Blurb feedback please?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

(You're.)

"Your" is correct. It's the possessive pronoun associated with the gerunds "writing" and "trying" which are the subjects of the last two sentences; "is" is the predicate in both cases. It's a parallel construction: "Your writing"/Your trying."

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by issybird

"Your" is correct. It's the possessive pronoun associated with the gerunds "writing" and "trying" which are the subjects of the last two sentences; "is" is the predicate in both cases. It's a parallel construction: "Your writing"/Your trying."

You're right! Thank you.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

What do you have against killing, fictionally speaking? It happens all the time. Without it, where would murder mysteries and thrillers go? Without killing, what would nations and political thrillers do to one another? Play Tiddlywinks?

And don't get me started on zombies. At least they kill for a reason, if not aesthetically.

(You're.)

I have nothing against fictional killings. I happen to like a good murder mystery. I just don't like being misled. The trophy up the nose wasn't silly, it was a bit graphic. The first cover and the blurb suggested off screen violence, the scene he linked suggested something more along the lines of Red and Red 2 with Bruce Willis not Murder She Wrote.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I have nothing against fictional killings. I happen to like a good murder mystery. I just don't like being misled. The trophy up the nose wasn't silly, it was a bit graphic. The first cover and the blurb suggested off screen violence, the scene he linked suggested something more along the lines of Red and Red 2 with Bruce Willis not Murder She Wrote.

Disregard the 'You're'; I don't know what I was thinking!

I guess I need more coffee in the morning!

I remember one of the most horrific killings in fiction, written by Jerzy Kosinski, but I can't remember which book it was in.

Let's just say a sword was used, slowly and carefully inserted.

Uggghhhh!

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Disregard the 'You're'; I don't know what I was thinking!

I guess I need more coffee in the morning!

I remember one of the most horrific killings in fiction, written by Jerzy Kosinski, but I can't remember which book it was in.

Let's just say a sword was used, slowly and carefully inserted.

Uggghhhh!

No worries on the Your. I figured you were going to say your something is doing something and changed your mind.

Ok I can think of only one place to insert that sword for a guy and two for a woman. OUCH.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

No worries on the Your. I figured you were going to say your something is doing something and changed your mind.

Ok I can think of only one place to insert that sword for a guy and two for a woman. OUCH.

For some reason, I read your sentence wrong. I think almost every educated person who understands English realizes that 'you're' is a contraction for 'you are', which certainly doesn't apply to your sentence!

At that point, I don't believe I was fully awake!
------

Actually, it was the description of the act that was so horrifying. I need to go back and re-read the book, after I determine which title it was.

Spoiler for the squeamish:

Spoiler:

He sticks a sword up a man's anus in an act of (I think) revenge.

I have great admiration for jerzy Kozinski's writing. I remember being shocked by his suicide.

I thought "The Painted Bird," and "Being There" were incredible novels.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

For some reason, I read your sentence wrong. I think almost every educated person who understands English realizes that 'you're' is a contraction for 'you are', which certainly doesn't apply to your sentence!

At that point, I don't believe I was fully awake!
------

Actually, it was the description of the act that was so horrifying. I need to go back and re-read the book, after I determine which title it was.

Spoiler for the squeamish:

Spoiler:

He sticks a sword up a man's anus in an act of (I think) revenge.

I have great admiration for jerzy Kozinski's writing. I remember being shocked by his suicide.

I thought "The Painted Bird," and "Being There" were incredible novels.

I read issy's correction as your word.
In that case I still figured you started a sentence and changed your mind.

Ok I thought right on the where.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I am seriously wondering about you.
There was nothing silly about that first scene.
Your writing is good. Your trying to define it is way off.

Nothing silly about the first scene???

A blind pegged-leg dirtbag named Donovan is stealing Chicago's dogs.

Her years of training in a Buddhist monastery came in handy now.

This is where her days as a cat burglar in New Orleans would come in handy

Okay, for argument's sake, let's say the blurb's way off. It's not etched in stone. How should it change?

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by gmw

I agree with most of this, but I also get what Gregg is say: the over-the-top violence is like a Sylvester Stallone movie - Demolition Man or something. It's not slapstick or comic book funny, but it is "silly" to the extent that it makes no attempt at being realistic.

But we've all started from the wrong premise because of how Gregg described the book (or how we interpreted that description) in combination with the misleading cover and title, and (I think) to a lesser extent the blurb.

Right! Think "Pulp Fiction." And granted, the original cover misled everyone. And it's hard to recover from that. But the book is not bleak. It gets very silly. And yeah, there's the violence throughout. I think the blurb represents it well but I'm not committed to it. I'm open--and appreciate--suggestions on changing it.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by BookCat

In the blurb, those phrases are thrown out in a very casual manner, leading the potential reader to expect less violence in the killing. Also, the qualifiers like "seem to" and the questioning of the last quotation leave an element of doubt: maybe the killing isn't real, but happens in her fantasies (a kind of vengeful Walter Mitty.)

I seriously didn't see much humour in that passage, just extreme violence. I don't mind swearing when it's illustrative of a subculture or used sparingly and I wouldn't dismiss a book because of it, but even I found some of the language unnecessary, contributing greatly to the sense of serious violence, rather than slapstick humour.

BookCat, please point out the language that is so terrible in that first scene.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

BookCat, please point out the language that is so terrible in that first scene.

I'm not BC but I will reread the scene.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

BookCat, please point out the language that is so terrible in that first scene.

I found 4. Man-hating s*** did not really need that much emphasis.

Now for a nit-pick. Unless Lainey was cross dressing, there is no way she was studying in a Buddhist temple to be a monk.

Oh and that scene is not cartoonish.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I'm not BC but I will reread the scene.

How do I KNOW you're not BC???

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I found 4. Man-hating s*** did not really need that much emphasis.

Now for a nit-pick. Unless Lainey was cross dressing, there is no way she was studying in a Buddhist temple to be a monk.

Oh and that scene is not cartoonish.

Well, okay, I'm trying to portray Donovan as thoroughly misogynistic, evil and violent. Man hating s*** seemed to fit the bill.

LOL Honestly, I hope someone calls me on the Buddhist thing. (Good catch.)

Yeah, it's not cartoonish, but look at the covers for Carl Hiaasen or Tim Dorsey. They're not cartoonish writers and their covers are totally cartoonish and so are their blurbs. So cartoonish seems the way for me to go. I think the cover with the dogs is good. The woman just needs to be less Mary Poppinish.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Well, okay, I'm trying to portray Donovan as thoroughly misogynistic, evil and violent. Man hating s*** seemed to fit the bill.

LOL Honestly, I hope someone calls me on the Buddhist thing. (Good catch.)

Yeah, it's not cartoonish, but look at the covers for Carl Hiaasen or Tim Dorsey. They're not cartoonish writers and their covers are totally cartoonish and so are their blurbs. So cartoonish seems the way for me to go. I think the cover with the dogs is good. The woman just needs to be less Mary Poppinish.

Once was fine on the man hating s*** was fine. 3 or 4 times in a row got annoying.
Does the author just love that statement.
Not to mention the fact that it is hard for a s*** to hate men.

Trivia: NASCAR guy turned me off of Janet Evanovich. She repeated that way too many times in one of her books.