Feedback on new cover please

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

FART. Srsly. I'm out.

Uh...

I hate to confess, but I think that was one of mine, (not 100% sure, and too lazy to go back and look) although I hadn't really thought it would be elected. OTOH, if it's intended as satire...???

Hitch

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Uh...

I hate to confess, but I think that was one of mine, (not 100% sure, and too lazy to go back and look) although I hadn't really thought it would be elected. OTOH, if it's intended as satire...???

Hitch

I don't think anyone suggested it here. I (and others?) suggested BARF, but was told it had too many letters AND was too gross .

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't think anyone suggested it here. I (and others?) suggested BARF, but was told it had too many letters AND was too gross .

Oh, GOOD. ;-) That's a relief.

Hitch

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Uh...

I hate to confess, but I think that was one of mine, (not 100% sure, and too lazy to go back and look) although I hadn't really thought it would be elected. OTOH, if it's intended as satire...???

Hitch

It definitely wasn't one of yours. And FART doesn't look like satire to me, but like a bottom-of-the-barrel Adam Sandler movie.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

It definitely wasn't one of yours. And FART doesn't look like satire to me, but like a bottom-of-the-barrel Adam Sandler movie.

I don't disagree with that.

CRITTERS, from CRTT: Committed Rescuers in Tactical Teams, and the members are CRiTTers, or Critters????

Hitch

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Hitch

CRITTERS, from CRTT: Committed Rescuers in Tactical Teams, and the members are CRiTTers, or Critters????

Hitch

Nice. All of your suggestions were fun, because playful. They make me groan in a good way. FART does it in a bad way.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Nice. All of your suggestions were fun, because playful. They make me groan in a good way. FART does it in a bad way.

Shucks, thanks.

I eliminated GRIFTERS...Good Rescuers in Feminist Teams...for obvious reasons. :-)



Hitch

[BookCat]

Gregg, I don't think you understand what you're writing. That paragraph is still graphically violent. The tactile description of warm saliva running down her arm etc just emphasises the gruesome rather than making it comic.

Swift's A Modest Proposal was satire written about the way the English treated the Irish at that time. He was saying that they were being killed anyway (through poverty) the state might as well go all the way and eat the children. It's neither comedy nor literal but political.

Your book will garner many very bad reviews, not only from those who dislike the violence, but because of the animal cruelty angle. I don't want to go into detail, but do you realise what happens to dogs 'on the menu' in far eastern countries? Have you researched the cruelty involved?

Your book has potential IF it was genuinely lighter, less violent, more like a Tom Sharpe novel. Make what Donovan is doing with the dogs less gruesome and more funny: perhaps he's a hoarder whose animal (dog) hoarding is very out of control and he lets them run uncontrolled over land he owns, which is fenced in. The overcrowding is the cruelty; and having so many means that injuries and illness are overlooked.

Don't describe the killing, just allow the reader to know that it's happened by showing the aftermath: getting away from the scene of the crime and a few flashbacks to a fight (not graphically described). She knows she's done it again.

I hope your book is better than it seems. Sorry.

[Hitch]

Gregg:

Following up on BookCat's post, here's my question:

Are you operating under the belief that this opening paragaph:

“Give up, scumbag?” Lainey Tripper had the thug in a headlock. She hadn’t been in a fight like this in ages and was having fun. The guy’s warm saliva ran down her forearm. He was drooling, choking. “Well, do you!”

...is going to convey to the prospective reader that this is a comedy? Or, rather, Black Comedy or dark humor? Do you think that's a humorous or ironic or satiric paragraph that telegraphs that to the reader?

I'm asking because of what you said, that "[you] don't think anybody reading that can mistake the book for anything but the silly romp that it is."

Somehow, I skimmed over that, until I read Bookcat's post, and then I went back and re-read your post.

I'm sorry, and yes, I realize that this thread was supposed to be about the cover, not the book, but there is really nothing "silly romp-ish" about that opening paragraph. It sounds like an unintentional badly-written thriller. The saliva does nothing to ameliorate that--it is, in fact, the part that comes off as (unintentionally) badly-written. Not humorous. I realize that it's not easy to say everything you're trying to tell the reader, in a single pair of sentences, but...it's not there yet.

You either need to make the humor or satire MUCH broader, to convey that so quickly, or...something. I mean, Gregg, I'm your target reader. I adore dark comedies. I'm a consumer of Hiaasen (albeit not whats-is-name, whose books I find...over-labored and sort of self-consciously too-too precious.)

Gregg, what does your own critique group say?

Hitch

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Gregg, I don't think you understand what you're writing. That paragraph is still graphically violent. The tactile description of warm saliva running down her arm etc just emphasises the gruesome rather than making it comic.

Swift's A Modest Proposal was satire written about the way the English treated the Irish at that time. He was saying that they were being killed anyway (through poverty) the state might as well go all the way and eat the children. It's neither comedy nor literal but political.

Your book will garner many very bad reviews, not only from those who dislike the violence, but because of the animal cruelty angle. I don't want to go into detail, but do you realise what happens to dogs 'on the menu' in far eastern countries? Have you researched the cruelty involved?

Your book has potential IF it was genuinely lighter, less violent, more like a Tom Sharpe novel. Make what Donovan is doing with the dogs less gruesome and more funny: perhaps he's a hoarder whose animal (dog) hoarding is very out of control and he lets them run uncontrolled over land he owns, which is fenced in. The overcrowding is the cruelty; and having so many means that injuries and illness are overlooked.

Don't describe the killing, just allow the reader to know that it's happened by showing the aftermath: getting away from the scene of the crime and a few flashbacks to a fight (not graphically described). She knows she's done it again.

I hope your book is better than it seems. Sorry.

Thanks BookCat

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Gregg:

Following up on BookCat's post, here's my question:

Are you operating under the belief that this opening paragaph:



...is going to convey to the prospective reader that this is a comedy? Or, rather, Black Comedy or dark humor? Do you think that's a humorous or ironic or satiric paragraph that telegraphs that to the reader?

I'm asking because of what you said, that "[you] don't think anybody reading that can mistake the book for anything but the silly romp that it is."

Somehow, I skimmed over that, until I read Bookcat's post, and then I went back and re-read your post.

I'm sorry, and yes, I realize that this thread was supposed to be about the cover, not the book, but there is really nothing "silly romp-ish" about that opening paragraph. It sounds like an unintentional badly-written thriller. The saliva does nothing to ameliorate that--it is, in fact, the part that comes off as (unintentionally) badly-written. Not humorous. I realize that it's not easy to say everything you're trying to tell the reader, in a single pair of sentences, but...it's not there yet.

Hitch, it's not the saliva that's the humorous thing. It's that Lainey is in a fight for her life and she's "having fun."

And potential readers will be reading the blurb before they read the book.


Some say she’s a sociopath. Some say she hates men. Some say she just loves animals.

Lainey Tripper is a whiskey-drinking hard-living animal rescue feminist. But she has just this one little problem: she can’t seem to stop killing men. Not all men are so bad, and not a few of them are attracted to her, but when Lainey leaves a rescue, dead men are invariably left in her wake.

Lainey heads FART (Feminist Animal Rescue Team), a group of women dedicated to stopping the villainous Donovan from oppressing women and animals. But now Donovan, intent on world domination, has taken his evil to a new level. He’s systematically stealing Chicago’s dogs to sell them to a foreign power.

In Lainey’s enthusiasm to stop Donovan, she again kills a lot of men. Her fellow FARTers plead with her to moderate her man-killing tendencies, but Lainey’s pretty sure any guy she kills deserves it, and besides, she must do whatever it takes to save Chicago’s dogs.

Will Lainey stop Donovan in time? And when she’s done, will any men be left alive?



You mean to tell me people won't know it's an over-the-top spoof from that?!

And here's the first three paragraphs.


“Give up, scumbag?” Lainey Tripper had the thug in a headlock. She hadn’t been in a fight like this in ages and was having fun. The guy’s warm saliva ran down her forearm. He was drooling, choking. “Well, do you!”

“You’re dead, Tripper,” the thug muttered. “When Donovan hears about this, you’re dead meat.”

Donovan again, Lainey thought. She should’ve known. All the evil in this town was tied to Donovan somehow. The guy wouldn’t stop until he ruled the world, so it should come as no surprise he was the evil mastermind behind the dogs disappearing from Chicago. The blind peg-legged dirtbag. Lainey pulled a knife from a pocket in her business suit. She had to open the knife with one hand, and the blade locked in place. “You don’t deserve it, especially since you’re one of Donovan’s scumbags, but I’m giving you one last chance to live.” Lainey was knocked forward, tumbling over the man, into a glass case, the glass shattering, trophies cascading down on top of her. “Holy crap!”

Are people, including after reading the blurb, now thinking, 'Hmm. Donovan, a blind peg-legged dirtbag is stealing Chicago's dogs, this sounds like a realistic story...'


And my critique group gets it. My beta readers got it. (Not all of them liked it, as they're used to my serious thrillers but they got it. No one said a word about the violence or pets.) It's only here that I'm encountering resistance.

Thanks.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

And my critique group gets it. My beta readers got it. (Not all of them liked it, as they're used to my serious thrillers but they got it. No one said a word about the violence or pets.) It's only here that I'm encountering resistance.

Are there any women in those groups? Are there any people involved in animal rescue in those groups?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Hitch, it's not the saliva that's the humorous thing. It's that Lainey is in a fight for her life and she's "having fun."

And potential readers will be reading the blurb before they read the book.

IF you mean the description, that's a quantum assumption. You have no way to be assured of that. Did someone blurb you? Something that will go on the cover, from Carl Hiaasen or the like, saying it's an over the top romp????

Some say she’s a sociopath. Some say she hates men. Some say she just loves animals.

Lainey Tripper is a whiskey-drinking hard-living animal rescue feminist. But she has just this one little problem: she can’t seem to stop killing men. Not all men are so bad, and not a few of them are attracted to her, but when Lainey leaves a rescue, dead men are invariably left in her wake.

Lainey heads FART (Feminist Animal Rescue Team), a group of women dedicated to stopping the villainous Donovan from oppressing women and animals. But now Donovan, intent on world domination, has taken his evil to a new level. He’s systematically stealing Chicago’s dogs to sell them to a foreign power.

In Lainey’s enthusiasm to stop Donovan, she again kills a lot of men. Her fellow FARTers plead with her to moderate her man-killing tendencies, but Lainey’s pretty sure any guy she kills deserves it, and besides, she must do whatever it takes to save Chicago’s dogs.

Will Lainey stop Donovan in time? And when she’s done, will any men be left alive?

Yes, Gregg--you keep giving us basically the same description, over and over, with small tweaks, telling us that the book is an over-the-top spoof and I guess my issue really comes down to the same-old, same-old scenario, in writing--you're telling me. You're not showing me. Your opening does NOT show me that this is an over the top spoof, not by any means. You seem to be relying on people going with it, because you think you've told them that it's a romp.

You mean to tell me people won't know it's an over-the-top spoof from that?!

You know, if I thought it was in the bag, would I be wasting my time discussing it?

And here's the first three paragraphs.


“Give up, scumbag?” Lainey Tripper had the thug in a headlock. She hadn’t been in a fight like this in ages and was having fun. The guy’s warm saliva ran down her forearm. He was drooling, choking. “Well, do you!”

“You’re dead, Tripper,” the thug muttered. “When Donovan hears about this, you’re dead meat.”

Donovan again, Lainey thought. She should’ve known. All the evil in this town was tied to Donovan somehow. The guy wouldn’t stop until he ruled the world, so it should come as no surprise he was the evil mastermind behind the dogs disappearing from Chicago. The blind peg-legged dirtbag. Lainey pulled a knife from a pocket in her business suit. She had to open the knife with one hand, and the blade locked in place. “You don’t deserve it, especially since you’re one of Donovan’s scumbags, but I’m giving you one last chance to live.” Lainey was knocked forward, tumbling over the man, into a glass case, the glass shattering, trophies cascading down on top of her. “Holy crap!”

Here's my question--when you say "over the top" and "spoof," you do mean humor, right?

Are people, including after reading the blurb, now thinking, 'Hmm. Donovan, a blind peg-legged dirtbag is stealing Chicago's dogs, this sounds like a realistic story...'

No, of course not, but you're counting on the idea tha they will instantly say, "oh, of course, it's an over the top, funny spoof!," rather than what today's readers are are more likely to think--"this is just a sh***y book written by another cr***y author."

Because it's NOT obviously humorous or satiric. All the satire is in the description, not the opening. I don't particularly find anything "funny" or "over the top" about the fact that your protag enjoys the fight--what's funny or humorous or even satiric about that? I don't get your humor, maybe.

And my critique group gets it. My beta readers got it. (Not all of them liked it, as they're used to my serious thrillers but they got it. No one said a word about the violence or pets.) It's only here that I'm encountering resistance.

Thanks.

Then, they "get it" because they know you? The real job of a critique group is to help you find the cracks in the work. Right?

Sure, maybe it's me. Maybe it's only me, Cin, BookCat, DoubleShuff, and the other people who've posted here, but if it were me, and I was getting this same feedback, from everyone here who'd taken the time to read my description and my proposed opening and my proposed cover, I would byGod stop and think that maybe my critique group was blowing smoke up my @$$. I'm not trying to be a cow, Gregg, but...I am NOT feeling this. I'm commenting solely to try to stop you from getting bad reviews, because other people buy your book and feel like the concept, the cover, and the delivery are WILDLY different.

Hitch

[BookCat]

I totally agree with Hitch and wonder if your critique group and beta readers are just being nice by telling you what you want to hear. What demographic are they?

I imagine many readers will be inclined to purchase your book because of the animal rights angle, then be horrified when they read the plot and tone. It might be interesting for you to have this book read by a beta reader who has been involved in animal rescue or welfare.

As for the oft-repeated blurb, I really dislike the negative:
"Not all men are so bad, and not a few of them are attracted to her . . " Why not just say "Not all men are so bad, quite a few of them are attracted to her . ."

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by BookCat

I totally agree with Hitch and wonder if your critique group and beta readers are just being nice by telling you what you want to hear. What demographic are they?

That's what I wondered. You know, unlike "back in the day," critique groups today seem to be emo support groups, or cheerleaders, not, well, critique groups. I've been appalled at what I've seen, when I was trying to find one for a family member. UTTERLY worthless, for critique work, anyway. I guess it's fine if you want a 12-step support group, but..there are millions of those. A decent critique group is worth its wieght in gold, these days.

I've had an idea about that--Gregg, what about submitting it to Critters? www.Critters.org ? Get an independent critique, apart from us, and your existing Betas and critiquers? Voices that don't know you, at all? Critters has a ton of trade-pubbed authors, etc., who are really excellent at providing the type of feedback that a dedicated writer really needs.

I imagine many readers will be inclined to purchase your book because of the animal rights angle, then be horrified when they read the plot and tone.

I'm not sure that they'll be "horrified," but I just feel very strongly that what Gregg thinks he's written, and what he's actually written, have a disconnect. Hell, maybe it's not a send-up; maybe with some tweaking, it's a different type of (successful) book altogether. That's all I'm saying.

It might be interesting for you to have this book read by a beta reader who has been involved in animal rescue or welfare.

I suspect that those reads would be very heavily biased, and given what Gregg THINKS he's written, it might not be a great demographic for this particular book.

As for the oft-repeated blurb, I really dislike the negative:
"Not all men are so bad, and not a few of them are attracted to her . . " Why not just say "Not all men are so bad, quite a few of them are attracted to her . ."

I confess, I tend to use the negative, as well, so it doesn't faze me at all, BUT, I would say that BookCat's point is well-taken--in this day and age, reading comprehension is not what once it was, and people might struggle with that a bit. Have you run your descriptions through any of the reading comprehension level programs, to see how they come out?

I checked it very quickly with Hemingway, the desktop app, and it marked it Grade 8, and noted that 1 of the 13 sentences was "hard to read;" that there was one sentence that was "very hard to read;" used two adverbs (invariably and systemically) and noted two uses of "the passive voice."

Offered solely FWIW.

Hitch