Almost accurate, yet utterly useless

[rj_anderson]

When giving advice on how to write a good query letter, I've often heard agents and editors recommend that authors compare their ideas to something that's already out there. For instance, I've heard one paranormal romance author describe her books as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets James Bond". Well, I just came up with a description of Wayfarer (the sequel to Knife, which I am currently brainstorming) that amused me greatly:

"It's like Thomas Covenant meets Watership Down. With faeries."

Hee!

Comments

[ladyjaguar.livejournal.com]

I flung the first Covenant book against the wall after the first 100 pages. It was, as dolorous_ett said above, unreadable.

It saddens me, though, that people -- at least some of them -- who make decisions as to which books will or will not be published can't stand for a book to rise or fall on its own merits, without comparison to something else. It is absurd, as your "blurb" demonstrates. I think it reflects badly on the reviewer/editor/whoever: it says to me that the individual hasn't the intellectual apparatus to come up with fresh and original things to say in a review.

That kinda turns things on their heads, doesn't it? After all, one of the demands put on writers is that their work be fresh and original, no?

H'mmmm . . .

Makes me glad I'm doing non-fiction; we don't run into that so much as fiction writers do.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I flung the first Covenant book against the wall after the first 100 pages.

It took me six tries over the course of three or four years to get past that point, myself -- I'm not even sure why I kept trying. But once I did, I roared through the rest of the series. Not that I would claim them as favorites, but after that first enormous hurdle they became much more interesting, and Covenant a significantly more tolerable character.

But I agree. I really don't care for the whole comparison business.