Comments on: Sharpening Your Concept With a Two-Sentence Synopsis

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:13:39 +0000

xD, it’s a bizarre mashup of various influences. I’m a history student, learning about Naziism, and also having read both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm- but I’m also a rabid vampires freak. Maybe it’s a dead end, but people generally seem intrigued by the idea.
And yes, looking at it, I think traitorous works better. It could be interesting to try and bring in the reason for the treachery. A lot of the story is about character growth, as the vampire (main character, by the name of Ivy) has some serious personality flaws, and it’s partially her fault that her companion turns traitor.
Anyway, enough of my jabbering on. Thanks a lot for the help.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:59:52 +0000

Hmm, okay. If the story is similar to 1984 in some way, I think “Orwellian” is solid. I just wanted to make sure that it fit your story because it’s not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Victorian vampires.

I like traitorous. I feel like it conveys more about what happens than “rebellious.” If the betrayal is particularly important, you might want to bring a few words about that into the synopsis. If not, you could probably leave it for the full-length synopsis.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:37:49 +0000

(was looking at lolcats, blinks) Whoa- that was fast.
I agree about the rebellious companion- that detail needs work. ‘Traitorous’ could work better, as he eventually betrays her to said regime. As for the young… probably a placeholder. His character is something like the typical rebellious teenager, so I suppose young works from that angle.
I see your point about Orwellian. I’m reluctant to change it, to be honest with you, as the novel is best summed up as a cross between the Vampire Chronicles and Nineteen Eighty-Four. (Yes, bizarre, I know, but somehow it works.) I was considering elements of steampunk- do you think perhaps that would smooth it down?
Nevertheless, I shall take a look through a thesaurus, see if there’s anything better than ‘orwellian.’
Sincere thanks. ^_^

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:32:05 +0000

I like it, but I do have some suggestions.

Perhaps you could give another detail about the rebellious companion. What does he do that complicates things? In what ways do things get complicated? Is it really that important that he’s young?

Also, is “Orwellian” the best word to describe this Victorian regime? I think it has a modern/futuristic connotation, which may feel out of place in the Victorian Era. Does it fit your story better than “tyrannical” or something similar?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:03:08 +0000

Um, helloo. I posted a while back, but I’d imagine you don’t remember me. Currently gearing myself up to work on my novel. Any thoughts on the following?

“Against the gloomy backdrop of Victorian London, a vampire seeks revenge against the Orwellian regime that imprisoned her. Her only way forward is to join a faction of radicals, but her rebellious young companion complicates matters.”

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:51:55 +0000

Ack, ShardReaper, I didn’t notice your last version until just now.

“Welcome to Freedom City: land of death, drugs, violence, and explosions. In a city where every day is like Hell in SoCal, four superpowered heroes will be a shining beacon for a dark place.”

–I don’t get the SoCal reference. Does this book take place in southern California? If so, does the setting matter enough to mention? (For example, I think thablue’s vampire story is an example where the setting is important– if the book is set in modern Dublin rather than BMactopia, it’s clear we’re not talking about a straight-up fantasy).

–I think this needs more style. “Beyond the gang wars and drug epidemics and [cast the villain here in a catastrophic light], Freedom City has a lot going for it. Namely [hero phrase]. And low property values.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:24:23 +0000

Hello, Lightning Man. Here are some thoughts and suggestions.

Version 1: “What’s a mentally ill supervillain and his imaginary friend, the reincarnation of Charles Guiteau, to do when they’re forced to live the rest of their days in the world’s most secure insane asylum? Can an imaginary presidential assassin find love? Can a supervillain find redemption surrounded by the ones that came before him?”

–I love the question “can an imaginary presidential assassin find love?” It really helps establish your style and the mood of the piece.

–I get the wackiness, but I don’t understand what the plot is. What’s the villain trying to do? Where’s the conflict? Are we supposed to take it at face value that the most important things that happen in this book are the assassin’s quest for love and the supervillain’s attempts to redeem himself?

–The rhetorical question “What’s a [noun] to do” shortchanges you, I think. It saps an opportunity to use a more interesting verb phrase. For example, “A mentally ill supervillain and his imaginary friend must [verb phrase] when they’re committed to the world’s securest asylum.”

–”A mentally ill supervillain and his imaginary friend… insane asylum.” I don’t think you need to tell us he’s mentally ill if he has an imaginary friend. Also, do you need to put the word “insane” in front of asylum? Also, “mentally ill” is kind of generic. Could you give us a more descriptive phrase like psychotic, sociopathic, etc. Hopefully something that builds on what we learn about him in the rest of the passage. Alternately, there may be a more fitting descriptor to apply to him than his mental illness.

Version 2

“In the world’s worst insane asylum, a recently convicted supervillain finds a reason to change, but soon other prisoners start dying. leaving it up to him and his imaginary friend to figure out who is behind it before it is too late.”

–Better, I think. There’s conflict and a clear goal (solving the case). There are major smoothness issues, but generally I could see myself wanting to read further.

–I think there’s a typo. The period after dying should probably be a comma. Even so, it’s sort of awkward because the sentence is long and has a lot of clauses. I suspect that using two sentences here will help– I’d recommend putting a period after either change or dying.

–Starting with the setting is interesting.

–”recently convicted” can probably be removed. If he’s in an insane asylum, I think we can infer the conviction. Unless the recentness is critical to the story, I would recommend leaving “recently convicted” out.

–”supervillain finds a reason to change…” I would recommend at least hinting at what the reason is.

–Major awkwardness issues. It’s hard to entangle this separately, so I’ll try it all at once. ORIGINAL VERSION: “In the world’s worst insane asylum, a recently convicted supervillain finds a reason to change, but soon other prisoners start dying. leaving it up to him and his imaginary friend to figure out who is behind it before it is too late.” REVISION: “The sudden [interesting synonym for death, like decapitation or whatever] of several prisoners at the world’s worst insane asylum threatens the delicate recovery of a [interesting adjective] supervillain. It’s up to him and his imaginary friend to crack the case before [stakes].” I’d feel more comfortable if it were a bit shorter, but I think this is workable.

–This does not feel like the same book described in the first version. The distinctive wackiness is gone. This feels much more sober.

Version 3: “A mentally ill supervillain and his imaginary friend are sentenced to spend the rest of their days in the world’s worst insane asylum, once inside, he finds a reason to change, but things are soon further complicated when prisoners begin dying.”

–Similar issues to #2. My revised version would look roughly the same. “A [adjective] supervillain and his imaginary friend are confined to the world’s worst insane asylum. Once inside, he [why he changes] but prisoners begin dying and he could be next.”

By: ShardReaper

ShardReaper — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:04:23 +0000

Let me try this: “Welcome to Freedom City: land of death, drugs, violence, and explosions. In a city where every day is like Hell in SoCal, four superpowered heroes will be a shining beacon for a dark place.”

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:52:22 +0000

Hello, ShardReaper. Here are some thoughts and suggestions.

–”Fifteen years after a catastrophe…” Is this bit of backstory important here? It doesn’t feel that way yet. I’d recommend making the connection between the destruction 15 years ago and the fight going on today. Otherwise, it’s just passive backstory and shouldn’t be in the synopsis.

–If you’re deadset on “fifteen years after a catastrophe,” it may be worthwhile to throw in a word describing what sort of catastrophe we’re talking about. We’re probably not talking about a financial crisis.

–”has gone to hell in a handbasket” is fairly cliche. Do you think you could use a phrase that shows more about your style of writing?

–I’m not sold on the first sentence. It only describes the setting. I imagine you could probably work in a villain here, at the very least. Particularly if the catastrophe was man-made: “Fifteen years after [villain noun phrase] wrecked Freedom City, [detail that draws the setting into the story now.]”

–I would recommend taking out the ellipsis in the second sentence. Also, its only has an apostrophe when it’s being used as the contraction for “it is.” In the context of “its freedom,” it wouldn’t have an apostrophe. “Four things are the only thing that stand between the city’s salvation and its freedom.”

–I love the juxtaposition between salvation and freedom.

–I’m a bit concerned that we don’t anything about the heroes, or even about the team of heroes. Are we talking about… ninja turtles? wizards? Wild Wild West mad scientists? Kung fu chicks? So the word “heroes” can mean pretty much anything. And that’s even before we get into the personality of the team. I’d recommend replacing “four heroes” with “four [distinctive adjective] [distinctive noun]s.” For example, “four surly ninjas” would strike a very feeling than “four badass mercenaries” or “four disgruntled cops” or whatever. This should suggest the mood of the piece– for example, if we described Batman, we’d want something that conveys how dark and gritty the character and story are. In contrast, we might describe Superman as a moral paragon to help us think of a world that’s generally more pleasant and clean-cut. What kind of superhero story are you trying to tell?

–I don’t think the word “but” is warranted in the second sentence.

By: ShardReaper

ShardReaper — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:44:55 +0000

Let’s see: “Fifteen years after a catastrophe, Freedom City has gone to hell in a handbasket. But four heroes are the only thing that stand between the city’s salvation… and it’s freedom.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:19:03 +0000

Hello, thablue. I like how your synopsis is turning out.

“A 4,000 solitary vampire living in modern-day Dublin must turn to a bookish young lesbian, an opportunistic criminal, and a dishonest priest to survive the machinations of a secret Vatican cabal bent on world domination. At the same time she must battle the demon bourne in her own blood. But is either battle one she can win?”

Here are some thoughts.

–I think you’re missing “year old” after 4000. Also, I think that “ancient” or perhaps “primeval” or “archaic” would be more effective than the longer “4000 year old”.

–How important is it that the bookish lesbian is young?

–This mentions 4 characters (vampire, bookish lesbian, criminal, priest) as well as the cabal and the demon. I’d recommend eliminating at least one of the criminal and the priest. (Don’t worry– you’ll get a chance to mention them in the synopsis, which is considerably longer than two sentences).

–”survive the machinations of a secret Vatican cabal bent on world domination.” This is a really smooth way to introduce the goal and antagonist. Nicely done! However, I have two minor suggestions on length. First, “the machinations of” is probably unnecessary. Second, the word cabal implies secrecy, so secret is unnecessary. I think this could be cut down to “…survive a Vatican cabal bent on world domination.”

–”But is either battle one she can win?” I don’t think that this question adds very much to the preceding sentence. It doesn’t raise the stakes. (I doubt you could raise the stakes much after introducing world domination in the first sentence).

If you’re really attached to “but is either battle one she can win?”, I’d recommend phrasing it as “but can she win either battle?”

–”modern-day” could probably be “modern.” Your call.

–”At the same time she must battle the demon bourne in her own blood.” I don’t think it’s clear what this means. Could you rephrase it? In particular, I don’t think that it’s obvious whether the demon in question is a literal supernatural demon, or her vampirism (or perhaps her vampiric craving for blood), or something else entirely. In addition, I feel that this sentence could probably be tied together with the first one more smoothly. You can probably give us a detail here. How does this demon affect her efforts to defeat the cabal? What’s it trying to accomplish? Etc.

–”opportunistic criminal…” Criminal is a sort of generic word. Could you think of something more specific? I’d rather read about an opportunistic arsonist, a pickpocket, a murderer, a conman, a kidnapper, a vandal, etc. Any of these helps develop the character more than just being a criminal. (Nonetheless, I’d like to commend you for describing him as a criminal rather than something totally useless like a “man” or “person”–”criminal” is so much better it’s not even funny).

By: thablue

thablue — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:04:59 +0000

(bah – sorry got the bold all over the place)

By: thablue

thablue — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:04:20 +0000

OK, I think I’ve got a new handle on it…(this is a great exercise, btw! It’s making me think about the novel in a new way.) This is closer – still not quite there, I think I can do better than “Solitary” and “Bookish” for describing the two (and I know it’s three sentences )

“A 4,000 solitary vampire living in modern-day Dublin must turn to a bookish young lesbian, an opportunistic criminal, and a dishonest priest to survive the machinations of a secret Vatican cabal bent on world domination. At the same time she must battle the demon bourne in her own blood. But is either battle one she can win?

What do you think?

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:14:55 +0000

I don’t think it’s necessary to introduce the computer warden. Since they’re battling against technological monsters, it should be pretty obvious that this is sci-fi. Is it really critical that the prison is run by machines rather than humans?

…

I think it’s still a bit long…

By: StarE

StarE — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:15:57 +0000

Marissa and I worked on this a bit more. How’s this one?
_
“In a prison where inmates are sent to war against technological monsters, an artist must rely on the scheme of a dangerously intelligent stranger to escape. But when a computerized warden can sieze their memories at any time, can she master the art of mind-hacking without blowing their only shot at freedom?”
_
I wonder if there’s a more stylish way to say “computerized warden”? That the most straight-forward way to say it, because “warden” indicates control over the prison’s happenings, and “computerized” keeps that tech feel and hints at HOW the wardens can tap into their memories, etc. Does it sound corny to just say “computerized warden” straight up?
_
Just saying “supercomputers” with “warden” doesn’t indicate their level of authority. And just saying “warden” without mentioning that they’re supercomputers doesn’t have the right feel, and makes people think the prison is run by humans. *ponders*