Along with Miss Snark's
comments on the hooks submitted by writers, including mine (see
previous post), her readers offered up comments. They're extra sets of
fresh eyes, so they can be helpful. And then, perhaps not. Here are the
comments posted for my hook, and my thoughts. I'll try not to be too
defensive.
#1 Way off the mark, but when I read "Ailia" and "Clan" what
popped into my head was Jean Auel. "Ailia" aounded the same in my head
as "Ayla". Doubt you wanted that connection, but then I might be the
only one.
I'm guessing you're the only one. What an incredibly subjective
business this is. In one of my workshops one attendee thought a
particular sentence was especially dumb because of the meaning she gave
to one of the nouns (an animal, I think). It didn't mean that to me,
and I asked the rest of the group. Turned out she was the only one of
about 30 people who interpreted it in her way, and that was due to a
very personal association. I would think a pro such as an agent would
steam on past random associations such as this.
#2 I'm left with quite a few issues.
* You complain about HP as "anything-is-possible" sorcery, yet your
magic doesn't seem particularly constrained, going so far as to have
the ability to make a genocidal plague. Nor does it seem unique enough
to warrant two intro paragraphs as though this were a unique situation.
I didn't "complain" about Harry Potter as "anything-is-possible"
sorcery, I just referred to it as a quick example of the usual fantasy
approach to "magic." As for "as though this were a unique situation,"
my approach is unique in my mind and, in fact, could well be quite
unique for most other people. How can you judge from a mere statement
of a premise? This isn't a helpful comment.
* The use of the words "clans" and "kin" make this sound like a
historical or fantasy novel. But "Homeland Security" seems like present.
So? In modern times there are still clans and kin (how about
Scotland?). And, yeah, Homeland Security should seem like the present.
And there is tension created by the contrast, is there not? This input
isn't helpful as these things are integral to the story and can't be
arbitrarily changed.
* Gabriel has been "isolated" since childhood, but has a son?
Okay, he has felt isolated. Who'd have thought someone would
think that the man has been physically isolated his entire life, as if
in solitary confinement? Seems like a very picky, literalistic reading
to me. But I have added the word "felt" to my hook so some other er,
reader won't be led astray by such a nonsensical interpretation.
* What is up with that homeland security guy? That's out of the blue
with no explanation. It also doesn't follow what preceeded it. One
second she's trying to kill herself, and a minute later she's trying to
escape.
Perhaps this commenter has never heard of "inciting incident." In
fiction, something happens to throw a person out of their current
situation, to block their desires, and to cause conflict. It can be -- should be --
unanticipated by the protagonist. That's what the Homeland Security
element is in this story. For the character, it does strike "out of the
blue" (do you often use clichés?), as it should, although it is
entirely motivated in the novel. However, said motivation couldn't be
squeezed into a 250-word hook. Not a helpful comment.
* It's not until most of the way through the hook that we find out
that Gabe doesn't even know that he has magic. For all we could tell,
since they were introed in the same para, they both had the same
background.
Perhaps this commenter needs to practice his/her reading skills -- the hook clearly states that he learns about sharing the lineage
that leads to these abilities, not that he has the ability. Seems to me
this makes clear that they don't have the same background. Also, it's
clear that he knows he has something -- he can "see" lies. I'm hoping that agents, for whom queries are their life's blood, read a little more carefully/accurately.
#3 Your use of language is odd; we seem to be in the modern
day, but you're saying 'kin' rather than 'family', and using archaic
words like 'clan'. What up?
"What up?" is that there is, as the hook says, a group of people who
are kindred that live in secret. Also, "kin" has a far broader meaning
than "family," which suggests a smaller, closer unit. In my dictionary,
the first meaning for kin is "a group of persons of common ancestry."
Yes, it can also mean family, but not necessarily. And since when is
the word "clan" archaic (see Scotland)? You had to look it up? What's
up is that it's supposed to raise a story question, which it did in
your mind. It wasn't supposed to provide the answer as well.
Also, watch your metaphors: pit bulls don't charge, that's actual bulls.
Actually, actual dogs, people, horses, lions, buffalos, all kinds of
beasts can and do charge. The act is not somehow limited to bulls. But
thanks for mentioning it.
Why would people be persecuted? How? Let's hear some specifics.
More plot details in a brief hook? With no word limit, I have
included why they fear persecution, but it seems to me that it's not a
huge leap to understand that elements in a society would persecute
people who were different and had such unusual abilities. History is
rife with examples.
From the description, you make Ailia (how do you pronounce that?)
being a 'woman who loves too much' sound like a virtue. That rings the
Mary Sue bell in my ears. She does have some genuine, non-virtuous,
non-sympathy-winning, unromantic faults, right? If not, she needs some.
It's a subjective interpretation for you to take that as a virtue.
It wasn't intended that way and, to my eyes, something in excess does
not automatically equate with virtue. Actually, "too much" seems like
an automatic negative to me. As for faults, how does a 250-word hook
explore character in any meaningful depth?
The other problem with your description is that it's pretty normal
to be shattered by the death of your husband, but the way you put it
makes it sound like a personality trait. A tendency to retreat from
life would be a personality trait; inablility to face her fears,
unintentional self-centredness leading her to put her own distress
above the urgent needs of others; those could account for her behaviour
while also making sure she's not over-idealised. But honestly, it would
only be an exceptional character trait if she *wasn't* distraught over
her bereavement.
It's your interpretation that this could be a personality trait. I
don't see how "Crushed by grief when her beloved husband is killed, she
aims to end her life" makes this a personality trait. It's a reaction,
not a trait, and is very normal. She's a human being. Why would you
think that the intent was to make this an "exceptional character
trait?" It's just her state of mind when the novel opens, and motivates
the behavior at that point. As an editor, I deal with "overwriting" a
lot. This seems to me to be a case of "overreading."
I'd avoid odious comparisons with Harry Potter. For one thing, it's
a children's book and this sounds like an adult one; different market,
and you'll sound like your tastes are immature if you don't seem to
grasp the distinction. For another, hey, Harry Potter sells. And for
still another, magic is always fictional in novels. Rowling does it one
way, you do it another, but I don't see anything more realistic about
your treatment of it than hers. It's all make-believe whoever does it.
"Odious?" The comparison, to my mind, is factual, not hateful. And,
as mentioned earlier, the intent is to separate what I mean by "magic"
from what is generally perceived. To my mind, there is no semantic
loading, just a simple "unlike this…" comparison. I not only grasp the
distinction, I point it out. And it's not "all make-believe whoever
does it." You say "magic is always fictional in novels." Really? How
about magical realism? Also, I specifically state "what we think of as 'magic'" in order to differentiate what I'm talking about from genre expectations. To become briefly snarky, pay attention.
Moreover, speculative fiction, which this is, often imagines things
that are later discovered to be part of the real world. However, few in
today's world would expect all the wonderful imaginings of Rowling to
become fact. My story, however, postulates an undiscovered energy and
the control of it that could, just possibly, be real. I don't think I'm
the one who fails to grasp the distinction, as it is made perfectly
clear by the use of the word "not."
I don't think anything can 'drive' someone into autism. Last I
heard, you just get born that way. Falsely diagnosed as autistic
because his behaviour is odd, conceivably. Driven into autism - not
really. Especially as autism means no empathy, which doesn't lend
itself to healing skills.
True. This was a function of the word limit. The boy is driven to
behavior that's interpreted as autism. It would have put me over the
limit to add the word "what seems to be," which I have done in the
revised, expanded hook.
You sound like you're very invested in the story, which is good, but you need
to put more into presenting it to get readers equally involved. I'd like to
hear more about the relationships between the characters aside from their
magical skills, because it's the characters that are going to drive the plot.
Well, give me more space and I’ll put more into presenting
it. The relationships in this novel are far to complex to get into in a brief
hook. I didn’t even mention the death of the character’s own son because it
doesn’t belong in a hook even though it has a big place in the story. I liked this commenter's tone--helpful, respectful. This is the way criticism ought to be delivered.
#4 I'm still trying
to sort out how a "natural energy" that allows one to heal, fly, or
kill, is any different from the "anything-is-possible sorcery" of
Harry Potter. After all, even in HP one had to be born with the power, and then
has to study hard in order to learn how to use it.
You don’t see how “natural” is different from what is
clearly “supernatural” in Harry Potter? “Natural” means constrained by the laws
of physics, which is a limitation that does not apply in the world of Harry
Potter. This is a case of not paying attention to the actual meaning of the few
words that this hook allows. I believe it should be clear, just from the normal
definitions of the words used, that “natural” is different from
“anything-is-possible sorcery.” Everything is not possible in the nature that
we know.
#5 I suggest you lose the first two paragraphs, I don't
think they're helping you convey your work effectively. You need to find a way
to describe your setting, because words like "healer," "kin,"
"clans, imply one kind of setting, but Homeland Security pulls us into the
here and now.
The first part of this comment is constructive criticism,
and is appreciated. However, for me, the premise of the novel is interesting,
and it seemed logical that it might be effective for an agent, especially one
who works with fantasy, so that’s why the paragraphs are there. In fact,
shortly after this hook was posted, I received two requests from agents, one a
partial and the other a full, based on this hook. So it’s not necessarily a bad
thing to do or a waste of words.
Also, in today’s world, there are still healers, clans, and
kin—in America,
they exist today in the backwoods of the Ozarks. There’s no logic to saying
that they necessarily refer to a specific
setting--if I’d told you that the novel took place in Scotland, I
doubt this would have come up. In fact, the heritage of the people in my story
is Celtic, and that has to do with how they think of themselves in modern
times. I’m fairly sure that there are modern Scots who are aware of what their
clan is and who their kin are. In addition, to my thinking, the contrast of
those terms, which are admittedly not common in modern America, created a
little bit of a story question, i.e. how do they mix with “Homeland Security?”
#6 "Ailia" sounds like "ailing", as in
sick, feeble, which made me see her as a weak character (especially as she
starts out wanting to end her own life). Frankly, she sounds a bit depressing,
and so the story sounds a bit like that too.
I would hope that a purely subjective reaction like this
would be put aside by a pro like Miss Snark. While it’s fair to have a negative
reaction to a name, to condemn a character and a story on the basis of a very
personal reaction seems unprofessional to me. For me, the name is pretty, and
romantic. Does that make either of us right? I don’t think so. What if this
reader didn’t like “Gabe” as well? This kind of interpretation could drive a
writer nuts if he/she tried to respond to all possible personal reactions to
names. Everybody doesn’t like one name or another. If I were to try to avoid
turning off anyone by the names used, then the hook would have to use generic
terms such as Protagonist One and Protagonist Two.
Interestingly, the use of “kin” and “clan,” especially in
conjunction with “Homeland Security,” popped up 3 times. Things that pop up frequently
deserve consideration. In this case, though, I think these are symptomatic of a
knee-jerk genre expectation to the extent that there was no room in these
readers’ minds for a different approach. Perhaps some agents are similarly
hide-bound, and thus I won’t succeed with them, either. At the same time, I
don’t want to hook up with an agent who isn’t open-minded, flexible, and aware
of nuance. The reason is that my stuff doesn’t meet genre expectations, the
ones these commenters thought were missing. Fair enough.
Next week, I’ll post a rewritten description/hook. It’s
longer than the 250-word limit Miss Snark imposed, and I’ll try to trim it one
of these days. But if it’s all interesting, then it may work. In fact, it has
recently gone out in another flight of queries.
For what it’s worth,
Ray
Free edit. Email a sample for an edit that I can post here.
ARCHIVES .
© 2007 Ray Rhamey