Tuesday, August 7, 2012

How NOT to Write a Query 6

Time again for another round of:


If you're just joining us, this is a series where I explore all I know about queries . . . which mostly encompasses the mistakes I've made along the way.

This post explores something REALLY OBVIOUS that took me a year to learn. Seriously, I spent a year thinking my own query didn't need this. *head desk*

Once again, I've bastardized a book blurb of a really awesome book and turned it into something a novice query writer might write. Since this is Dan Wells's book, PARTIALS, and since Dan is not a novice query writer--and didn't have to query this book (quite the opposite)--my rewrite is the absolute worst this particular blurb has ever been. Probably. Also, I totally stole whole phrases from the real blurb while I was writing my screwed-up version.

In any event, if you haven't read this excellent book yet, please keep in mind that this is the bad version. Don't judge the book on the bad blurb. Come back Thursday for the real version.


Sixteen-year-old Kira lives on Long Island with the tens of thousands of humans who survived the war with the partials—engineered organic beings identical to humans. The weaponized virus which destroyed the rest of humanity is still working: no baby has been born immune to the disease in over a decade. Desperate to find a cure, the government passed the Hope Act—which could soon force Kira to become pregnant . . . and watch a new child die every year to provide data for the scientists’ disease research.

Kira knows she's too young to start that, but she is determined to find a cure—and she’s willing to go to tremendous lengths to make that happen.

---

So what do you think? If you haven't read the book, what do you think the main conflict is? If you have read the book, does this version of the blurb sound at all familiar? What's missing?

Breakdown coming on Thursday . . . .

9 comments:

  1. I'm not for sure...I don't know if I would read it, based on *this* version, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not read the book. This query reads as all set-up with no connection to what the character's personal stakes are and why we should care about her. Her goals are vague - what are the tremendous lengths she will go to and why is she determined to find a cure?

    Looking forward to the real/better query!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the above comment. It really seems like this is all setup up and not much about the character. Funny enough, I have this sitting on my counter waiting to be read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really need to read it. It's amazing.

      Delete
  4. I have a new plan for my query...I'm just going to have you write it for me. Just kidding...kind of :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahahahahaha! :D That course of action is decidedly suspect.

      OR, you can write it yourself and submit it to my HNTWAQ: Practice series.

      I'm really so much better at pointing out flaws than building queries WITHOUT them.

      Delete
  5. Ah the hated query. This is the stage I'm at and I can't tell you how many I've written. I might would try the book based on whats given, but I would be passionately in need of reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. *hand raises* I too sent my query out for many months without the proper query stakes. And, I seem to have a talent for confusing the reader in my queries. I've gotten somewhat better in clearing the matter up. I'm enjoying these query don'ts. thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the confusing stake-less query. THAT query I can master! :)

      Delete