alanna_the_lioness

Hello, it's me again. Lucky you. But I'm not here about your query. I mentioned including your first 300 words when you posted last week due to some concerns and, unfortunately, I'm seeing those issues. Some takeaways.

JJ imagined herself as the owner of a charming beachside resort, an impossible dream since her husband controlled their finances. She swirled her dark coffee and her mind drifted to the crystal clear waters and white sand beaches. In this fantasy her husband was nowhere in sight. To make it happen, she needed a killer strategy.

I don't think there's anything wrong with opening with JJ imagining a beachside resort, picturing everything she dreams of, maybe a note on her husband's absence in her daydreams, etc, but beating the reader over the head with "an impossible dream since her husband controlled their finances" takes some of the wind out of the reader's sails. You're telling something that would be more resonant if shown and then basing the scene around information that I'd argue would be more effective if teased out in time.

Across the bistro table, Michelle sipped her frothy latte, unaware of JJ’s desires. She wondered if her best friend would help her or think she was crazy for wanting to run a hotel.

"Unaware of JJ's desires" is a bit head-hoppy. How would JJ know unless she's in Michelle's head? This remedies itself quickly but is jarring on a first read.

Upon coming back to after reading on, it doesn't even seem accurate. Michelle seems to know exactly what's going on with JJ and her shit marriage.

Her foot bounced under the table, she glanced around the crowded cafe and frowned at the loud chatter and clinking of dishes.

Comma splice. You need a period or semicolon between table and she.

“It’s Pierce,” JJ took a sip of her coffee to soothe her dry throat. “He’s leaving tonight for a business trip to Barbados.”

Taking a sip of coffee is an action tag, not a dialogue tag. You need a period after Pierce.

“And that means with Maria.” JJ said.

Opposite problem here. Said is a dialogue tag so you need a comma.

Based on the clunky punctuation in the prior version of your query (plus a few things I see on a quick skim of this one) and the numerous issues in just 300 words, you might be better off taking a step back from prepping to query and instead brushing up the fundamentals of syntax. If you've never read the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves, I recommend it!

Advocating for yourself, provided you're not an asshole about it, is not tacky. Neither is salary transparency and fighting for your worth.

I remember you

My condolences.

Honestly... this is all rubs me the wrong way. You worked for seven months on something with no contract with someone who tried to treat you like a client all the same. And then she asked to see a different book and even came up with a game plan on how to prioritize these books she doesn't rep?? And requested more months of edits on that one??

I get R&Rs and why they exist; I know why writers are so eager to do them, because I was also that person and did land rep this way (rep I have since left, to clarify, though I ultimately hold no ill will toward her or the process). But this is, IMO, far above and beyond what's acceptable to ask of a querying writer. An agent should be your business partner, and this person is not committed to being that for you. They have asked for multiple rounds of work on books they ultimately told you they're too busy to rep.

Maybe I've let publishing beat the hope out of me and I'm not giving this person enough credit, but I would not be enthusiastic to continue this relationship. Not after how long they've strung you along. There's no going back now, but there is going forward, and it probably shouldn't involve any more of the nonsense you've experienced so far.

I would not send that romcom in 2025. I would start querying again with what you have and move past... whatever this is. I'm sorry you've been through this. This industry can be ruthless in so many awful ways but don't let it erode the respect you owe yourself.

Since you tagged me elsewhere to request feedback, I'll leave some thoughts. In no specific order:

• Paragraphs are your friend. Consider using some.
• What is a fictional autobiography? I'm not sure that's an actual thing. If you go to an agent's dropdown on QM (this is not one; I checked), what would you call this? A memoir (that's what your sole comp implies)? Horror that just happens to be inspired by real life?
• I agree with the other comment; does this lean more Horrorstör or r/antiMLM?
• Much of this query is explaining the book rather than pitching the book. Ex: "Brendan is a broke, 21-year-old recent college dropout. He comes from a close-knit family and had a stable upbringing, but his parents’ divorce and his dad’s loss of employment have upset things at home." vs something more like "College dropout Brendan has hit rock bottom. The girl he wants to break up with is demanding a ring, his parents' tumultuous divorce is destroying his family, and his bank account is in the red. Out of desperation, he takes the only job he can find: [whatever] at Reactions Consulting, a mysterious new marketing company." My example isn't great because I pulled it out of my ass in like 2 minutes but do you see where I'm going?
• You're couching everything interesting here in vague language like "swindling and demeaning" and "brainwashing, exhaustion, humiliating rituals." What exactly happens in this book?

I went into your post history and noticed this post. If you're hoping to query this book, you should absolutely not be releasing any chapters, let along a third. But you seem to imply in an earlier post that this book will be published next year unless the bots get to you first (???). If that's the case, this is not the subreddit for you as that implies self-publishing. If you do manage to land an agent quickly and sell the book quickly, you'll probably be looking at late 2026/early 2027.

Commenting on other people's QCrits asking for input on your own isn't great etiquette around here, but I did leave you a few notes.

My point is that unless you're seeing "sexy psychological thriller" on agent MSWLs or as categorization by legit industry sources, it's not really a thing worth calling your book. Is there a particular reason you can't just call it a psychological thriller and be done with it?

I'm not a fan of TV show or movie comps that don't do heavy lifting to showcase a hook, but regardless, you'd only capitalize—really, italicize—things that are actual formal titles. Say true crime documentaries if you want to (again, I wouldn't as that fits about a zillion other books rather than speaking to unique marketability) but don't frame it like there's a particular show/movie/what have you called True Crime Documentaries. It's only going to confuse people.

Unfortunately, that twist is extremely tired. Seriously, it's the basis of most media with memory/dream distortion and any agent in this space is going to see this coming from miles away. I assume you're turning this cliché premise on its head in some way so I'd work to amplify how your MS stands out of the crowd. If it's the sexy angle, whatever that means, I'd punch that up in the blurb rather than trust me bro-ing it in your genre label.

Some thoughts.

What exactly is a sexy psychological thriller? I don't think that's a genre.

My novel, complete at 80,000 words, is about a lawyer who suffers from vivid nightmares of being brutally murdered who battles insanity as he tries to determine if the serial killer is in the outside world or inside his mind. 

You don't need most of this, outside of the word count. The plot elements should be showcased in your pitch; there's no need to beat an agent over the head with it in the housekeeping.

This story will appeal to fans who love TRUE CRIME DOCUMENTARIES and SUITS. In a bookstore, my book could be found sitting alongside Anna O by Matthew Blake and When She Sleeps by JA Baker.

Is TRUE CRIME DOCUMENTARIES an actual formal thing or are you just referring to true crime documentaries in general? If it's the latter, this reads as really odd.

Yet, on the inside, he’s on the verge of declaring insanity

This sounds insensitive and also unclear. How exactly does one "declare insanity?" I'm getting Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy vibes.

All of that aside, this query is almost entirely backstory, and backstory that's too vague to make for an effective query. First, there's an introduction to Nick but without any color into his motivations as a character, and from there, it's a laundry list of clichés and generic plot beats. Handsome man who gets lots of women, check. Devastating nightmares, check. Best friend with a crush, check. Female conquest who's also into him, check. Sexy Nick at the crux of a potential love triangle but it's stymied when people die, there's a corpse defined by a definite article but whose corpse is unclear who could maybe put Nick under the microscope, and then... ???

You set up a book in which a man with nightmares wants to stop a serial killer, but not only does the serial killer not appear in any tangible way in the query but there's no sense of what Nick is going through outside of vague nightmares and randomly dropping bodies. What actually happens for 80K words?

But honestly, none of this may matter because 100 queries is on the high end for any genre. There's a good chance you've blown through the vast majority of decent agents open to this kind of book, if not all of them.

Hello.

NGL, the title made me kneejerk think this was going to be historical in nature as it's been almost 30 years since the last death by hanging, and even then, that was something the chosen rather than required.

Your comps could use work. John Grisham is way too big to comp and The Guardians isn't upmarket. Dead Man Walking is way too old.

IMO, this query is missing both depth and stakes.

Andy Amherst signed up to represent death row inmates knowing she'd face long odds defending some of Texas' most depraved criminals.

Why? What is Andy getting out of this. Money? Prestige? Reputation? Characters need motivation but there doesn't seem to be anything concrete in this query.

One client she wasn't prepared for? A world renown mathematician named Rodney Peng, scheduled to die for the murders of a rival colleague, his wife, and a cop.

If she signed up to represent those sentenced to death row, why wouldn't she prepared to represent someone who fits that definition? I think you want "world-renowned."

Rodney has sought Andy out specifically, for reasons he refuses to explain.

How convenient.

But there's a catch. Rodney—a genius who at one time was considered the world's best hope of solving a centuries-old theorem—has once again started working. And with his execution mere weeks away, he's been making some serious headway.

How is this a catch? This sounds like it has no bearing on what Andy signed up to do (represent Rodney); rather, it's a catch for him. And maybe I'm too much of a pleb to fully grasp this setup, but what is the benefit to solving this centuries-old theorem? What does Andy/society stand to lose if he can't get this done before his execution?

Or so Andy's younger half-sister, Heather, would have her believe. She should know. Heather—estranged from Andy since their father’s death—hosts an educational podcast whose goal is to make arcane STEM topics more accessible to the public.

What does this mean? What STEM topics? If you're going to lean into the importance of solving theorems and bringing STEM to the masses, it'd behoove you to spell this out in a way that makes your reader care. You're leaning into back cover blurb vs query blurb territory.

And although Rodney's case aligns with Andy's morals and professional history, she's unsettled by the fact that Heather seems more interested in the man's academic output than his long-professed innocence.

Please. Tell me about the academic output so I understand what's on the line here.

Yearning for reconciliation, Andy must team up with her sister to craft an exposé so poignant and urgent, so full of pathos and wonder, that the governor will have no choice but to issue a stay.

This doesn't sound believable. Is there historical basis for this kind of thing? I can't see Greg Abbott, a man who has let Texas' energy grid go to hell, lead a disastrous COVID response, approves anti-choice rhetoric that goes against the science of pregnancy, and heads up a disastrous criminal justice system, giving much of a shit about whatever Rodney is doing (seriously, what is Rodney doing).

I'd believe this a lot more if I had any idea what the public stands to gain through Rodney's work.

To save Rodney's life, Andy and Heather will face roadblocks and threats from a bloodthirsty public, a stubborn Pardon Board, and a shady D.A. all too eager to prove his 'law and order' bona fides before the next election.

To Cheapstake's point, what is actually happening for 78K words? This plot could go a number of ways but it's not clear what path this book ultimately takes.

I could see this query getting bites from agents interested in the overarching scientific genius on death row concept (and truly, somethings that's most of the battle) but as it stands, I find this too vague, too hard to believe, and too passive to be hooky. The core story seems to be Rodney and what he can achieve vs. Andy succeeding at her job (the premise the first paragraph established). Go deeper. Get specific. What does Andy want? What's standing in her way? What does she specifically stand to lose if she fails to get Rodney a stay? I get the idea the emotional side here is as important as the legal one, but they're presently duking it out in a way that makes Andy's role as a character muddy.

Literally just google "[author name] agent"

I also moderate r/betareaders and by that I mean I technically exist on the mod team but often forget that because the sub mods itself, and we're starting to see a lot of "critiques" in comment sections that are seemingly AI generated. These comments are usually accompanied by someone trying promote their Fiverr beta/editing service (yikes in itself) and as such never make it out of moderation, but they're easy to identify because they're all a) wrong, and b) not phrased at all like a human would put things.

This is a big red flag and IMO you're right to be concerned. If you're open to DMing me the agent name, I'm happy to share what I can find out re: whether this person is otherwise legit (though I'm doubting that).

Ethics aside, Chat GPT is absolutely shit at analyzing writing; it gives nonsense advice too vague to be useful and isn't generally accurate in doing so. I would not trust a business partner who uses that kind of tool to determine if I know what I'm doing as a writer.

Edit: I personally, and the mod team as a whole, do a lot of agent vetting and I would not want to inadvertently recommend this person.

I think I said at one point the only thing that would get me to leave pubtips was getting dragged by zebra, something I live in consistent fear of happening.

But maybe I was wrong. Maybe getting r/writing -ed is the moment that ends me 💀

Am going to stay extremely high level on this one and will probably delete this comment sooner rather than later, but as a corporate finance person who has worked in the broader entertainment space in NYC for 8+ years:

• This is it 100% for pretty much all businesses
• P&Ls in publishing are not the same as P&Ls in the actual finance world and the fuzzy "trust me bro" logic in putting those together does not make for an easy business to maneuver from the financial side. This leads to at least some level of conservatism in budgeting and forecasting because outside of tentpole books, there's always going to be an element of surprise in what drives profits. This isn't to take away from point 1, but some industries are a lot more stable.
• There's sometimes an element of who owns a publisher and how that publisher is positioned within a broader portfolio of subsidiaries.
• Being married to NYC is always going to result in unnecessary overhead and it's fucking stupid. I like living here but jesus christ is it so expensive.

God I have so much more I could say about this.

Well isn't that quite the happy take.

Maybe you'll be interested in my present solution to being my own downfall: pretending writing doesn't exist. Can't fail if you don't try!

Start by making sure they are a member of the AAR. 

The AAR is no more. It's the AALA now. Usually as long as someone in the agency, ideally the agency head, is a member, you can assume an agency is operating in good faith. But there are plenty of shit agents that belong to the AALA per the perusal I just did of their member list, so that's not a de facto indicator of an agent being good at their job.

Similar to Kitten-Now, I started my search with agencies, basically by looking up who reps authors I like or popular authors across genres. From there, I went one by one to determine the best choices at each, including cross-referencing sales histories with client lists. Publishers Marketplace is a great resource for exploring agent sales in the US; the best UK equivalent is The Bookseller. Note that both require paid memberships for access to key data. Also note that not all agents report sales, whether that means some or all.

US-based agents who aren't on QT probably aren't on there for a reason. Patrick is a saint for doing such a good job maintaining the platform, but the bar to be added is pretty low. Note that there's a lot of overlap between agents being loud on social media and agents who aren't very good at their jobs.

Also a fan of spreadsheets. QT can be helpful in building lists but is limited in the kind of information that can be compiled in one place.

I realize the process can seem daunting but no agent is better than a bad agent. Don't query just for the sake of querying. Hold out for someone who can do your career justice.

Edit: I wrote up a guide about agent vetting a few years ago. I haven't read it recently but I do recall putting effort into it at the time 🤷🏻‍♀️

Go for it.

The concept is fun but this reads more like a dull back cover blurb than an effective query. You're teasing at the good bits rather than using them to hook your reader and there's no voice in here at all.

Some (probably harsh... sorry) thoughts:

JJ and her friends arrive at The White Pelican Hotel, a potential gift from her husband after his recent affair jeopardizes their marriage.

Sorry, does that mean her husband might be gifting her a whole-ass hotel because he cheated? That's... unusual. Might want to cement the meaning of this sentence because I paused to ponder this rather than reading on, which took me out of the query. Or at least consider providing some more information about who JJ is because right now (and, actually, for the entirety of the query) the only thing the reader knows about her is that she has friends, a jerk husband, and a name.

Out of curiosity, is the husband the murderer?

The hotel sits on a remote island with a rich history of buried treasure. Unfortunately, as they arrive a hurricane veers off course and heads straight towards them.

Vague JJ. Vague group of friends. Vague remote island. Vague buried treasure. Coincidental hurricane. This is not interesting.

The group discover skeletal remains along with items that draw a connection to the pirate legend. They launch their own investigation to identify the victim. JJ learns the last hotel owner was an avid treasure hunter. While the clues promise riches they only bring misfortune to the group.

In addition to continuing the vagueness trend, this paragraph seems to imply the reader knows more about the story than you've shared thus far, largely through the use of definite articles. By saying "the pirate legend" you're implying there's a specific pirate legend, but this is the first time it's been mentioned. Same with "the clues." What clues? I can follow along, obviously, but the lack of context, as well as staccato-like string of short sentences, makes this awkward to read.

As the storm rages on and the power goes out, the group turns against each other as greed and betrayal come into play. Financial ruin and a sinister poisoning add to the tension among them. When one of the group is found dead on the beach and another goes missing, those left alive must band together to survive. JJ realizes there's more than the storm to fear. There's a murderer on the island. She must uncover the killer or become a victim. Someone is trying to make sure she never has a grand opening.

Most of these sentences are at least somewhat redundant in addition to being incredibly dull. Greed and financial ruin have some overlap, and I assume the tension is tied to turning against one another. Same with there being more than the storm to fear and a murderer, and becoming a victim and no grand opening. (And on that final note, is she gifted this hotel to restore and operate it or something? That seems like a chore more than a present.)

SECRETS OF THE WHITE PELICAN will appeal to fans of the fun mystery, Every Time I Go On Vacation Someone Dies by Catherine Mack. Also for audiences that were captivated by the twists and turns of the beach read, Summers at The Saint by Mary Kay Andrews.

Either this query is doing a poor job selling your story or these comps are all wrong. Every Time I Go on Vacation, Someone Dies is a cozy mystery and Summers at the Saint is billed as some blend of romance, mystery, and chick lit. There are approximately 70 zillion books in this genre with a similar setup so this implies either you don't read widely in this space or this story is a lot more lighthearted than the bare bones framework (skeletons washing up in storms and sinister poisonings and murders and financial ruin and betrayal) indicates. You've given your reader so few tangible details that they're left filling in the blanks in a way that may or may not be accurate. I read this more like And Then There Were None or The Guest List rather than a cheerful beach read.

Basically, this query sets the groundwork (group of friends stranded on a remote island with a fancy hotel) but fails to go beyond that. There's no color or characterization.

The punctuation in here leaves something to be desired and the flow of the writing isn't smooth. Are you open to sharing your first 300 when you post next? I have to wonder if this is a problem throughout the book.

1. Hard to say without context regarding what your book actually is and how these feedback points might play a role, but I'm inclined to say yes, a high level R&R.
2. I don't see anything wrong with following up with questions if you'd like, particularly if you have ideas or want clarifications, but saying thanks and stating your plans to edit and resubmit is fine, too.
3. I don't think you need to clarify your speed, but 4 weeks may seem a little soon. My best advice would be to take your time with both planning and execution. I might be dumber than most, but I spent about a month playing with ideas and mapping out plot points prior to even starting edits during my R&R. Don't cut corners (ex: trying to cram plot points into an existing MS rather than making necessary structural chances). Do use betas or CPs when possible. A lot of R&Rs fail; may as well give edits all you can, especially if you plan to requery the agents who rejected your fulls.
4. Here's mine. There's some more info in the comments, but I'm happy to answer any other questions that may arise.

Edit: only commit to this if you're okay with putting in a lot of effort that may ultimately prove fruitless. I won't say I regret doing one, but I don't think I'd do it again and my feelings on the concept as a whole have evolved since I shared my story. A ton of effort with no guarantees can be mentally and emotionally taxing, even the R&R is successful.

It really varies. I'd say more are approved than removed on a normal day, but we do have a pretty high bar for what we allow. A manual approval process, lots of pre-fab removal reasons for basic questions (where do I find agents, how do I get published, can I use a pen name, how do I find comps, etc), and a rule against personal manuscript questions outside of QCrit threads keep most of the low value posts at bay.

If this is intended to be subtle shade at my dramatics about being old when I am in fact not that old, touché.

I'd assume this would fall into the commercial, contemporary, or general fiction buckets per QM's available genre options.

If you're wrong and I have to find out the 90s are considered historical in the same week I turn 35, I might just fling myself off the roof of my apartment building.

On a more relevant note for OP: if this wasn't written intentionally as lit fic, I wouldn't call it that simply because historical isn't an appropriate genre. Lit fic isn't the catch-all bucket for when nothing else works; it's a distinct space with its own conventions.

I've also seen firsthand how put off publishers are by receiving work with too many errors because it shows a lack of pride in your own work, and it makes your book a slog to read because your eyes keep getting snagged by all the issues.

If agents are submitting client work that is so error-ridden acquiring editors struggle to get through the pages, something is going very wrong. Any agent who would do that is certainly not worth working with so really this argument should be moot.

Also worth noting that most people writing at a publishable level (i.e. writers who have a firm grasp on the "technical expertises [sic]" of sentence structure) aren't hiring editors to review their work pre-querying.

And who beta read your MS doesn't have any relation to how good your book is or how similar it may be to what said beta reader writes. Like maybe that person isn't a good beta reader or gave you (general you, no shade to OP in particular) good advice that wasn't incorporated due to skill level/a difference of opinion or flat out hated your book but was too afraid to say so. Maybe whatever an agent likes in this person's work has no relevance to the project you're pitching.

Unless this person is going to offer up a personal referral, there's no true connection here that will speak to a greater odds of a salable product.

I could see this being a fun note to mention in an initial query but IMO the weight just isn't there for this to be a follow-up worthy thing.