Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: The Shit No One Tells You About Writing
Episode: How to Make Agents Curious While Also Impressing Them With Your Line Level Writing
Air Date: February 12, 2026
Hosts: Bianca Marais, Carly Watters, CeCe Lyra
Guest: Sarah Miller Adams

This episode centers on how writers can hook literary agents with both their plot and the quality of their writing at the sentence level, focusing in on multi-POV literary fiction through a critique of a query letter and opening pages submitted by author Sarah Miller Adams. The hosts provide both high-level and line-level feedback, exploring what makes for an engaging query and opening, especially in stories featuring multiple protagonists.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Importance of Interiority and Psychological Acuity

• CeCe opens with a mini-lesson:
  • Interiority = what the protagonist is thinking.
  • Plot = what happens.
  • Psychological Acuity = why it matters; gives depth and staying power to stories.
  • All breakout books have psychological acuity.
  • Quote (CeCe, 00:23):
    “Plot is what happens. Interiority is how your protagonist processes what happens. And psychological acuity is why it matters.”

2. “Books with Hooks” Segment: Sarah Miller Adams’ Query Letter

Author Reads Her Query (02:19–04:58)

• Sarah introduces “Bilateral Breathing,” a literary-fiction novel about three mid-career women in medicine in rural Alabama.
• Each character has her own internal struggle and is forced to reckon with professional and personal crises as they reopen a rural clinic.

Carly’s Critique (05:17–09:55)

• Title Concerns: Title felt overly clinical; “bilateral” implies two, but the story is about three.
  • Suggests making title feel more upmarket and evocative.
• Multi-POV Challenge: Query treats three protagonists separately without demonstrating why their stories are united; wants the hook that unites them to come earlier.
  • Quote (Carly, 07:10):
    “I would like it if we started with the reason that they are all together or the implosion, a hook that alludes to the implosion that’s going to happen.”
• Character Introduction: Suggests omitting ages and integrating background details into why their stories are connected.
• Plot vs. Backstory: Wants clarity on what's current plot vs. what’s past setup.
• Author Bio: If referencing having physician friends, clarify if they’ve served as sensitivity readers.
• Praise for potential, but asks for focus and clarity on the container for the story.

CeCe’s Critique (10:20–16:29)

• Genre Positioning: Advises picking either “upmarket” or “literary” — both can’t be foregrounded.
• Promising Line-Level Writing: Don’t tell agents what the writing sounds like; let them see it in the pages.
  • Quote (CeCe, 11:30):
    “You don’t need to promise us what the writing is going to sound like…it removes some of the magic when you describe it.”
• Structure Suggestion: Recommends merging character intros and focusing on specificity and causality in plot points.
• Attachment & Causality: Plot description feels zoomed out; missing how events link to specific protagonists.
• Theme Statement: Feels “the quiet cost of care” is evocative enough to keep in the letter, disagreeing with Carly.

Author’s Response (16:39–20:28)

• Sarah defends title and explains “bilateral breathing” is both medical and swimming term, symbolizing balance.
• Uses “isosceles triangle” metaphor to explain the protagonist dynamic.
  • Quote (Sarah, 17:20):
    “It is all meshed together, you know, as an engine…and then literary.”
• Explains reasoning for listing literary comps and need to explain embodied fiction.

Clarifying Stakes and Central Question (20:28–25:22)

• Carly pushes to identify central goal and obstacle (“container”) for the story.
• CeCe reacts strongly to the revelation that “the town doesn’t want them” — this ups the stakes and should be foregrounded in the query.
  • Quote (CeCe, 22:51):
    “If the town doesn’t want them, that’s excellent…and you have to make that clear in the query letter because it ups the stakes, it ups the tension.”

3. Workshopping the Query: Uniting Three Protagonists

• Discussion of ways to connect the three character arcs more efficiently:
  • Use of a single “container” (the clinic or the town) as thematic and narrative glue.
  • Introduce protagonists within a unified narrative frame rather than as disconnected bios.
  • Consider “character-goal-obstacle” or “character-situation-complication” structures for your hook.

4. The Opening Pages: Line-Level Writing vs. Plot

Author’s Overview (27:28–28:40)

• Opening with Eve swimming, using water as emotional containment.
• Her internal stress and trauma surfaces during this activity.

CeCe’s Feedback (28:57–34:02)

• High Praise for Writing:
  • “I want to commend how beautiful the writing is.”
• External vs. Internal Action: Feels swimming is a static external scene. Internal conflict is compelling, but external stakes are soft.
  • Quote (CeCe, 31:32): “I don’t think she should be alone swimming…I don’t think that’s compelling enough.”
• Suggests openings should feature both internal and external stakes and have a strong sense of power dynamics among characters.

Carly’s Feedback (34:08–38:06)

• Asks for a “location stamp” alongside the timestamp — found herself wondering about logistics.
  • Quote (Carly, 34:34):
    “My Canadian born person was like, we’re swimming outdoors in late February?”
• Analyzes sentence structure (“jab, jab” of short sentences, missing the “hook” of longer, varied ones).
• Commends memorable lines, e.g., “Her career isn’t a parking spot to claim.”
• Wants greater grounding in setting and more clarity on the protagonist among the array of characters.

Possible Approaches to Reworking the Opening (38:34–44:29)

• Debate over whether to keep the slow, quiet swimming opening vs. adding a disruptive external event.
  • Bianca and CeCe brainstorm ways to combine internal containment with more external tension (e.g., a panic attack, interruption, or external force in the pool).
  • CeCe suggests that disruption should be meaningful (rooted in power dynamics), not mere device.

Sarah’s Defense of Opening Choices (38:34–46:41)

• Emphasizes intentionality behind swimming as “embodied fiction,” reflective of Eve’s internal state.
  • Quote (Sarah, 41:41): “…the uncontainment in the water, that it was specific in its intention.”
• Considers feedback and is open to small changes, like grounding the scene in setting, but reiterates her vision.

Notable Quotes / Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• CeCe on Interiority:
  “Plot is what happens. Interiority is how your protagonist processes what happens. And psychological acuity is why it matters.” (00:23)

• Carly on Hook:
  “I would like it if we started with the reason that they are all together or the implosion, a hook that alludes to the implosion that’s going to happen.” (07:10)

• Sarah’s Triangle Analogy:
  “It is all meshed together, you know, as an engine and then literary.” (17:20)

• CeCe on Specificity:
  “All the information is internal…there’s no specificity for my mind, for my brain to attach itself to.” (13:40)

• CeCe on Raising Stakes:
  “If the town doesn’t want them, that’s excellent…and you have to make that clear in the query letter because it ups the stakes, it ups the tension.” (22:51)

• Carly on Setting:
  “My Canadian born person was like, we’re swimming outdoors in late February?” (34:34)

• Sarah on Opening Scene Intent:
  “…the uncontainment in the water, that it was specific in its intention.” (41:41)

• CeCe on Artistic Vision:
  “Your job is not to write for me. Your job is to write for your readership and, you know, your reader’s taste. All we can do is taste the food you make and share how it tastes for us…” (45:30)

• Comparison on Using Song Lyrics:
  “I skim by songs personally…unless a song feels specific to you, the reader, I find them tricky.” (48:09) — Carly
  “I liked them…for all disagreement today, but that’s good.” (48:23) — CeCe

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:00–01:34: CeCe on interiority; announcement of her new course.
• 02:19–04:58: Author Sarah reads her query.
• 05:17–09:55: Carly’s critique and advice on the query letter.
• 10:20–16:29: CeCe’s critique and structural insights.
• 16:39–20:28: Sarah’s response and explanation of choices.
• 20:28–25:22: Discussion about the story’s “container” and stakes; town’s hostility.
• 27:28–28:40: Sarah’s overview of her opening pages.
• 28:57–34:02: CeCe’s analysis and suggestions for the opening.
• 34:08–38:06: Carly’s feedback, sentence-level and structural.
• 38:34–44:29: Dialogue on intentionality of opening, possible alternatives.
• 44:40–46:41: CeCe and Carly encourage author’s vision despite differing tastes.
• 48:09–48:42: Discussion of Greek chorus/song lyrics in fiction.
• 48:58–49:56: Wrap up.

Takeaways for Writers

• Query Letters: Be clear about what unites multi-POV stories; prioritize specificity and tangible stakes early.
• Line-Level Writing: Let your writing’s style reveal itself; avoid explaining it in the query.
• Openings: Balance internality with compelling, externally observable stakes; ground reader in time/place.
• Artistic Integrity: Take advice seriously, but honor intentionality and your creative vision.

Tone and Language

• Friendly, direct, and often humorous (“I’ll make popcorn if this sparks a duel”).
• Supportive, but candid. The conversation is lively, honest, and encourages authors to be thoughtful—and also brave—about their choices.

This summary captures the heart of the episode: agents and authors exploring query and craft in honest detail, with encouragement for writers to be clear, intentional, and above all, true to their story’s core.