The Shit No One Tells You About Writing

Episode: Murder, Metafiction, and Query Letter Mayhem

Hosts: Bianca Marais, Carly Watters, CeCe Lyra
Date: November 13, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Bianca, Carly, and CeCe dig into two listener-submitted query letters and their manuscript opening pages during the "Books with Hooks" segment. The episode focuses on dissecting narrative choices, query structure, and the nuances of crafting compelling pitch materials for agents. There's a particular emphasis on the challenges of writing metafiction, handling sensitive topics, and the importance of clarity and coherence in queries. Expect insightful, candid feedback, laughs, and constructive critique from two seasoned literary agents.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction and Banter

[03:23–04:26]

• Carly sports a Toronto Blue Jays shirt, introducing some lighthearted banter about baseball and Canadian pride.
• CeCe confesses to knowing the rules of baseball but not enjoying the game itself.
  • "The snacks were very yummy. I didn't understand anything that was happening, though." – CeCe [04:04]

Transition: The hosts remind themselves that it's a "Books with Hooks" episode: "This isn't a shooting the shit episode. ... So we should follow the rules and get to our program." – Carly [04:26]

2. Query Letter #1: “The Precise Man” (Historical Mystery/Metafiction)

Query Read [04:43–06:33]
Author pitches a meta-historical mystery set in Jacobean London, featuring Ned Tilney entangled with Will Shakespeare and a murder, purportedly via the transcription of Tilney’s diary with academic footnotes revealing a parallel modern narrative.

Agent Feedback – Carly Watters

[06:38–10:25]

• Positives: The concept is intriguing, mixing upmarket historical fiction with meta elements. The presence of Will Shakespeare is a “huge, huge selling point.”
• Major Issues:
  • Overcomplicates genre (“upmarket historical fiction” is enough; “metafiction” muddies).
  • The main pitch reads like a dry synopsis—too much factual info, not enough causality or emotion.
  • Lacks clear inciting incident or emotional stakes.
  • Bio should be in first person; third-person comes off odd.
  • "Every character's life is collapsing. ... I don’t want to see anybody writing these lines because they kind of drive me nuts personally." – Carly [09:20]

Agent Feedback – CeCe Lyra

[10:25–12:34]

• Echoes Carly’s points:
  • Query is overly factual, missing narrative drive and voice.
  • Urges author to study 30 book jacket pitches and practice “pitch copy” language.
  • “You are focused on facts, and that's just not what you're supposed to be focused on. I think you're supposed to be focused on story.” – CeCe [11:44]

Notable Moment:

• Both agents joke about Bianca's "tight ship" and fear of her discovering their sports talk detour. [12:34]

3. Opening Pages #1: “The Precise Man”

Summary [13:06–14:28]

• Begins with a meta “introduction”/letter from a (fictional) modern academic who “found” Ned Tilney’s diary.
• Shifts to Jacobean tavern setting with Will, Ned, and a barkeep, peppered with academic footnotes.

Carly’s Thoughts

[14:31–18:42]

• Loved the cheeky academic intro.
• Major Issue: Having the author use their own (real) name/title (“Dr. Brent Salish”) as the academic is confusing and problematic; seems like misrepresentation, not clever metafiction.
• Footnotes Problem: "If something was integral to the story, then it should be in the story. It shouldn't be in a footnote." – Carly [15:40]
• Voice Issue: Diary entries are too expository—overly descriptive of familiar characters for a personal diary.
• Relationships: Needs more clarity and subtext in interpersonal dynamics, especially between Will and Ned.

CeCe’s Thoughts

[18:42–20:46]

• Admits metafiction is a matter of taste—found the intro and footnotes "too on the nose."
• Confused and not immersed: "I am supposed to be seduced by this world. ... That is the worst." – CeCe [19:17]
• Praises the clarity and polish of the scene work but feels distanced from the actual story.

4. Query Letter #2: “Bibliomaniacs” (Upmarket Thriller; Campus/Cult)

Query Read [24:40–27:35]

A campus-set upmarket thriller about Faria, who joins a book club and becomes embroiled with murder, vigilantism, and female rage, drawing on contemporary and classic pop culture comps.

CeCe’s Feedback

[27:42–33:28]

• Positives: Good genre hook (campus thriller, murder), strong sense of what’s commercial.
• Issues:
  • Title “Bibliomaniacs” feels more “book club” than “thriller.”
  • Too many comps; stick to two, use ALL CAPS. Don’t “bookend” with comps for fear of missing preferences; it causes “whiplash.”
  • Plot phrasing challenges. Eg: “studied from afar” is confusing—use “admired from afar.”
  • Query clarity: Needs more plot escalation after the murder, and more explicit connection between murder and protagonist.
  • “Get back at her father”—not tied clearly to present narrative; feels dangling.
  • "There's going to be a little bit of discussion on this for anyone listening. ... So again, 2. Plot convenience. Plot convenience is often the death of first pages, because I go, 'I don't believe that this would happen.'" – CeCe [44:41]
• Encourages reframing and clarifying the connection between backstory and current stakes.

Carly’s Feedback

[33:28–35:49]

• Agrees with CeCe; suggests campus novel comps are needed.
• Concerned by logistics and clarity: “If I’m that confused about what’s actually happening in the plot, I think we have some issues.”
• The title “Bibliomaniacs” feels juvenile; portmanteau doesn't match the intended tone.

5. Opening Pages #2: “Bibliomaniacs”

Summary [36:00–37:49]

• Epistolary prologue: protagonist confesses to murder via a letter “to the unlucky person who finds this letter.”
• Chapter One is set one month earlier; protagonist is deeply depressed, considers suicide, and meets a charismatic peer (“Goldilocks”) on the bus.

CeCe’s Thoughts

[37:52–44:41]

• Prologue: Epistolary device feels plot-convenient and “on the nose.” Praises the twist of knowing a murder occurs, then flashing back (“one month earlier”).
• Interior voice issues: List of “imagine if...” specifics are “sharp,” but don’t all tie to MC or each other.
• Repetition: Protagonist’s “I’m a loser” refrain is overdone.
• Convenience: Goldilocks’ approach feels unlikely/inorganic.
• Depression representation: Feels too blunt; recommends subtler revelation, not direct interiority. “The biggest thing about seducing is figuring out what to withhold, what to reveal, when to withhold, when to reveal. And I think you're revealing too much.” – CeCe [43:44]
• Praise: MC has genuine depth; author does strong character observation.

Carly’s Thoughts

[45:36–49:08]

• The protagonist reads as a “child”—query is pitched as adult, but voice feels “young adult” or “new adult.”
• Pop culture references (“Gen Z,” “CD,” “record player”) don’t add up for age/tone.
• “To me, this is actually new adult, especially the way this is written, even young adult. I actually don't think that the way that this is written is an adult book.” – Carly [45:38]
• Suggests the hook is fantastic, but elements aren’t in harmony with each other.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On query clichés: “Every character's life is collapsing. Everyone. Why else are we reading a story about this character? So I don't want to see anybody writing these lines because they kind of drive me nuts personally.” – Carly [09:20]
• On query structure: “You are focused on facts, and that's just not what you're supposed to be focused on. I think you're supposed to be focused on story.” – CeCe [11:44]
• On metafictional confusion: “I am supposed to be seduced by this world. ... That is the worst.” – CeCe [19:17]
• On comps overload: “Too many comps. Too many comps. You're going to pick two really awesome strong comps, and you're going to lead with that in the first paragraph. Don't do the this to our brains. ... It just confuses us. It causes whiplash.” – CeCe [29:32]
• On plot convenience: “Plot convenience is often the death of first pages, because I go, I don't believe that this would happen.” – CeCe [44:41]
• On tonal fit: “To me, this is actually new adult, especially the way this is written, even young adult. I actually don't think that the way that this is written is an adult book.” – Carly [45:38]

Timestamps of Key Segments

• Book banter & sports intro: [03:23–04:26]
• Query Letter 1 Read: [04:43–06:33]
• Carly’s Feedback on Query 1: [06:38–10:25]
• CeCe’s Feedback on Query 1: [10:25–12:34]
• Opening Pages 1 Summary & Feedback: [13:06–20:46]
• Query Letter 2 Read: [24:40–27:35]
• CeCe’s Feedback on Query 2: [27:42–33:28]
• Carly’s Feedback on Query 2: [33:28–35:49]
• Opening Pages 2 Summary & Feedback: [36:00–49:08]

Conclusion

This episode offers a frank look at submission pitfalls, from query overload and pitch clarity to voice/genre mismatches and the delicate handling of mental health on the page. Both agents are generous with constructive advice and empathy for the difficulty of query writing, while still pulling no punches when it comes to needed rewrites.

For Writers: Top Takeaways

• Choose your genre labels and comps carefully—clarity trumps complexity.
• Structure queries to highlight story and stakes, not mere facts.
• Avoid plot convenience and narrative shortcuts—agents want believable, motivated action.
• First pages set expectations for tone, voice, and genre; ensure age, voice, and style align with the intended audience.
• Study jacket copy and practice “pitch copy” to hone your querying skill.

Next episode: Bianca Marais will return, promising less sports talk and more tightly-run literary critique.