Blurb feedback please?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Thanks a lot, gmw. I like what you've done. Only I have to keep the "seem to" which gives it a little whimsy.[...]

I do know what you mean, but I also think that you've made the whimsy obvious enough already in both the opening sentence and the "one little problem" phrasing. By the time you add "seem to" as well, the reader is battered by whimsy and it just sounds like you're uncertain.

It's quite likely one of those things we might have to agree to disagree on , but from my own writing I've learned to give every "seem" and "appear" a really stern looking at.

[BookCat]

I agree with gmw, in fact I would go further and pare it down more. This must have a high reading index, and I feel words like 'nefarious' could easily be replaced with 'evil'. You'd be surprised how many average readers don't know what nefarious means.

There's also a sense, to me, that you're giving too much away. Personally, I dislike blurb which tells me too much about the plot. As a feminist, an animal lover, and someone with a silly sense of humour, I'm possibly you're target audience. One thing puts me off reading it: it's about dogs not cats.

The majority of female animal rescuers rescue cats, hence the saying Crazy Cat Lady. I've known many of them, and they do become a close knit society giving each other support. The only dog rescue I've known was run by a man.

As you're at the point of writing the blurb, it's probably a moot point, but it may make your book even more popular if you alter the rescue species.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by gmw

I do know what you mean, but I also think that you've made the whimsy obvious enough already in both the opening sentence and the "one little problem" phrasing. By the time you add "seem to" as well, the reader is battered by whimsy and it just sounds like you're uncertain.

It's quite likely one of those things we might have to agree to disagree on , but from my own writing I've learned to give every "seem" and "appear" a really stern looking at.

Ha ha. "Battered by whimsy." I love it. Yeah, I agree but some writer friends reading it don't. And I want to make sure everybody gets it. So I'm going to keep battering them with whimsy. Thanks.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by BookCat

I agree with gmw, in fact I would go further and pare it down more. This must have a high reading index, and I feel words like 'nefarious' could easily be replaced with 'evil'. You'd be surprised how many average readers don't know what nefarious means.

There's also a sense, to me, that you're giving too much away. Personally, I dislike blurb which tells me too much about the plot. As a feminist, an animal lover, and someone with a silly sense of humour, I'm possibly you're target audience. One thing puts me off reading it: it's about dogs not cats.

The majority of female animal rescuers rescue cats, hence the saying Crazy Cat Lady. I've known many of them, and they do become a close knit society giving each other support. The only dog rescue I've known was run by a man.

As you're at the point of writing the blurb, it's probably a moot point, but it may make your book even more popular if you alter the rescue species.

Thanks BookCat. Yes, ha ha, a little late to switch over to cats. That'll be the next one. And thanks for the "nefarious" catch. I'm changing it to "villainous."

[BookCat]

Maybe "he's stealing Chicago's dogs" instead of "he's systematically stealing Chicago's dogs". Does the adverb really add anything?

Do you really need "clearly unacceptable" instead of just "unacceptable"?

Sorry, the editor in me has come out to play

[JSWolf]

IWS needs to be removed for the full words. If you can't be bothered to do so, we (the readers) cannot be bothered to read your book.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by BookCat

[...] The majority of female animal rescuers rescue cats, hence the saying Crazy Cat Lady. I've known many of them, and they do become a close knit society giving each other support. The only dog rescue I've known was run by a man. [...]

There are plenty of women doing dog rescue over here in Australia (more women then men as far as I've seen). There are women doing animal rescue of all sorts here.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Maybe "he's stealing Chicago's dogs" instead of "he's systematically stealing Chicago's dogs". Does the adverb really add anything?

Do you really need "clearly unacceptable" instead of just "unacceptable"?

Sorry, the editor in me has come out to play

Thanks BookCat. gmw suggested the "clearly acceptable" go and it did. I don't know though, I think the "systematically" makes it seem a little more sinister somehow.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

IWS needs to be removed for the full words. If you can't be bothered to do so, we (the readers) cannot be bothered to read your book.

I agree 100%.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I agree 100%.

Here's how we do in Journalism: I was the Editor for the Arkansas Press Association (APA), in addition to being the Features Editor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). While at UALR, I majored in "Lunch-Room Dynamics" and minored in "Drunken Brawls 101."


So, spell it out the first time - see above - and then you can then forever use the letters whenever the organization is mentioned.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

So, spell it out the first time - see above - and then you can then forever use the letters whenever the organization is mentioned.

Not a good idea. The reader may tend to forget. So occasionally spell out the abbreviation.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Not a good idea. The reader may tend to forget. So occasionally spell out the abbreviation.

If it's memorable, I don't think the reader will forget.

(What were those letters, again?)

[BookCat]

"systematically" does suggest that he has a plan, maybe emphasise the sinister element: "is carrying out his plan to rid Chicago of its dogs" or something similar which suggest that he spends time planning the eradication of the dog population - maybe that's it! "is planning the eradication of Chicago's dogs."
I just avoid adverbs.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

If it's memorable, I don't think the reader will forget.

(What were those letters, again?)

Do you guys really think not mentioning what the IWS stands for is that big a deal? How come no ones asking what the "rules" are? The fact of the matter is there are no rules and I don't know what the IWS stands for. I could make something up but I like the zaniness of not knowing.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by BookCat

"systematically" does suggest that he has a plan, maybe emphasise the sinister element: "is carrying out his plan to rid Chicago of its dogs" or something similar which suggest that he spends time planning the eradication of the dog population - maybe that's it! "is planning the eradication of Chicago's dogs."
I just avoid adverbs.

Tempting, BookCat. Thanks. But I think "systematically" does the sinister job. And "ridding" could be killing them and "eradication" isn't really accurate either--he's stealing them.