Podcast Summary: The Shit No One Tells You About Writing

Episode: When Reality TV Meets Cli-Fi: Hooks, Depth, and the Dreaded Coincidence

Hosts: Carly Watters & CeCe Lyra
Date: October 30, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode features literary agents Carly Watters and CeCe Lyra (flying without their usual writerly anchor, Bianca Marais) as they critique two query letters and their first pages in the “Books with Hooks” segment. The main themes are the craft of compelling hooks in competitive genres—specifically reality TV–inspired romance and climate fiction (cli-fi)—and how to build emotional depth while steering clear of cliché and “the dreaded coincidence.” The conversation offers insight for writers on writing, querying, and pitching their stories to agents, with plenty of constructive feedback, industry context, playful banter, and a dash of honest agent taste.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

[03:36] Podcast Intro & Bianca’s Absence

• Carly and CeCe acknowledge that host Bianca Marais is absent, noting her usual empathy and writer’s perspective is missed.
  • "Whenever Bianca isn't here, the comments also say I missed having Bianca's perspective as a writer... she adds that extra dose of creative hat..." — CeCe Lyra [04:16]
• They admit the show feels more ‘market-focused’ without her creative input.

[04:50] Query #1: “I Love You Too” – Reality TV Meets Romance

The Pitch

• Bisexual woman, Madison, falls in love with siblings—one her ex, one her new fiancé—on a “Love Is Blind”-style reality TV show.
• Explores themes of celebrity, authenticity, and whether it’s possible to find real love onscreen.

Agent Reactions

Carly Watters:

• Admits reality TV novels can be a hard sell for her, partly due to personal taste and their sometimes “too American” feel in international markets.
• Notes that successful reality TV novels often critique or subvert the medium—not just recreate it.
  • “Sometimes I find [these books] a little one-note... I want something that critiques reality show culture, that’s meta and cool.” — Carly [07:25]
• Praises the “strong hook” but is wary of central coincidences that can feel contrived.
  • “I get the ick around coincidences... How could it possibly be, of all the humans in the world, that this is the love triangle?” — Carly [09:05]
• Wants the story to signal any deeper cultural analysis upfront in the query.

CeCe Lyra:

• Is personally drawn to the “Love Is Blind” element (openly admits being a fan and “sadist” regarding juicy drama).
• Did not mind coincidences due to the compelling set-up.
  • “The elements of coincidence didn’t bother me... Imagine what you can do, being inside someone’s head!” — CeCe [12:20]
• Praises character set-up and pacing of plot escalation.
• Would definitely read on, noting: “The author did a great job. I would be scrolling down so fast to read the pages.” — CeCe [13:26]

[14:05] First Pages: Critique & Craft Notes

Carly’s Feedback:

• Loves the “ticking clock” device of elevator floors counting down—a natural tension builder.
• Immediate sense of urgency in writing (“stabbed the button”).
• Confused by a uniquely spelled name (“small a, Big Z, Big R, small a”—Azra); advises against quirky stylization that risks pulling agents out of the story.
  • “You are querying agents who are reading hundreds and hundreds of queries... you want to remove anything distracting.” — CeCe [18:05]
• Doesn’t feel the pages add significant new information beyond the query, suggesting it might function better as a prologue.

CeCe’s Feedback:

• Agrees on the name distraction; suggests finding other ways to mark a character as “special.”
• Wants more layers of depth—urges author to go deeper than surface reflection, tease more about the protagonist’s psychological acuity.
• “We need eight different layers of depth. And the fact that these are the first pages is no excuse not to have it.” — CeCe [21:00]

Key Quote

“When we’re watching reality TV, we are experiencing it in such a passive way. To pick up a book, we don’t want a passive experience. We want to go behind the scenes.”
— Carly Watters [22:55]

Overall Verdict

• Both agents see potential due to a standout hook and strong writing but advise accentuating depth—especially around character interiority and industry critique—to stand apart from similar market offerings.

[27:52] Query #2: “Arctic Futures” – Cli-Fi Mystery in Alaska

The Pitch

• Lee Frost, a smokejumper in Alaska, haunted by a failed climate-science project, joins an all-male firefighting crew and stumbles on a menacing “sludge” threatening the ecosystem.
• Faces personal and environmental stakes: a dangerous ex, questionable new tech, and the moral dilemma between a technological “moonshot” and faith in humanity.

Agent Reactions

CeCe Lyra:

• Praises the clear structure: metadata upfront, followed by compelling story setup (especially the protagonist’s history of failure).
• Notes the narrative builds toward a crucial choice, but finds the major dramatic question (“join a moonshot effort to override climate change or put her faith in people”) unclear and unspecific.
  • “I don’t see how they are mutually exclusive... and I don’t understand what the choice is.” — CeCe [33:00]
• Loves the authenticity conveyed in the bio.

Carly Watters:

• Points out the challenges of selling “cli-fi”—notes that while the hook stands out, the genre can be commercially tough due to its distressing themes.
• Suggests adding a more overt science fiction comp.
• Disputes the repeated use of “sludge”—suggests a more technical or vivid term could fit the scientific setting better.
  • “We need a better word here... it just felt juvenile compared to the type of word we could use.” — Carly [35:00]
• Echoes CeCe’s concern that the “major dramatic question” is more a throw-away summary than an organic, specific climax.

[39:21] First Pages: Critique & Craft Notes

Scene Summary

• Opens with Lee on a plane preparing for a smokejump; establishes setting, secondary characters, emotional state, and some past trauma about injury and failure.

CeCe’s Feedback:

• Praises the handling of tension, micro-level curiosity, and the use of figurative language (“dragon” for fire).
• Offers a key, almost visceral, agent tip: curiosity must be evoked viscerally (“hungry for more”), and while the pages are strong, she isn’t compelled to turn past the sample.
  • “Action does not equal curiosity... I wasn’t surprised when I read these pages, and I need to be.” — CeCe [44:05]
• Suggests an early disruption would help—a specific surprise, threat, or off-kilter moment that upends expectations.

Carly’s Feedback:

• Calls out successful “slowing of time,” detailed scene rendering.
• Compared the chapter to a “closed loop,” feeling like a short story, not necessarily drawing the reader forward.
• Urges for more specificity in characterization and sensory detail (“sex, drugs, chocolate” too generic—what about these delights is unique for your protagonist?).
• Wants more of the supporting characters' impact on the protagonist to be highlighted early.
• Suggests a stronger “turning point” or “malfunction” at the end of the sample to keep readers wanting the next page.

Notable Quotes

“It did feel like a short story. Oh my God.”
— CeCe Lyra, agreeing with Carly’s diagnosis [48:09]

“Your job as the author is to continually get us to turn the pages... You gotta be getting us to turn the page every time.”
— Carly Watters [52:55]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I get the ick around coincidences...” — Carly [09:05]
• “I would love it if this actually happened on Love Is Blind... so juicy.” — CeCe [13:09]
• “The elements of coincidence didn’t bother me... I was so into the idea.” — CeCe [12:20]
• “Your job is to seduce. And seduction is the art of creating desire.“ — CeCe [53:24]

Important Segment Timestamps

• [03:36] – Banter about missing Bianca and the show dynamic
• [04:50] – Query Letter #1: “I Love You Too”
• [06:50] – Carly’s Critique: Hooks, Coincidences, Depth
• [11:48] – CeCe’s Critique: Why the Hook Works, Overlooking Coincidence
• [14:05] – First Pages for “I Love You Too” & Craft Discussion
• [17:46] – CeCe on Character Depth; Azra’s Name Distraction
• [27:52] – Query Letter #2: “Arctic Futures”
• [30:39] – CeCe’s Analysis on Structure and Major Dramatic Question
• [34:09] – Carly’s Perspective: The Challenge of Cli-Fi, Word Choice
• [39:21] – First Pages for “Arctic Futures” & Craft Discussion
• [44:01+] – The “Why Didn’t I Want to Read More?” Agent Intuition
• [53:24] – Final Thoughts On Craft, Curiosity, and Desire

Takeaways for Writers

• Standout hooks are essential, especially in saturated genres, but must be backed by psychological depth and strong thematic intent.
• Coincidences can work—if the hook is juicy and the execution artful—but beware of stretching credibility.
• In opening pages, surprising the reader and prompting curiosity matters more than starting with “big” action.
• Character depth should be visible from page one, not just introduced later.
• Clarity in the major dramatic question is vital; specificity trumps vague thematics.
• Don’t get too cute with stylized names or formatting in early pages—clarity is kindness to your reader (and to agents).
• Authenticity shines, but even the most vivid settings or insider details need emotional stakes and forward momentum to keep readers hooked.

Final note: Despite missing Bianca’s warm, writerly empathy, the episode is packed with actionable, honest, and often playful advice—reminding writers that great craft is as much about emotional guts as it is about a sharp pitch.