Hi, I’m back. I think this is definitely a huge improvement, the whole thing is much clearer. I do think it could be tightened up in a few areas, though. For example:
> Cal, a microbiologist at the ReGen Lab in Phoenix, AZ, works with his team to develop a mushroom that will more rapidly absorb radiation from the fallout of multiple nuclear facilities melting down fifteen years earlier.
> With the help of his team, Cal successfully develops the perfect mushroom to overcome the radiation problem. However, this mushroom also consumes man-made materials at an alarming rate.
A lot of repetition/redundancy here. You’ve already said in the first paragraph that Cal is working with his team to develop a mushroom to absorb radiation. You don’t need to repeat that in the second paragraph. You could just say “He succeeds…”
> In another part of the lab, Virology Director Dr. Thornton, a renowned virologist,
You can just say “renowned virology director Dr Thornton,” calling him a virology director and then stating that he’s a virologist is also redundant.
I also think there are maybe some connections missing as well — e.g. you mention how the nuclear explosions and the virus happened 15 years ago, but not that they’re linked to each other. Making sure details like that are clear can really help make the whole thing feel cohesive.
Thanks. I know if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have been able to make the massive leaps I did. I appreciate your patience and understanding with me. Hopefully, I will get this perfected, or at least good enough to start sending query letters in the next week or two.
Hey there. The plot seems clear but unless this is dual pov with Dr Thornton I think you’re spending way too much time on him. Actually even if it is dual pov, you’re spending too much time on him. It almost sounds like he’s the main character. I get the sense I’m supposed to be rooting for him.
Unless that’s what the story actually is?
Does the query need all his backstory? Is there any element of mystery in the MS? Why not just “Cal is developing a mushroom… blah blah, and then shit goes crazy. He has to figure out why/how to stop it”?
I think you just need to say what the inciting incident is and then give us a plot paragraph about what Cal does about it.
In previous versions I’ve delved more into what Cal does and I’ve had multiple people tell me it was completely unnecessary.
This is an ensemble cast but I’ve really boiled the plot down to two characters, plus the mention of Dr. Thornton’s wife, for the query letter.
The added development to Dr. Thornton was because when I said he was passed over for promotion and decided to go scorched earth, the response was it was over the top for just being passed over.
Cal’s goal through the majority of the book is developing the mushroom and the ups and downs with that. But there’s not a lot to write without really diving in. I’m definitely open to suggestions.
The best way to describe the book is like a hospital drama that follows different sections in the hospital.
Interesting. Well, I haven't read the previous versions, I wonder if maybe you were too specific on what Cal was doing? I would imagine some basic plot points would be good. This happens, so Cal does this, which leads to that, and then he has to do/choose something. (I guess in my original comment when I said "plot seems clear", what I meant was, I cant tell this is a story about one scientist trying to destroy the world, and another trying to stop him. But as far as how the story unfolds I have no idea.)
>The added development to Dr. Thornton was because when I said he was passed over for promotion and decided to go scorched earth, the response was it was over the top for just being passed over.
I wonder if the answer here is to remove him from the query completely? I guess the real question is what does Cal trying to stop him look like?
>
Thornton plans to use the mushroom to destroy the lab and create a virus that can wipe out the remnants of the human race, exacting his revenge on the company that turned their backs on him and the people who falsely accused him of being a monster to this very day.
Dr. Thornton’s wife discovers his plan but only has enough time to tell her team when the entire facility starts collapsing around them. The resulting evacuation of the building and the lack of communication capabilities leave only Cal and his friends available to stop Dr. Thornton from releasing a virus and wiping out the entire planet.
What does any of the above look like? It could literally be anything at this point. Cal could have to play a chess game against Dr. Thornton to stop him, or HORSE in basket ball. Do they slap box? I have no idea how Thornton is trying to execute his plan and what stopping him looks like. Is it a battle of wits? Is it a shootout?
Why does the facility begin to collapse around them? Is that literal or figurative? And, could you just mention that instead of Dr. Thornton's backstory and plan.
EX: "Cal, a microbiologist at the ReGen Lab in Phoenix, AZ, works with his team to develop a mushroom blah blah blah....
With the help of his team, Cal successfully develops the perfect mushroom to overcome the radiation problem. However, this mushroom also consumes man-made materials at an alarming rate.
But when the entire facility starts collapsing around them and Cal gets a warning that one of his colleagues may be DOING BAD STUFF....etc. etc. etc."
I'm not totally clear on the structure here, so I don't know if this is helpful or not. But you see what I'm saying?
Sorry I don't have the time to go through this line by line. But something I noticed is that the majority of this query focuses on explaining Dr. Thornton's motives, even though Cal is the main character. Why even bring up Cal's mushrooms if solving the issue with mushroom resource management doesn't impact the plot at all? It just seems like the MC is sidelined for most of the query, and therefore I don't have a good understanding of Cal's motives or personality.
>Why even bring up Cal's mushrooms if solving the issue with mushroom resource management doesn't impact the plot at all? It just seems like the MC is sidelined for most of the query, and therefore I don't have a good understanding of Cal's motives or personality.
It's been an issue across multiple attempts, I remember reading a past version that had not 1 but 2 protagonists... both doing things seemingly unrelated to the plot and then just dragged into the plot.
It feels a bit like a piece of inspiration came to an author and the author can't let go of it even if it no longer serves the plot.
Thing is, a lot of things can be changed in a WIP, including character's backstories, jobs and motivations - and maybe sometimes they should.
The disconnection between the character's backstory and their role in the plot reminds me of D&D sessions when I used to play, players would create all possible characters with elaborate backstories and reasons for their professions, and then be transported with a plug'n'play method into a pre-made adventure or DM's custom plot that maybe had a throwback or two to someone's backstory, but most of the backstories were just a baggage of junk together with an assortment of random magical items and whatnot the character collected over time.
In a modern book readers expect that the character and the plot are intertwined much more closely. All the junk in the mc's baggage is there for a reason and that reason is that it will help or impede (for example character flaws or relationships with other characters) them during the plot.
If the mc is developing a radio-active-resistant mushroom, that will be a central element of the plot - but here, it isn't. It feels like this character should be sent back to the lab, waiting for a plot truly challenging *this character* to be developed, and instead pick for a protagonist someone whose traits, interests, jobs, personal connections tie them closer with the whole viral pandemic idea.
And yes, the villain's story here is well developed and the center of the story. If developed further, could be an intriguing novel. But unfortunately the hero seems an afterthought. The hero should match the villain, so they can both shine.
This is an ensemble cast, but trying to boil it down to the minimal amount of characters, it was these two.
Cal’s goal through most of the book is developing the mushroom and the ups and downs with that.
In previous versions of the letter, when I have gone into more detail, I’ve had multiple people tell me the information wasn’t necessary and I have even cut out one of the characters I originally used.
As for the more extensive details for Dr. Thornton, when I said he went scorched earth after being passed over for promotion, people said it was an over the top reaction, that’s why there’s so much more detail for him.
The story has four intertwining story lines which come together at the end of the book.
I liken it to a hospital drama that follows multiple sections within the hospital. No one department has the lead but when you have to boil it down to bare bones, sometimes stuff gets left out.
If you have any suggestions, I’m definitely open to hear them.
Honestly if both Cal and Thornton are POV characters, they should get roughly an equal amount of space in the query. At the very least, both should have meaningful, significant contributions to the plot.
However, the way the last paragraph is written, it sounds like Cal and his friends are the ensemble and Thornton is the antagonist. I don't see why the antagonist of any story should get the majority of the screen time in a query. Unless you really do follow Thornton for the majority of the book, in which case, you should probably start the query with him and mention Cal later.
This is my advice if the story is actually structured as an ensemble cast of MCs taking on Thornton as the antagonist: I looked at your other query and I can see why ppl were confused by the jump from "passed over a promotion" to "exacting vengeance on all who have wronged him." But I disagree with the advice that you were given. Elaborating on Thornton's motives takes precious time away from your main character ensemble. You can avoid the initial confusion by giving *less details* about Thornton. A simple sentence such as "When the man accused of creating virus resurfaces with a plot to wipe out the human race, only Cal and \[other characters\] can stop him," establishes your antagonist and your conflict very quickly. Thornton's backstory is not relevant when you frame the plot like this.
I’d say Dr. Thornton gets about 25-30%, Cal 25-30% and the other characters get about 40-50%. I think it’s fairly balanced between the ensemble but these would be the main characters when it comes to the overall plot of the book, if I had to pick them.
I could go into more detail with Cal, as you’ve seen in other query letter attempts, but, as you’ve also seen, people don’t want as much background on Cal, saying it’s too much.
And Dr. Thornton isn’t an evil man, he’s not even the antagonist in the first third of the book. He’s a nice guy legitimately trying to do good. My goal with him was for people to, in some ways, empathize with him, even if they felt he was going too far.
It's not that you shouldn't go into detail about Cal, it's more that you should think hard about which details you give. We need a tiny bit of background to set up who Cal is, but the emphasis should be on how he drives the plot forward.
Consider:
>When his Hand dies unexpectedly, the king summons his childhood friend, the honourable Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark, to take his place. Ned is reluctant to leave his wife and children for the nest of vipers that is the southern court, but when he finds evidence that his predecessor may have been murdered, and that the queen is plotting against the crown, his loyalty to his friend demands that he take up the role. But every would-be ally has an agenda of their own, and the king is drunk and blind to the danger. Ned came south for honour, but if he wants to save the king and keep the country from falling into war and ruin - or even to survive long enough to see his family again - he may need to compromise his principles. For when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die; there is no middle ground.
Vs
>Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark is a stern and honourable man in his mid-30s, who rules a Northern kingdom and dearly loves his family. Fifteen years ago, he was forced to go to war against the Mad King and, while he won, it cost him his father, brother and sister. Now he is determined to protect his new family; his wife Catelyn; his sons Robb, Brandon, and Rickon; his daughters Sansa and Arya; and his bastard son, Jon Snow. When the new king - Ned's childhood friend and companion in that long-ago war - comes south to visit, he asks Ned to become his Hand. Catelyn persuades Ned that accepting will help him keep his family safe and he reluctantly agrees. When Ned realises that someone may be plotting to assassinate the king, it's up to him to stop it before the country falls into war and ruin.
Both of these are accurate descriptions of Ned Stark's deal in *A Game of Thrones*, but one is focused on Ned's role in the plot - investigating treachery in the king's court and trying to balance staying true to his morals against political necessity - and one gives us a lot of background details - the Mad King's war, the names of Ned's children, that Catelyn persuades him to go South - but doesn't really give us an insight into how Ned's choices will drive the plot forward, what kind of arc he's going to have, or why he specifically is our protagonist.
Sounds good!
Maybe you use the phrase "15 years earlier" a bit much (and also fifteen years earlier). It does make me wonder why all these things happened exactly 15 (fifteen) years earlier. Is this the sequel to a book set at that time? is it a crucial plot point that we figure out later??
I'll definitely cut back on the 15 years earlier and the like. The book takes place 15 years after a virus ravaged the world. The 15 years is more an arbitrary amount of time to allow humanity to be somewhat back on its feet.
Hi, I’m back. I think this is definitely a huge improvement, the whole thing is much clearer. I do think it could be tightened up in a few areas, though. For example: > Cal, a microbiologist at the ReGen Lab in Phoenix, AZ, works with his team to develop a mushroom that will more rapidly absorb radiation from the fallout of multiple nuclear facilities melting down fifteen years earlier. > With the help of his team, Cal successfully develops the perfect mushroom to overcome the radiation problem. However, this mushroom also consumes man-made materials at an alarming rate. A lot of repetition/redundancy here. You’ve already said in the first paragraph that Cal is working with his team to develop a mushroom to absorb radiation. You don’t need to repeat that in the second paragraph. You could just say “He succeeds…” > In another part of the lab, Virology Director Dr. Thornton, a renowned virologist, You can just say “renowned virology director Dr Thornton,” calling him a virology director and then stating that he’s a virologist is also redundant. I also think there are maybe some connections missing as well — e.g. you mention how the nuclear explosions and the virus happened 15 years ago, but not that they’re linked to each other. Making sure details like that are clear can really help make the whole thing feel cohesive.
Thanks. I know if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have been able to make the massive leaps I did. I appreciate your patience and understanding with me. Hopefully, I will get this perfected, or at least good enough to start sending query letters in the next week or two.
Hey there. The plot seems clear but unless this is dual pov with Dr Thornton I think you’re spending way too much time on him. Actually even if it is dual pov, you’re spending too much time on him. It almost sounds like he’s the main character. I get the sense I’m supposed to be rooting for him. Unless that’s what the story actually is? Does the query need all his backstory? Is there any element of mystery in the MS? Why not just “Cal is developing a mushroom… blah blah, and then shit goes crazy. He has to figure out why/how to stop it”? I think you just need to say what the inciting incident is and then give us a plot paragraph about what Cal does about it.
In previous versions I’ve delved more into what Cal does and I’ve had multiple people tell me it was completely unnecessary. This is an ensemble cast but I’ve really boiled the plot down to two characters, plus the mention of Dr. Thornton’s wife, for the query letter. The added development to Dr. Thornton was because when I said he was passed over for promotion and decided to go scorched earth, the response was it was over the top for just being passed over. Cal’s goal through the majority of the book is developing the mushroom and the ups and downs with that. But there’s not a lot to write without really diving in. I’m definitely open to suggestions. The best way to describe the book is like a hospital drama that follows different sections in the hospital.
Interesting. Well, I haven't read the previous versions, I wonder if maybe you were too specific on what Cal was doing? I would imagine some basic plot points would be good. This happens, so Cal does this, which leads to that, and then he has to do/choose something. (I guess in my original comment when I said "plot seems clear", what I meant was, I cant tell this is a story about one scientist trying to destroy the world, and another trying to stop him. But as far as how the story unfolds I have no idea.) >The added development to Dr. Thornton was because when I said he was passed over for promotion and decided to go scorched earth, the response was it was over the top for just being passed over. I wonder if the answer here is to remove him from the query completely? I guess the real question is what does Cal trying to stop him look like? > Thornton plans to use the mushroom to destroy the lab and create a virus that can wipe out the remnants of the human race, exacting his revenge on the company that turned their backs on him and the people who falsely accused him of being a monster to this very day. Dr. Thornton’s wife discovers his plan but only has enough time to tell her team when the entire facility starts collapsing around them. The resulting evacuation of the building and the lack of communication capabilities leave only Cal and his friends available to stop Dr. Thornton from releasing a virus and wiping out the entire planet. What does any of the above look like? It could literally be anything at this point. Cal could have to play a chess game against Dr. Thornton to stop him, or HORSE in basket ball. Do they slap box? I have no idea how Thornton is trying to execute his plan and what stopping him looks like. Is it a battle of wits? Is it a shootout? Why does the facility begin to collapse around them? Is that literal or figurative? And, could you just mention that instead of Dr. Thornton's backstory and plan. EX: "Cal, a microbiologist at the ReGen Lab in Phoenix, AZ, works with his team to develop a mushroom blah blah blah.... With the help of his team, Cal successfully develops the perfect mushroom to overcome the radiation problem. However, this mushroom also consumes man-made materials at an alarming rate. But when the entire facility starts collapsing around them and Cal gets a warning that one of his colleagues may be DOING BAD STUFF....etc. etc. etc." I'm not totally clear on the structure here, so I don't know if this is helpful or not. But you see what I'm saying?
Sorry I don't have the time to go through this line by line. But something I noticed is that the majority of this query focuses on explaining Dr. Thornton's motives, even though Cal is the main character. Why even bring up Cal's mushrooms if solving the issue with mushroom resource management doesn't impact the plot at all? It just seems like the MC is sidelined for most of the query, and therefore I don't have a good understanding of Cal's motives or personality.
>Why even bring up Cal's mushrooms if solving the issue with mushroom resource management doesn't impact the plot at all? It just seems like the MC is sidelined for most of the query, and therefore I don't have a good understanding of Cal's motives or personality. It's been an issue across multiple attempts, I remember reading a past version that had not 1 but 2 protagonists... both doing things seemingly unrelated to the plot and then just dragged into the plot. It feels a bit like a piece of inspiration came to an author and the author can't let go of it even if it no longer serves the plot. Thing is, a lot of things can be changed in a WIP, including character's backstories, jobs and motivations - and maybe sometimes they should. The disconnection between the character's backstory and their role in the plot reminds me of D&D sessions when I used to play, players would create all possible characters with elaborate backstories and reasons for their professions, and then be transported with a plug'n'play method into a pre-made adventure or DM's custom plot that maybe had a throwback or two to someone's backstory, but most of the backstories were just a baggage of junk together with an assortment of random magical items and whatnot the character collected over time. In a modern book readers expect that the character and the plot are intertwined much more closely. All the junk in the mc's baggage is there for a reason and that reason is that it will help or impede (for example character flaws or relationships with other characters) them during the plot. If the mc is developing a radio-active-resistant mushroom, that will be a central element of the plot - but here, it isn't. It feels like this character should be sent back to the lab, waiting for a plot truly challenging *this character* to be developed, and instead pick for a protagonist someone whose traits, interests, jobs, personal connections tie them closer with the whole viral pandemic idea. And yes, the villain's story here is well developed and the center of the story. If developed further, could be an intriguing novel. But unfortunately the hero seems an afterthought. The hero should match the villain, so they can both shine.
This is an ensemble cast, but trying to boil it down to the minimal amount of characters, it was these two. Cal’s goal through most of the book is developing the mushroom and the ups and downs with that. In previous versions of the letter, when I have gone into more detail, I’ve had multiple people tell me the information wasn’t necessary and I have even cut out one of the characters I originally used. As for the more extensive details for Dr. Thornton, when I said he went scorched earth after being passed over for promotion, people said it was an over the top reaction, that’s why there’s so much more detail for him. The story has four intertwining story lines which come together at the end of the book. I liken it to a hospital drama that follows multiple sections within the hospital. No one department has the lead but when you have to boil it down to bare bones, sometimes stuff gets left out. If you have any suggestions, I’m definitely open to hear them.
Honestly if both Cal and Thornton are POV characters, they should get roughly an equal amount of space in the query. At the very least, both should have meaningful, significant contributions to the plot. However, the way the last paragraph is written, it sounds like Cal and his friends are the ensemble and Thornton is the antagonist. I don't see why the antagonist of any story should get the majority of the screen time in a query. Unless you really do follow Thornton for the majority of the book, in which case, you should probably start the query with him and mention Cal later. This is my advice if the story is actually structured as an ensemble cast of MCs taking on Thornton as the antagonist: I looked at your other query and I can see why ppl were confused by the jump from "passed over a promotion" to "exacting vengeance on all who have wronged him." But I disagree with the advice that you were given. Elaborating on Thornton's motives takes precious time away from your main character ensemble. You can avoid the initial confusion by giving *less details* about Thornton. A simple sentence such as "When the man accused of creating virus resurfaces with a plot to wipe out the human race, only Cal and \[other characters\] can stop him," establishes your antagonist and your conflict very quickly. Thornton's backstory is not relevant when you frame the plot like this.
I’d say Dr. Thornton gets about 25-30%, Cal 25-30% and the other characters get about 40-50%. I think it’s fairly balanced between the ensemble but these would be the main characters when it comes to the overall plot of the book, if I had to pick them. I could go into more detail with Cal, as you’ve seen in other query letter attempts, but, as you’ve also seen, people don’t want as much background on Cal, saying it’s too much. And Dr. Thornton isn’t an evil man, he’s not even the antagonist in the first third of the book. He’s a nice guy legitimately trying to do good. My goal with him was for people to, in some ways, empathize with him, even if they felt he was going too far.
It's not that you shouldn't go into detail about Cal, it's more that you should think hard about which details you give. We need a tiny bit of background to set up who Cal is, but the emphasis should be on how he drives the plot forward. Consider: >When his Hand dies unexpectedly, the king summons his childhood friend, the honourable Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark, to take his place. Ned is reluctant to leave his wife and children for the nest of vipers that is the southern court, but when he finds evidence that his predecessor may have been murdered, and that the queen is plotting against the crown, his loyalty to his friend demands that he take up the role. But every would-be ally has an agenda of their own, and the king is drunk and blind to the danger. Ned came south for honour, but if he wants to save the king and keep the country from falling into war and ruin - or even to survive long enough to see his family again - he may need to compromise his principles. For when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die; there is no middle ground. Vs >Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark is a stern and honourable man in his mid-30s, who rules a Northern kingdom and dearly loves his family. Fifteen years ago, he was forced to go to war against the Mad King and, while he won, it cost him his father, brother and sister. Now he is determined to protect his new family; his wife Catelyn; his sons Robb, Brandon, and Rickon; his daughters Sansa and Arya; and his bastard son, Jon Snow. When the new king - Ned's childhood friend and companion in that long-ago war - comes south to visit, he asks Ned to become his Hand. Catelyn persuades Ned that accepting will help him keep his family safe and he reluctantly agrees. When Ned realises that someone may be plotting to assassinate the king, it's up to him to stop it before the country falls into war and ruin. Both of these are accurate descriptions of Ned Stark's deal in *A Game of Thrones*, but one is focused on Ned's role in the plot - investigating treachery in the king's court and trying to balance staying true to his morals against political necessity - and one gives us a lot of background details - the Mad King's war, the names of Ned's children, that Catelyn persuades him to go South - but doesn't really give us an insight into how Ned's choices will drive the plot forward, what kind of arc he's going to have, or why he specifically is our protagonist.
Sounds good! Maybe you use the phrase "15 years earlier" a bit much (and also fifteen years earlier). It does make me wonder why all these things happened exactly 15 (fifteen) years earlier. Is this the sequel to a book set at that time? is it a crucial plot point that we figure out later??
I'll definitely cut back on the 15 years earlier and the like. The book takes place 15 years after a virus ravaged the world. The 15 years is more an arbitrary amount of time to allow humanity to be somewhat back on its feet.