Plugging in Mental Modules

Summary

Podcast Summary

The Shit No One Tells You About Writing

Episode: Plugging in Mental Modules

Date: April 9, 2026

Hosts: Bianca Marais, Carly Watters, Cece Lyra

---

Episode Overview

This episode of "The Shit No One Tells You About Writing" brings listeners two in-depth "Books with Hooks" critiques, focusing on the importance of specificity, interiority, and balance in query letters and opening pages. The hosts, Bianca, Carly, and Cece, dig deep into what makes compelling character-driven fiction and offer rich craft advice, especially on how to "plug in mental modules" to create characters that feel real and lived-in. Expect blunt, actionable feedback intertwined with humor and camaraderie.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

I. Critique of Contemporary Romance Query: "No Comment"

(00:31 – 18:01)

Query Letter Feedback

• Hook and Specificity:

  • Carly points out confusion over the phrase "leather poisoning" and its irrelevance to the rest of the pitch.

  • The story is lauded for the woman-in-power angle and contemporary scandals but dinged for unclear stakes and too many metaphors.

    “I don't know where this leather poisoning bit comes in...if this is a joke...I didn't really understand if this is a joke.”
    — Carly (02:48)

• Rhetorical Questions:

  • Hosts advise against them, advocating direct statements that move plot forward.

  • Carly rewords an example to demonstrate:

    “But Stephanie struggles to focus on fending off rabid journalists... because she's distracted by two love interests at the club.”
    — Carly (04:21)

• Love Triangle & Subplot:

  • Both Carly and Cece criticize the compulsory-feeling love triangle and unnecessary emphasis on a friend subplot in the query.

    “Why does she have to choose either? Like, she doesn't have to choose the two of them. There are a million other men out there who are not potentially involved in this football club.”
    — Carly (05:20)

  • Cece adds that query letters must focus on the main plot:

    “We're really just saying that it doesn't necessarily belong in the query letter.”
    — Cece (07:48)

• Metaphor Use & Voice:

  • Too many metaphors and “vibey” phrasing detract from plot clarity, according to both agents.

    “I'm getting vibes. I don't know what true love takes a mark means.”
    — Cece (08:20)

• Author Bio:

  • Praised as a model of brevity, relevance, and “literary citizenship.”

    “This is probably like, one of the best author paragraphs I've ever read.”
    — Cece (09:42)

Opening Pages Feedback

• Bantery Dialogue & Voice:

  • Carly finds dialogue “fun and spunky,” and encourages listeners to check out the writing for its lively banter.

• Establishing a Lived-In World:

  • Concern is raised by Carly when character actions don't match backstory. For example, the stress of the phone calls doesn't feel cumulative based on what’s on the page.

    “One of the most important things... is that I... have to believe that these characters have lived a life before they were on this page.”
    — Carly (11:04)

  • Cece reinforces this, suggesting more “interiority baked into the dialogue.”

    “If you zoom in on certain lines of dialogue and add layers... you will actually have a much better chance of making us believe that she's a real person...”
    — Cece (13:53)

• Strategy for Depth:

  • Cece instructs to “plug in mental modules,” meaning layer in mental habits, emotions, and interpretive ticks, so the protagonist reacts as a real person would.

    “Our brains, our human brains are predicting machines. We're always predicting. We're pulling mental modules from the past to fit into the present to predict the future. The future being what happens next in story. And she's not doing this, you know, like, she's just not doing this.”
    — Cece (17:15)

II. Critique of Political Comedy Query: "Peto Paik Can't Help Himself"

(21:17 – 40:16)

Query Letter Feedback

• Lack of Plot:

  • Both Cece and Carly note that despite an intriguing hook, the letter omits specific details about the protagonist’s journey, goals, or escalating stakes.

    “There's no plot in the query letter.”
    — Cece (24:13)

  • Too much space is devoted to author credentials at the expense of plot summary.

    “This is a hook, cook, cook. There is no book.”
    — Carly (27:17)

• Market & Positioning Issues:

  • Overly broad listing of potential audiences signals a lack of clear target market.

• Comps & Query Structure:

  • Advised to stick to “hook, book, cook” structure, ensuring there’s a clear plot section.

Opening Pages Feedback

• Setting and Stakes:

  • Cece observes a “sneaky prologue” (opening mid-crisis, then time jump). She's concerned by lack of protagonist’s emotional reaction/interiority during high-stakes expulsion from office, and later during "Poopgate," a satirical campaign scandal.

    “There's no surprise in his interiority...what about his mind and his emotions? Is he shocked...what are his theories, like, why would she be doing this?”
    — Cece (30:39)

  • Readers fail to get insight into what the character thinks or feels, so the protagonist seems flatter and less compelling.

• Details Without Meaning:

  • Both agents fixate on the unaddressed significance of the protagonist's ancient BlackBerry:

    “Why does he have the world's oldest BlackBerry? Like, why hasn't he made the switch? What does it say about him?”
    — Cece (34:38)

    “Why does he have the world's oldest BlackBerry?...if this is set 10 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, blackberries would kind of be out of fashion...”
    — Carly (35:21)

  • Carly adds that legal/political jargon (“Rule 86”) isn’t explained, making non-expert readers feel left out.

• Show vs. Tell Discussion:

  • Bianca diagnoses that the author might be overcorrecting with “show, don’t tell” advice, to the detriment of context and emotional clarity.

  • Cece passionately dismantles the “show, don’t tell” rule as simplistic and unhelpful:

    “Show don't tell is the dumbest rule ever to exist... you need show and you need tell. You need both. Release your inner child. Show and tell.”
    — Cece (38:14)

    “Your job is never to explain. Explaining is never the job. It's contextualizing. The difference is context comes through a protagonist's unique socio emotional filter. There's emotion...and so it's coming from a person's perspective and not from...a fly on the wall...”
    — Cece (39:13)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Leather Poisoning (Query critique):

  • “I don't know where this leather poisoning bit comes in, because, like, this is at the top is where the hook is supposed to be. And then we never hear about leather poisoning again.”
    — Carly (02:48)

• On Overusing Metaphors:

  • “You don't have to race against the clock. True love takes a mark. I understand. Mark is in like you're marking the spot at which you're gonna kick. It's just too many metaphors, which we don't need.”
    — Carly (06:30)

• On Author Bios:

  • “This is probably like, one of the best author paragraphs I've ever read, because it's so to the point...”
    — Cece (09:42)

• On Query Structure:

  • “This is a hook, cook, cook. There is no book.”
    — Carly (27:17)

• “Plugging in Mental Modules”:

  • “When I am interacting with someone, I'm plugging in mental modules to make sense of what is happening in front of me. And so the protagonist has to be doing that too.”
    — Cece (15:02)

• On Show vs. Tell:

  • “Show don't tell is the dumbest rule ever to exist on the face of this planet. When it comes to storytelling, you need show and you need tell. You need both.”
    — Cece (38:14)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Contemporary Romance Query Reading: 00:31 – 02:44

• Carly's In-depth Feedback: 02:48 – 07:12

• Cece's Additional Feedback: 07:16 – 10:18

• Opening Pages Discussion (No Comment): 10:23 – 13:46

• Cece on Interiority / Plugging In Mental Modules: 13:48 – 18:01

• Political Comedy Query Reading: 21:17 – 23:32

• Cece’s Query Feedback: 23:36 – 27:04

• Carly’s Query Feedback: 27:09 – 28:47

• Opening Pages (“Peto Paik Can’t Help Himself”): 28:55 – 35:15

• Deeper Craft Discussion (Show vs. Tell): 37:09 – 40:16

---

Tone & Style Observations

• As always, the trio’s banter and supportive critique keep things constructive and entertaining.
• Craft advice is “no-BS,” precise, and colored by personal experience and a deep passion for the writing community.
• Bianca, Carly, and Cece all bring writer- and agent-centric perspectives, leading to holistic, practical takeaways.

---

Takeaways for Writers

• Query letters must hook agents with clear, specific stakes—avoid relying on vibes, subplots, or rhetorical questions.
• Interior monologue (“plugging in mental modules”) brings characters alive and builds authenticity and reader engagement.
• The received wisdom “show, don’t tell” is reductive: strong fiction weaves both showing and telling, filtered through the emotions and perceptions of the protagonist.
• Too much author biography in queries can crowd out the essential plot and market positioning.
• Always consider the reader’s experience—context, clarity, and depth over cleverness for its own sake.

---

If you’re an emerging writer, this episode is packed with practical advice on tackling your query letter and opening pages with authenticity, depth, and clarity—plus, it delivers a healthy dose of writerly camaraderie.

---

Transcript

[Cece Lira]

Foreign.

[Bianca Murray]

Hi there and welcome to our show the shit no one tells you about writing. I'm best selling author Bianca Murray and I'm joined by Cece Lera of Wendy Sherman Associates and Carly Waters of P.S. literary. Hi everyone, welcome back to another books with hooks. As per usual, we are diving straight to in. Carly, can you please kick us off?

[Carly Waters]

I am not used to diving straight in anymore because Cece and I are always shooting the. I mean we had some good jokes before this guys. I'm sorry that you missed out on it but here we go straight into query letter. We have a lovely note from this person. I won't read it but thank you for your lovely note. Dear Carly, I'm seeking representation for no Comment, a contemporary romance exploring lust, loyalty and leather poisoning in the high stakes

[Bianca Murray]

world of Australian football.

[Carly Waters]

At 96,000 words, my debut novel will appeal to fans of Beth o' Leary and Ted Lasso. The narrative opens with Stephanie, a no nonsense PR manager for the embattled Northern Lightning Football Club, navigating a media frenzy surrounding the sacking of a star player, Dylan Marshall, following yet another drug fueled scandal. But can Stephanie keep her mind on the job of fending off rabid journalists and protecting her club's reputation?

[Bianca Murray]

Or is she otherwise occupied juggling a

[Carly Waters]

whirlwind of press conferences and preseason matches? Stephanie's personal life becomes increasingly entangled with

[Bianca Murray]

her work despite her best efforts.

[Carly Waters]

There's Mark Campbell, a football player whose unexpected and illicit attention stirs feelings she tries to suppress. And then there's Ashley Sullivan, a principled and talented journalist whose gentle flirtations push the boundaries of her professional ethics. Whoever she chooses, Stephanie will be risking her career. Fraternizing with players is a sackable offense, and she knows that even if she thinks about sleeping with the media enemy, her head will be on the chopping block. Meanwhile, Stephanie's zany best friend and housemate, Francis has hooked up with yet another loser from Tinder. Stephanie wants to be excited about her friend's new relationship with Travis, but suspects he is taking her for a ride. She recruits Ashley to do some digging, and he uncovers much more than they bargained for. Will Stephanie's friendship survive this hurdle or will Francis shoot the messenger? As full time approaches, Stephanie is battered and bruised, sporting more than her fair share of grass stains. But in a race against the clock,

[Bianca Murray]

true love takes a mark and kicks

[Carly Waters]

the winning goal just as the final siren sounds. No Comment is Inspired by the 11 years I spent working at two powerhouse

[Bianca Murray]

football clubs in Perth and Melbourne.

[Carly Waters]

I've had A regular book review column with both the Sunday Times and the West Australian, and now spend my time writing about the wonders of superannuation. The first five pages are below in the full manuscript, plus a pitch for a sequel is available upon request. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Anna Walsh.

[Bianca Murray]

Thank you so much, Carly. Okay, what's our word count there? And what's your take on.

[Carly Waters]

All right, so our word count is approximately 379 words. Okay, so our title, we don't need italics. So for those of you who are going to be looking at the notes on substack later, the title is in all caps plus italics. So just a reminder, we only need all caps. Okay. I don't know where this leather poisoning bit comes in, because, like, this is at the top is where the hook is supposed to be. And then we never hear about leather poisoning again. And leather poisoning sounds very serious. So then I was like, is this a thriller? Like, are these people trying to poison each other? I didn't really understand if this is a joke. And some of this we'll get to the kind of Australianness of this. And I really wish I had a good Australian accent that I could have read this in, because obviously I could have added some flavor, but I don't. So I didn't subject you to that. So I don't know if this is some sort of Australian drink you have at the pub. A leather poisoner, I don't know. But I don't really think that that made any sense because it never comes back to our comps here. Ted Lasso, a huge comp that I think we probably missed here is and again, speaks to the Australian. This person might not know this show, but Kate Hudson had a show on Netflix called Running Point where she's the GM of a basketball club in la. And so I think that would be a comp here as well. But we obviously need some book comps as well. So we have the Beth o' Leary there. All right, so we have some rhetorical questions. I reworded the rhetorical question for you guys, because we always say no rhetorical questions. And then you guys probably think, what should we be doing instead? So I'm going to read the rhetorical question, and then I'm going to read you the way that I rewrote it. But can Stephanie keep her mind on the job, fending off rabid journalists and protecting her club's reputation, or is she otherwise occupied? We obviously know she's otherwise occupied because that's the whole point of the books, we don't need the question mark. So I would reframe it potentially as. But Stephanie struggles to focus on fending off rabid journalists and protecting the club's reputation because she's distracted by two love interests at the club. Like something like that where it's a sentence, it's not a question. Because again, we already know the answer to this. Okay. I really like, you know, a woman in power at the football club as a concept. I think that's great. So I think, as I said, the Ted Lasso stuff works here, the Kate Hudson running point stuff works here. You know, the drug fueled scandals. I think scandals and football clubs are always going to be something that people are interested in. So I like all that piece. I think what I'm struggling with is this whole like love triangle bit because it's framed as whoever she chooses. Stephanie will be risking her career. But why does she have to choose either? Like she doesn't have to choose the two of them. There's like a million other men out there who are not potentially involved in this football club. So it feels very insular on purpose, feels very club centric on purpose. And I just didn't really agree with the framing that, you know, she has to choose one of these players. A really small flag for you. And again, this is just the North American context coming through, which is Ashley is absolutely a male and female name. In North America, it is more assumed that Ashley is a female name. So when I was reading this, I was a bit like, maybe she's interested in a woman. Maybe this is like a bisexual love triangle. Which is fine. I guess I'm just trying to make you understand that I'm flagging it for you, that people might be like, is this a man? Is this a woman? I don't know, question mark. So that's up for you to just, you know, no, as a, as a flag. Okay. The friend subplot. I do not understand why this friend subplot is in here. Subplots don't really belong in a query letter because they are a subplot. They are not the main plot. So unless this has something to do with work, such as, you know, this guy Travis, again, it would be very insular. Once again, but if Travis has something to do with work, it makes sense. Or does Stephanie work at the club as well? I don't really think there's any room for subplots in every letter. In most cases, there should be enough going on in the actual plot of this main character's life for that to be the focus here. And then our last kind of body paragraph has way too many metaphors. You know, battered and bruised, grass stains. Like, does she really have grass stains? Is this like a physical comedy where she's. I don't know. There's something where she falls when she's out in the grass, perhaps, but just really begs more questions than it does answers. You don't have to race against the clock. True love takes a mark. I understand. Mark is in like you're marking the spot at which you're gonna kick. It's just too many metaphors, which we don't need. I love that you have experience working at these football clubs. I think that is so cool. So I really do think there is something here. I just don't really think that we're focusing the main character as much as we possibly can, and I think that would solve a lot of our problems.

[Bianca Murray]

Awesome, Carly. Thank you. Okay, Cece, what are your thoughts?

[Cece Lira]

I mean, I don't want to spend time echoing everything Carly said. I just want to say fully agree with that assessment. The love triangle really tripped me up. I literally thought the same thing. I was like, well, then pick me there. Like, you're telling me they're both options that make her lose her job. And this is like a career centric story, right? Which we love. And I'm like, okay, how about no option? Or, like, a third option? The friend plot also tripped me up, especially because you end that paragraph with a major dramatic question. Will Stephanie's friendship survive this hurdle, or will Francis shoot the messenger? And that sort of framing is best reserved for the A plot, because that's what we want to be really invested in, right? And it's actually really great that you have a friend subplot. We're really just saying that it doesn't necessarily belong in the query letter. I would also flag that the very last paragraph about the plot is very vibey. It's very like. As full time approaches, Stephanie is battered and bruised, sporting more than her fair share of grass stains. But in a race against the clock, true love takes a mark and kicks the winning goal just as the final siren sounds. And the impression I have when I read query letters like this, which happens quite often, is that you're a very talented writer, you know, and you kind of wanted to show off your talent, which I get. Like, if I could write like this, I would want to show it off too, you know? But think about it this way. Every sentence in your query letter should be propelling the story forward. Like, that is the job of the query letter. And nothing about the sentence has any specificity to tell me anything that's going on in order to propel the story forward. I'm getting vibes. I don't know what true love takes a mark means. I have no idea what kicks the winning goal. I know you're talking literally about a winning goal, but I'm assuming it's also metaphorical. And I don't even understand what this race against the clock is, because if there's ticking time tension, it hasn't even been established in a plot specific way. So, again, great, great potential here. I think of spectacular things, not as a comp, because clearly they're tonally very different, but, like, that is set against the world of what Americans call soccer. And I adore that. Like, I adore that because it's high stakes, it's competitive. Like, there's just so much that could be really elevated in terms of storytelling when you set your story against that sort of world. Subcultures are amazing, but I think that you're maybe counting too much on that, doing the work in the query letter. Like, I just wanted more plot specificity in a way that had those dominoes tipping over as opposed to satellite things, like, the friendship is here, the love triangle is here. And then you have this really vague paragraph about, you know, ooh, all these things are happening and what will happen. And I'm like, I don't really know what that means. I will say that your Author paragraph is 5 stars because it is short. It is sweet. It tells us your personal connection to the story, and it tells us you're a really good literary citizen. So, like, this is probably, like, one of the best author paragraphs I've ever read, because it's so to the point and just gives me so much. It tells me about you. Like, I would be really excited to work with an author who. Who has this kind of profile. Right. A connection to the story. Awesome. Literary citizenship. So it's. Yeah, it's really good. And thank you for sharing.

[Bianca Murray]

Thank you, Cece. Okay, Carly, will you let us know what's in those opening pages?

[Carly Waters]

So we start with Stephanie in her office. Her phone is ringing, all about this player who's got in trouble with the law. The journalists have figured out what's going on, and so they're calling her. She's saying, no comment, no comment. Then she is told she has to go to the CEO's office, where we figure out that it was a drug issue, and they're trying to Figure out how they're going to break it to everybody. And that's kind of where we end.

[Bianca Murray]

Okay, so take us through your thoughts on that. Are we beginning in the right place? What do you think?

[Carly Waters]

So I really like these pages. I think they're very fun and spunky. I really like the dialogue, and I do encourage everybody to go check it out in the sub stack attachments because I actually really like the banter here. I think my one issue with these pages is I think one of the most important things about reading opening pages is that I, as the agent, have to believe that these characters have lived a life before they were on this page. That they are real and full human beings who I am so excited to just, like, tiptoe into their world in a way that I know that they've been existing long before I arrived. And I think what I really struggled with here is I really felt like I was reading the quote, unquote, beginning of a book. Because I'll tell you one of the sides of this. So on the first page, we have Stephanie's desk phone is ringing. We have her say, like, no, we have no further comment. Dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. She hangs up the phone. She picks it up again. No, the decision on his playing future will not be made until after tonight's board meeting. Hangs up. As if on cue, there's a third phone call. No, there's no bad blood between the CEO and the senior coach. And then a couple pages later, she says her tender ear had been spent the better part of the day pushed up against the receiver. So you told me on the first page there's only been three calls because there was only three calls on the first page. But later on, it's that the phone has been ringing off the hook all day. So is it there's only three calls, or is it that the phone was ringing off the hook all day? So it just kind of was one of those tells where I feel like you told on yourself bit that on the first page there was three calls. But if she's been at her phone all day, wouldn't she be like, this is the hundredth call or something kind of more inflammatory than the third call? Because really it's only the third call to the reader, but it should be the hundredth call in this character's life. So that was just something that really stood out to me, that I really felt like you. The pages were performing for the reader a little bit in a way that I didn't really think we had to do, because I actually found this dialogue so punchy. Because when it ends up happening is as she's dealing with all of this, one of the people that calls is one of her love interests. And she's. She, like, he's in the scrum. This is Ashley, I believe, is in the scrum with the journalist. And she's, like, looking out the window to him as he's calling her, asking about what's going on with all of this drama. And there's just, like, such great banter. Like, I really was quite charmed by it. I think. I really just felt like I was reading something a bit more performative when I really would have liked to just feel like I really was in the scene. So that's really my main note at the end. There is a bit of an info dump about the league. The last paragraph that we read is Northern Lightning had been one of the original clubs to start the Victorian Football league back in 1896. Obviously, you know, well done for doing your research. We do not need that type of information here. I just don't really think it adds that much flavor to the actual material at this point. But I think it's really punchy. Like, I really liked the banter. I really feel like you're going to have some great scenes coming up, but I just couldn't feel like I was reading a book.

[Bianca Murray]

Great, Carly. Thank you.

[Cece Lira]

Okay, Cece, we should title this episode Cece agrees with Carly. Yeah, everything about that analysis I agree with. It reflects all of my notes. I will, I guess, to build off it, suggest a few fixes for the authors, how they can maybe address these. These great notes. The way Carly framed that performing for the reader is perfect. That is exactly what it felt like. And which is a shame, because the stuff in between quotation marks, like the actual dialogue being said was great. But what was missing, I think, and what could address the performing for the reader is interiority baked into the dialogue. We are talking sprinkles. We are not talking paragraphs and paragraphs. It actually won't affect your word count that much. But if you zoom in on certain lines of dialogue and add layers to what is being said, both how she interprets what is being said to her and what she is withholding when she speaks to someone else, you will actually have a much better chance of making us believe that she's a real person, because that is how human beings operate in our minds. There are always more layers going on than compared to when we speak and when we are being spoken to. So that's one way. Another way is when you're dis. When you're sharing facts about this world. Such as the last paragraph, which I also flagged as a little bit of story splaining heavy. But also another paragraph. There's a paragraph that reads, Hayes didn't like being told who to hire, even by the CEO. And she didn't warm to Stephanie immediately. But six years and more than 150 footy games later, Stephanie knows she's won her boss over. Hayes is gruff but fair and fully deserving of her reputation as the queen of tough love. Although she usually skips the love part. Now notice that that is not facts. Like we're not sharing facts here. I mean facts about a world, right? It's not like the last paragraph. That was info dumpy. It is facts about their relationship. So if you were to weave in more detail depth, more, more psyche depth into those lines, you would actually probably achieve the goal of not performing for the reader. As an example, how does she feel about having had to perform for the boss? Is this like a story of her life situation? She was used to earning her place. She was used to people underestimating her. She was used to people not liking her. And she is always up for a challenge. Or maybe, no maybe, this was the first time this ever happened to us. In fact, whether something is typical or unusual for a protagonist, relationship things, plot, things that actually informs your protagonist's socio emotional framework, which makes us believe that she existed before the page started. Because that's how human beings work. When I am interacting with someone, I'm plugging in mental modules to make sense of what is happening in front of me. And so the protagonist has to be doing that too. And I'm not seeing her plug in mental modules here. A lot of people think that when you plug in mental modules you're dragging the pace. But if you look at the great books, the great breakout books, they all do it. There's an amazing scene from Ruth Ware's the Woman in Suite 11. It's the sequel to Woman in Cabin 10. She's at the airport and she gets upgraded. This is a surprise. Upgraded to first class. She goes through tons of mental modules to make sense of why she was upgraded to first class. I don't know what the word count is, but it is significant. That is a thriller, a psychological thriller where the pace never is supposed to drag. And it isn't. In fact, when I am taken through her mental modules, when I am taken through her interiority processing, that upgrade which actually is quite relevant to the plot. Later, I am learning how she makes sense of the world. I am learning how she interprets. I am learning what her go to immediate interiority reactions are, what she's aware of and what she's not. Because Ruth Ware is so talented, she also weaves in the unconscious. There's that is a advanced skill. And a lot of writers I'm actually really surprised about this. A lot of writers know how to do it. But do you know why they don't do it? Because they get advice that is, oh, everything should serve the story. And they take that to mean if the plot isn't moving forward, I'm not going to spend time on the word count. Mistake, mistake, mistake, mistake. Your job as a storyteller is to not just add forward momentum, but to add depth. And depth requires interiority. So I think that that is what you have to do to tackle these pages. And I think you can have something really special. I hope it's useful advice to you.

[Bianca Murray]

Thank you, Cece. Okay, before we move on to our next query letter, let's hear from our sponsors.

It is hard to believe, but it's my 10th wedding anniversary this year and my husband and I are planning on what we want to do to celebrate. When we got married to 20 somethings

[Carly Waters]

fresh out of grad school, just starting our careers, we didn't really want to

[Bianca Murray]

invest in a big honeymoon. It felt a bit irresponsible when we wanted to buy a house and all those grown up things.

[Carly Waters]

But Fast forward to 2026 and my

[Bianca Murray]

Italian husband and I are finally planning a wine tour in Italy. If you have travel coming up, join me in Rosetta Stone to learn some local languages. There's something about spring that feels like a reset, fresh energy, and the motivation to try something new. Learning a language is the perfect way to channel that momentum into a skill that's going to open up the world. Rosetta Stone has been the trusted leader in language learning for 30 years. Their immersive, intuitive method helps you naturally absorb your new language without memorizing random vocabulary lists or relying on translations. Instead, you get to connect with words, visuals and meanings in context, the way that language is meant to be learned. Working in the publishing business means my days are often packed with meanings and manuscripts. I love how simple these lessons are and they fit into my schedule.

[Carly Waters]

Whether I have five minutes between emails

[Bianca Murray]

or an hour on the weekend, I can access my lessons from my desktop

[Carly Waters]

or the mobile app.

[Bianca Murray]

Since we're heading to Italy, I've been using the true accent feature which gives real time feedback on my pronunciation so I can sound more natural when visiting the local vineyards. It's like having a personal coach help me communicate with confidence. Rosetta Stone offers 25 languages to choose from, including Spanish, French, German and Japanese. You can find the one that fits your next big adventure Ready to start learning a new language this spring? Visit Rosetta Stone.com today today to explore Rosetta Stone and choose a language that's right for you. Go to rosettastone.com today now and begin your language learning journey. We head into the thick of conference season and book events. I've been thinking a lot about the writing industry uniform. Whether you're bouncing between panels, pitch meetings, networking mixers, you want to look comfortable, sharp and professional without feeling stiff. And lately I've been doing a bit

[Carly Waters]

of a spring reset with my class closet, moving away from fast fashion, focusing

[Bianca Murray]

on fewer pieces and better materials. I want a wardrobe that's full of pieces that are well made, versatile and easy to reach for every single day. That's why I keep coming back to Quinn's. They make beautiful everyday pieces using premium materials. We're talking 100% European linen, organic cotton and super soft denim. Many styles starting around $50. Their spring pieces are lightweight and effortless,

[Carly Waters]

which is exactly what you need when

[Bianca Murray]

you want to put together for a meeting with an agent or an editor. The best part? Quince works directly with ethical factories and

[Carly Waters]

cuts out the middlemen.

[Bianca Murray]

That means you're paying for actual quality, not brand markup.

[Carly Waters]

I picked up a few staples that

[Bianca Murray]

have honestly changed my morning routine. First is the Mongolian cashmere tee. I have it in both camel and grey and I kid you not, a week doesn't go by where I don't wear it at least once. It feels elevated enough for book signing events and it's comfortable enough for an

[Carly Waters]

eight hour writing session.

[Bianca Murray]

I also paired it with their U shaped hoop earrings. They have that classic architectural look that feels tailored and intentional. The quality of the materials genuinely surprises me, especially considering the price point. Refresh your spring wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comteessnaya for free shipping and 365 day returns. And for my listeners up north, they're available in Canada too. Go to q u I-n c e.com tisnotya for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's quince.com tsnatyah okay Cece, we're moving

on to your query letter. Will you please read it for us?

[Cece Lira]

Dear Ms. Lira, a newly ousted state legislator facing crucial professional and personal decisions, navigates political chaos and finds love in the most unexpected of places. As the clock on his term in office tick towards midnight, Pete Opaque Can't Help Himself is my humorous novel, complete at 89,000 words. I am hoping to work with you because of your interest in adult commercial fiction, particularly novels featuring intelligent protagonists in high pressure situations. I have also been very impressed with the agingting approach that you discuss on your podcast, of which I am a new and grateful listener. Peto Paik Can't Help Himself is similar in both tone and insider knowledge to the recently published political novels Mr. Texas, Lawrence Wright, Campaign Widows, Amy Agrasti, and the Global War on Morris. It is also, like the television show Parks and Recreation, idealistic and decent main character with a little house of cards political ruthlessness by others thrown in for kicks. It will appeal to fans of politics, rom coms and pop culture as well as anyone who suffers from an identity crisis after a personal or professional loss needs a good guy to believe in during these politically chaotic times. Or perhaps more importantly, just wants a fun read. Like my main character, I too was once a popular young state legislator. During my 25 years in politics and government, I have written and edited hundreds of policy reports, opinion pieces, press releases and speeches, and have experienced the highs and lows of a career that by its very nature depends on the whims of others. I have also taught legal writing at our local law school for 10 years. My real passion, however, has always been writing fiction, which is something that I now have more time and energy on which to focus. I have been an active member of PEN Writers, a statewide writing community here in Pennsylvania with over 400 members since 2017 and a board member since 2020. Per your submission guidelines, I am submitting the first five pages. I am proud to have won first place novel beginning in PEN Writers Annual Writing Contest for this piece. I would appreciate the opportunity to send all or part of the novel for your review. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

[Bianca Murray]

Okay, thank you, cece. All right, what was. What was that word count?

[Cece Lira]

So the word count was 389 words. We might want to consider asking on books with hooks where people are in the process. Like Are you submitting this query letter before you've ever submitted it? Have you submitted it? Have you gotten bites? Have you gotten full requests? Because I'm actually really curious to know where this person is in the process because in the end I know they say I would appreciate the opportunity to send this to you, but maybe that's just query letter jargon that he is adding because he wants us to make sure to vet it so that when he does send it to agents, he wants to make sure that that's something that he can say. And I'll tell you why I had this specific question pop in my mind. There's no plot in the query letter. Like, I read the first paragraph, which has the hook and has, you know why he's choosing me? Because I like intelligent protagonists facing high pressure situations. And then there's the comps. Like, a lot of words for the comps. You know, we have all these comps and then we have who this will appeal to fans of pop culture, fans of rom coms. And then. And then the next paragraph is the author bio. And I was like, well, where's the plot? Did you forget?

[Bianca Murray]

Do you.

[Cece Lira]

Do you not know your plot yet? Maybe you're still working on this manuscript, which is totally fair. But if you are indeed a listener of our podcast, which, Rob, I'm going to be honest with you, when I read this, I was like, I don't know that you actually listen to books with hooks. Maybe you listen to the other segments. You know, you need plot in your query letter. In fact, a great way to weave in plot here would be to take a look at your comps. I'm not familiar with any of them, but I did look them up and they seem like fine editorial comps. I'm not sure if the last two have enough sales to merit being good sales comps, but they do work as editorial comps. And so go look at these comps. Because I looked them up and they all have very clear plot in their pitch copy. You know, what does the protagonist want? What's standing in their way? What happens if they don't get it with specificity, with escalation? It is true that your hook is doing you a lot, right? Like, your hook does have plot embedded in it, but it's not a, hey, this is the protagonist and this is his journey, and here are the obstacles he's facing, and this is why it matter. Like, we didn't get to that. And so you will need words because your word count is already at 389 without plot. So I highlighted excerpts of this query letter, which I personally believe can go just because. Not because they're bad, but because you will need the space. Right? Like, I also would flag this. And this is something that happens with, like, I want to say about 15% of the query letters we get on our slush Pile, too. Your author bio is very impressive, Truly, all the applause. But there are two author bio paragraphs, because the fact that this won the contest counts, and together, I think they're like, 150 words. So, like, that is essentially half of what a query letter should be, just on your author bio. And I understand, like, I understand wanting to share who you are, but we just saw an author bio that's actually quite perfect in the previous submission. It's short, it's to the point. It tells me something, things that I want to hear. Makes me excited to work with a person like that. So I think that you have to really, really condense and compress this author paragraph because it is way too long. The hook is interesting. You know, like, the hook is an interesting hook. I like that you're making the tone clear, but I don't know. Like, I. Obviously, I can't give you notes on your story because I don't know what the protagonist's journey is like. I have a kind of a sense after having read the pages, but again, just based on the query letter, I have no concrete sense.

[Bianca Murray]

Thank you, Cece. Okay, Kali, handing it across to you.

[Carly Waters]

All right. This is an episode where we just agree with each other, but I'm going to say what Cici said in a slightly different way, so I agree. Rob, I'm going to be honest with you. I don't know how many episodes of our show that you have listened to, and if you did listen to a bunch, maybe we didn't specify the method in which we like to see the queries, which is the hook, book, cook method. Right. So the hook, the book, and then the cook is the u. The paragraph about you. This is a hook, cook, cook. There is no book. So this is what I see. The only plot that I see is that little opening line about, you know, newly ousted state legislator. That's really the only amount that we actually see about the book. This really relies on comps market because you talk about appeals to fans of politics, rom coms, pop culture. Anyone who suffers an identity crisis after personal professional loss needs to be a good guy to believe in during these politically chaotic times. Perhaps more importantly, just wants a fun read. That's a lot of people. Like, that's not even a market. That's just like a list of characteristics. So I'm not convinced that you know who you're writing for, and I think you're framing this as you have somebody in mind that you're writing for, but I'm not actually sure that you do. Because that's not really a specific person. And with the list of comps that you have, I don't know, I'm just. I'm honestly just not convinced about the positioning. So I agree with Cece. I think potentially we're catching you at a very early point in your querying journey or the point where you're trying to figure out how to pitch this book. I don't think that we're there in terms of how we're accomplishing it. I would go back to the hook book cook method and abandon your hook cook cook method, because I just. I don't think that's working.

[Bianca Murray]

Thank you, Carly. Okay, Cece. Well, we handing it across to you now, and hopefully we're going to get some plots in those opening pages.

[Cece Lira]

Listen, I just want to say that this show is called the Shit Non tells you about Writing. And that's slightly scatological. And these pages are going to be too. This is not a criticism, by the way. I'm just warning people if you. If you are squeamish. Okay, so we begin with what I am assuming is a sneaky prologue. Chapter one, last day in office, November 30th. Speaker K says that our protagonist has invoked Rule 86. He barks back, the hell I have. And she directs the sergeant at arms to remove him. And everyone is just like, essentially booing him out, except for one compassionate face that is unnamed. So he is kicked out, and the case chief of staff leaves, and he tells her, nora, I didn't do anything wrong. What just happened? And he doesn't get any clarity on what happened. Okay, so then we have chapter two, and that is three weeks earlier, which is why I'm calling chapter one a sneaky prologue. We have him waking up in the morning with his alarm clock, essentially saying, hey, this is a really important day for me. It's election. You know, it's gonna. Are my candidates gonna win? There's no issue. But then poop gate happens, which is essentially that the candidate who, you know, was a shoe in to win passes gas and then goes to the bathroom. And, like, the media is like, reporting on how long he's been in the bathroom and what a big deal this is. And our protagonist kind of, you know, follows along with. With. With poopgate. So, yeah, that's what happens.

[Bianca Murray]

I mean, it sounds like modern day politics to me, but that's just me. Okay, so, Cece, what's your take on them?

[Cece Lira]

It's hard to compete with modern day politics because so much of it feels like Are you sure that's not fiction? Like, anyway, I want to first address the sneaky prologue. The man is kicked out of a session by his longtime family friend and political ally. This is me reading verbatim who K is. And there's no surprise in his interiority. Like, he yells, the hell I have. And he says that he didn't do anything wrong. He says, he says, what about his mind and his emotions? Like, is he shocked that she did this? What are his theories? Like, why would she be doing this? Did he expect support from everyone else? Right. People booed him. I just don't know his emotions. Like, I genuinely have no idea. After reading chapter one, I felt mostly confusion. I understand that he's being kicked out. Like, I understand that that plot happened, but I don't understand why. And I think he doesn't either. So that's fine. But I don't know his theories about why. And I'm also not understanding how he feels about it. Like, his reaction is anger, but, like, what other emotions is he feeling? Specifically towards Gay, specifically towards the Sergeant at Arms, specifically towards the galley. And he's also not zooming out and doing what I call transcendent thinking, which is when you're thinking about things that aren't in scene in front of you. And I promise you that, that there's no such thing as a human being who would be kicked out in a high pressure situation like this and wouldn't engage in transcendent thinking. So his interiority didn't feel realistic because he would be actively trying to make sense of things as well as considering what it means for him in practical terms, like being kicked out in one of his last moments in elected office. Is it a situation where it's like, well, it was my last moment anyway, so I'm gonna go home. Is it a situation where his legacy can't be fulfilled? You know, like, if he had, if he could just get back into that room, he could fulfill his legacy, but he can't because he's on the outside. And that would make me care more, right? Because I'd be like, oh, oh, juicy, curious. Like, is there a bill that won't pass because he can't be in that room? Will this taint his record? Will this affect his next professional endeavors? Right? Like, I don't know what he's going to do next. So, like, what specific consequences does he predict will arise from this? It is important for all storytellers to remember you are a God who has created a human being and our brains, our human Brains are predicting machines. We're always predicting. We're pulling mental modules from the past to fit into the present to predict the future. The future being what happens next in story. And he's not doing this, you know, like, he's just not doing this. I. I do think that this is heavily, heavily missing from these pages. And I want to say, and I'm saying this with all the love in the world you promised me in the query letter. Intelligent protagonist facing a high pressure situation. If your protagonist is not thinking, thinking interesting, intelligent thoughts, he's not intelligent. He might be, but I won't, I won't know it. You know, he will seem unintelligent, in fact. And if the situation is high pressure, it's not enough to tell me that he's in a political situation in session. You have to tell me something, like, why it matters to him. Again, like I said, his legacy, a bill that he's trying to pass.

[Bianca Murray]

I don't know.

[Cece Lira]

I don't know what it could be. Right, but you know this. But, like, why is it high pressure? You know, why is it high pressure? I'm sure there's a hint in the fact that the person who kicked him out as a family friend, maybe there's messy relationships there. That would be interesting. But it just feels like you're keeping us at arm's length and I don't know why. I don't know if it's because you're still figuring out the story, hence my question about where are you in the process, or if it's because you're like, oh, I don't want to share all my goods yet. I want to keep a few things up my sleeve. Do not do that. Do not keep anything up your sleep. I mean, obviously keep some things, but, like, give us enough, right? So I don't know. And this, this note, this I am missing how he processes things, why it matters to him. You know, what his emotionality. I'll give you an example from not the first chapter, chapter two. There's a line that reads, I stopped channel surfing to check the world's last working BlackBerry smartphone, permanently holstered to my right hip. Why does he have the world's oldest BlackBerry? Like, why hasn't he made the switch? What does it say about him? What does it say about his choices, his place in the world? Like, you are not letting us into his psyche. I don't need to know. I don't need depth specifically on the BlackBerry. Like, if that's not where you want to add depth, fine, but I do need depth on something. He reports. He's a reporter of facts. He reports what happens with the candidate and Poopgate, but he doesn't process it through his unique filter. And that is what a protagonist is. It is actually a very advanced skill that storytellers have to master, but master it you must. So, yeah, those are my notes.

[Bianca Murray]

Thank you, Cece. Okay, Carly handing it across to you.

[Carly Waters]

All right, well, I will just start with the fact that right away I felt like this book was not for me. I felt like the fact that I am not a lawyer and I have no law background, and I don't know anything about, you know, the. The particulars about how this works. I felt very much like right away, I was like, oh, this isn't a book for me. Because, you know, everything from just talking about the House of Representatives and then, you know, has invoked Rule 86. I'm like, am I supposed to know what Rule 86 is? Right away, I just really felt like this wasn't for me. And so I really was under the assumption that you have to know something about the law to really understand that. So right away, I'm kind of like, on my heels a little bit about this. Then chapter two, we're right into the getting out of bed. Why are we getting out of bed? Why are we starting a chapter with somebody getting out of bed? You know, like, there's no movement here. There's no secrets. It's a very, like, you know, this is how we start our day business. So I'm not a huge fan of that. And I really just didn't understand how all of this kind of was connected. And I didn't really understand the setting. I don't know where we are in time and place. Why does he have the world's oldest BlackBerry? I also flagged that, like, if this is set 10 years ago, 20 years ago, even still, even 10 years ago, blackberries would kind of be out of fashion. So I feel like there's a lot to be said here that isn't being said about where this is taking place, why it is taking place at this time, and who is this book for? Because, as I said in the query letter, you think this book is for a lot of people. It's a politics, rom com, pop culture, you know, professional, personal loss, you know, chaotic times, fun reads. I really feel like you actually do have a very particular person in mind, and it's somebody that understands the law. And so I really just didn't feel like you understood your book as well as you could have for me as a literary agent to think, oh, I then know how I'm gonna go position

[Bianca Murray]

this and sell it.

[Carly Waters]

So I felt really outside the bounds of this one. So it's going to be hard for me to provide any feedback.

[Bianca Murray]

I think sometimes writers internalize the whole show. Don't tell thing a bit too much because my. From what I get from the BlackBerry is he's trying to show that this character is very resistant to change, is someone who's very old school and has had this BlackBerry forever. And. And we must infer that from world's oldest BlackBerry. And the same goes for. In the beginning, not explaining what the. What did you say it was? What? 86. What was that?

The line.

[Carly Waters]

The line reads, invoked Rule 86.

[Cece Lira]

Right.

[Bianca Murray]

So then the writer goes, okay, but if I explain what that is, then that is telling as opposed to showing. And I have a sense that this writer is kind of struggling with finding that balance, of being like, okay, this is all showing. No, telling and finding the balance. But sometimes we do need telling, whether it's interiority, whether it's emotionality, etc. It can't just be that everything is a fly on the wall who's watching the scene playing out. I don't know. That's kind of the sense that I get.

[Cece Lira]

Cece, I. I think that is a brilliant insight, and I think you've diagnosed it perfectly. And what I would say to anyone listening is, and of course, this is my opinion, but can I just say, I'm actually really smart and good and when it comes to dissecting books. So you should listen to my opinion. Don't listen to me about other stuff like navigation. Show don't tell is the dumbest rule ever to exist on the face of this planet. When it comes to storytelling, you need show and you need tell. You need both. Release your inner child. Show and tell. Do both. If anyone is thinking, but I want my reader to be a co pilot. I want my reader to, as Bianca said, infer that the BlackBerry is a sign that he is resistant to change. Brilliant. Allow your reader to infer two things. Your reader can't be inferring everything, you know, like, it can't be every single thing. Give us hints about how he sees himself, especially because he doesn't have to have the same inference that you will. You are interpreting that he is resistant to change. But he could be like, I value tradition, and that could give me even more about him. So I'm now inferring even more, interpreting even more. Actually, don't know if it's infer or interpret. But it doesn't matter. The point is the reader will do more work. The reader will always find new layers. If anyone is concerned, oh, if I, if I do too much telling, if I add too many layers, there won't be layers. For the reader, the human brain is a miracle. There are always more layers. Layers. Okay. There are always more layers. And your job is never to explain. Explaining is never the job. It's contextualizing. The difference is context comes through a protagonist's unique socio emotional filter. There's emotion. It's the difference between the building sat in in the middle of a busy road to. Every time I looked at that building I had anxiety. And not just because it sat in the middle of a busy road. Like there's emotion infused in it. And so it's coming from a person's perspective and not from, as Bianca said, a fly on the wall or a CCTV camera. We have other mediums of storytelling that do mostly showing books are not one of them. And if anyone thinks they are, go pick up a best selling novel. You'll see what I'm saying. You will?

[Bianca Murray]

Amazing. Thank you so much to both of you. As per usual, for your excellent insights. For anyone who would like to submit to Books with hooks, go to www.aboutwriting.com and find our Books With Hooks section and I will figure out a way to put in CC suggestions so we can figure out where you are in the process, which might help both of them in terms of their feedback. Thanks so much everyone. See you next week.

[Carly Waters]

Bye bye.

[Bianca Murray]

Cece Lira is a literary agent at Wendy Sherman Associates. If you'd like to query Cece, please refer to the submission [e-mail]. carly Waters is a literary agent at P.S. literary Agency, but her work on this podcast is not affiliated with the agency and the views expressed by Carly on this podcast are solely that of her as a podcast co host and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies or position of PS Literary Agency.