According to the estimable Alexandra Sokoloff, you should be able to boil the essence of your story down to a single sentence. This sentence is your premise. For example:
When a great white shark starts attacking beachgoers in a coastal town during high tourist season, a water-phobic Sheriff must assemble a team to hunt it down before it kills again.
. . . is the premise for Jaws. We've got the protagonist (water-phobic sherrif), antagonist (great white shark), inciting incident (starts attacking beachgoers), and the conflict (Sheriff must assemble a team to hunt it down) all in one sentence.
For DYING FOR THE THIRD TIME, my working premise as of 3rd July is as follows:
In an alternate-1938 Britain, a failed suicide finds he can speak with the dead, and must use his new powers to defeat a democratically-elected facist goverment from using an ancient rite to seize totalitarian power.
Thoughts on this? Hey, tell me. I'd like to know what you think.
I like the idea but it seems like it might have been done before, but setting it in an alternate-1938 Britain would be different, I think. I don't know. It's a good idea but it seems like I've read something very similar.
Posted by: tmso | July 30, 2009 at 09:26 AM
You're right about 1983 being different--but I'm not sure if it has the resonance of WWII.
But yeah, you're right, WW2 alternate history is popular. I'm reading 'The Man in the High Castle' at the moment. Not quite my thing, but an interesting idea.
If you can remember what you read that was very similar, I'd really like to know. :-)
Posted by: Euan | July 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I meant the idea of someone failing at suicide, coming back from 'near death' and being able to communicate with the dead. That's a really old idea that's been done a bagillion times. I suppose setting that all in an alternate history would be different. You had 1938 in your premise but 1983 in your reply to my comment. You did mean 1938 right? Forgive me for my poor English history but in 1938, didn't the monarch still have some sway over parliament? I mean, more so than now?
Anyway, I think your one sentence is good. It conveys the conflict and setting succinctly.
Posted by: tmso | August 17, 2009 at 05:28 AM
Oops. Should have read 1938.
Eh, now I think about it, the fact it's been used before makes sense. It's a fairly obvious idea for a story. Mind you, given that, I'm betting that each of the plots went off at an angle. The idea's the beginning--but not the whole thing.
And besides, did those other books have Nazis? Did they? Huh? Or Zeppelins? Or zombies? Or . . . Zombie Nazis in Zeppelins?? Did they??*
Okay. Time for a soothing cup of tea. ;-)
*Honestly, is that not the ultimate pinnacle of coolness?
Posted by: Euan | August 17, 2009 at 06:54 AM
Nazis, zeppelins, zombies...oh my! Should be good, looking forward to it!
BTW, coolness is a state of mind. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. ;)
Oh, and an alternate 1983 England would be interesting too (I'm 40, grew up in the 80's).
Posted by: tmso | August 17, 2009 at 09:40 PM
Miner's strike? Thatcher's children? There's a rich vein of raw horror there, just waiting to be drawn out . . . :-)
Posted by: Euan | August 18, 2009 at 07:02 AM