit it to me to check over. I'll examine your work and return it to you as soon as possible.
Now for Lesson Two: Conflicts in your story line, Subplots, and for those of you who are still undecided about your work, Where do Ideas Come From?
