Why Plot and Specificity are a Query Letter's Best Friends

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Why Plot and Specificity are a Query Letter's Best Friends"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Shit No One Tells You About Writing
• Hosts/Authors: Bianca Marais, Carly Waters, and CeCe Lyra
• Episode Title: Why Plot and Specificity are a Query Letter's Best Friends
• Release Date: April 17, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Shit No One Tells You About Writing, hosts Bianca Marais, Carly Waters, and CeCe Lyra delve deep into the critical elements that make a query letter stand out in the competitive world of publishing. Centered around Deborah Whittle's query letter for her novel "Linda. Linda," the discussion emphasizes the paramount importance of plot clarity and specificity to capture the attention of literary agents.

---

Books with Hook: Deborah Whittle's Query Letter

Deborah Whittle's Query Letter: An Overview

Deborah Whittle presents her query letter for "Linda. Linda," an 80,000-word upmarket women's fiction novel set in the 1980s. The story explores the complex relationships between Linda Hammond and two women, Eleanor Stewart and Belle Martin, highlighting themes of patriarchy, betrayal, and personal growth.

CeCe Lira’s Initial Critique [04:26]

CeCe begins by acknowledging the strengths of Deborah’s query letter, particularly praising the “hook sentence” for its potential to engage readers. However, she points out significant areas needing improvement:

• SEO Concerns: Suggests removing forward slashes from the title for better search engine optimization.
• Plot Clarity: Highlights that while the emotional depth is evident, the actual plot lacks specificity. CeCe states, “I really struggle to see the plot... I just wanted something more concrete.”
• Narrative Ambiguity: Notes that the query letter leaves too much to the imagination regarding how Linda interacts with the protagonists, making it difficult to grasp the novel’s central conflict.

Carly Waters’ Critique [07:56]

Carly echoes CeCe’s sentiments, adding her perspectives:

• Title Approval: Agrees with removing forward slashes but defends the creative choice of “Linda. Linda.”
• Comp Selection: Suggests choosing Canadian authors as comparable titles due to the novel’s setting.
• Plot Specificity: Emphasizes the necessity of outlining a clear plot to prevent agents from perceiving the book as lacking substance. Carly remarks, “I really think we need to focus on plot.”

---

In-Depth Discussion on Plot and Specificity

The Importance of a Clear Plot [15:43]

The hosts collectively stress that a query letter must present a clear and compelling plot. CeCe illustrates the challenge Deborah faces in conveying the novel’s events succinctly while maintaining emotional depth. Carly adds, “Your job is to sell the crap out of this thing. Like, what’s the drama? Where’s the juice?”

Balancing Emotionality and Plot [20:01]

While the emotional and psychological layers of the characters are crucial, the query must balance this with plot-specific details. Carly emphasizes that agents need to understand the stakes and conflicts to assess the book’s marketability effectively.

Notable Quotes:

• CeCe Lira [04:16]: “My writing is really strong. If I had to choose between strong query letter or strong pages, I always prefer strong Pages.”
• Carly Waters [18:03]: “Your job is to sell the crap out of this thing. Like, what’s the drama? Where’s the juice?”

---

Deborah Whittle’s Responses and Further Questions

Addressing the Critiques [13:40]

Deborah acknowledges the critiques and raises her own concerns:

• Plot Development: Struggles with presenting the plot in a "quiet novel," where major events unfold late in the story.
• Word Count Adjustment: Adjusts her manuscript from an initial length to 70,000 words and questions if this is suitable for upmarket women's fiction.

CeCe’s and Carly’s Responses [14:48]

• Genre Clarification: Carly suggests that the novel might better fit as a historical literary work rather than upmarket women’s fiction, noting, “This is more of a historical literary novel.”
• Word Count Assurance: Both agree that 70,000 words are acceptable, focusing more on how effectively the story is told.

Notable Quotes:

• Deborah Whittle [13:40]: “Is that too short for upmarket women's fiction?”
• Carly Waters [14:48]: “I don't think this is upmarket women's fiction. To me, this is a historical novel and potentially literary.”

---

Brainstorming Session: Enhancing the Query Letter

Developing a Stronger Plot Outline [26:22]

The conversation transitions into brainstorming ways to enhance the query letter by incorporating a more detailed plot:

• Clear Power Dynamics: Carly suggests framing scenes to highlight shifts in power and introduce disruptions early on.
• Specific Incidents: CeCe proposes including concrete examples of Linda’s manipulative behavior to provide agents with a clearer understanding of the conflict.

Scene Development Example [39:28]

Deborah shares her thoughts on initial scene development, expressing difficulty in making high-stakes scenes without compromising the novel’s quiet nature. Carly offers a structured approach:

1. Set the Scene: Introduce Eleanor’s role and setting.
2. First Disruption: Introduce Linda unexpectedly to create immediate tension.
3. Character Interaction: Showcase Linda’s manipulations in specific actions, such as sabotaging relationships.

Notable Quotes:

• Carly Waters [26:22]: “We need to focus on how are the subtle and not so subtle ways that the women support the patriarchy.”
• CeCe Lira [34:41]: “What is Linda getting out of this? I can't figure it out.”

---

Detailed Analysis of Opening Pages

Carly and CeCe’s Summaries [26:46]

Both hosts read and summarize the opening pages of Deborah’s manuscript, highlighting differences in their perceptions:

• Carly’s Interpretation: Feels a “Sapphic” subplot based on the interactions between Eleanor and Linda, suggesting a romantic undertone.
• CeCe’s Perspective: Disagrees, emphasizing that intense female friendships do not necessarily equate to romantic relationships.

Deborah’s Reactions and Adjustments [34:57]

Deborah clarifies that any perceived romantic undertones were unintentional and rooted in her focus on portraying complex female relationships. She emphasizes the importance of maintaining the story’s intended direction without letting personal interpretations derail the narrative.

Notable Quotes:

• Carly Waters [26:46]: “These two women are intensely focused on one another. That’s why I thought this was a completely Sapphic, you know, romance plot line.”
• Deborah Whittle [49:38]: “I didn’t get Sapphic vibes at all... It often does sound obsessed and filled with desire, but not in a sexual way.”

---

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

Balancing Strengths and Weaknesses

The episode underscores the necessity of a well-crafted query letter that succinctly conveys the plot while maintaining emotional resonance. Hosts emphasize that specificity in the plot helps agents quickly grasp the story’s potential, increasing the chances of securing representation.

Actionable Advice:

• Enhance Plot Clarity: Ensure the query letter outlines the main conflict and stakes clearly.
• Be Specific: Provide concrete examples of pivotal events to illustrate the plot.
• Maintain Balance: Blend emotional depth with plot details to present a compelling and comprehensive overview.

Final Thoughts

Bianca Marais wraps up the episode by encouraging writers to continuously refine their query letters, focusing on plot and specificity to make their submissions irresistible to agents. The hosts highlight the importance of vulnerability in the writing process and assure listeners of their unwavering support.

Notable Quotes:

• Carly Waters [52:15]: “What is Linda getting out of all of this attention?”
• Bianca Murray [53:38]: “For more information, head to Biancamurrae.com and go to the Beta Reader Matchup page.”

---

This episode serves as an invaluable resource for emerging writers, emphasizing that a successful query letter is not just about showcasing writing prowess but also about presenting a clear, engaging, and specific plot that captures the essence of the novel.

Transcript

[Bianca Murray]

It's Beta Reader Match up time again, where you can be matched up with those writing in the same genre and or time zone so they can critique your work as you critique theirs. Your manuscript doesn't have to be complete to sign up for this 3,000 word evaluation. This particular matchup will be open to registrations from now until the 4th of May, with the matchup emails going out on the 5th of May because my new novel, A Most Puzzling Murder, pubs in early June and will be keeping me very busy. This will be the last matchup until the Please spread the word even if you aren't signing up this time. The more writers we have registered, the better the matchups will be, which means.

[Carly Waters]

You'Ll be paying it forward to your.

[Bianca Murray]

Fellow authors and hopefully they'll do the same when the time comes for you to register. For more information, head to Biancamurrae.com and go to the Beta Reader Matchup page.

[Carly Waters]

Hi there and welcome to our show, the Shit no One tells you About Writing. I'm Bianca Murray and I'm joined by Carly Waters and Cece Lira from PS Literary Agency. Hi everyone. Welcome back to another Books with Hook segment. Today's is an extra special one, so we haven't had an author on the show with us for a while and now we are breaking that drought. Debbie Whittle is with us today. Debbie, welcome to the show.

[Cece Lira]

Thank you. I'm so glad to be here.

[Carly Waters]

We're so excited to have you and as per usual, we're going to dive straight in, so we're going to ask you to please read us your query letter.

[Cece Lira]

Okay? Dear Bianca, CeCe and Carly, thank you so much for your insight, generosity and kindness as agents, podcasters and educators, all of which were on full display during her fantastic Deep Dive series, webinars, socials and weekly on T Snotyaw. This query is dedicated to CC following your threads call for dysfunctional families, social climbers, and female rage. Linda Linda is my 80,000 word work of upmarket women's fiction, exploring the subtle and not so subtle ways that some women support the patriarchy. It channels the humor and messy class dynamics of Jenny Jackson's Pineapple street and complicated female relationships of Rumaan Alam's Rich and Pretty. Set in the 1980s, Linda Linda's Dual POV explores the titular Linda Hammond through the eyes of two other women whom she befriends, betrays and bedevils. Eleanor Stewart, 25, is shy and obese, trying to make herself small both physically and emotionally. When Linda, a manager at Eleanor's influential family firm in Toronto reaches out. Eleanor overlooks the fibs, flaws, and etiquette faux pas, believing she's found a way out of her overbearing mother's shadow. At last, Linda seems supportive, and the friendship seems to survive. When Linda follows her newly elected father to Ottawa. Belle Martin, 22, is a civil servant focused on leaving her family farm behind and climbing out of the secretarial pool for a career. Her position in the Agriculture Minister's office is precarious. Linda Hammond, her new boss and the minister's daughter, holds the key to Belle's future. Demanding and capricious, Linda wants to be more than Belle's boss. Ultimately, Linda uses both women's greatest fears against them. Eleanor is forced to stand up to her mother or risk both her newfound independence and the future of the family firm. And facing professional ruin, Belle must reinvent herself or risk winding up as bitter and helpless as her own mother. Together, Eleanor and Belle must untangle the two sides of Linda, because Linda isn't finished with either of them yet. I'm a former journalist and government speechwriter now living in Belleville, Ontario. My short stories have been long listed in the Women on Writing 2024 flash fiction contest and the 2021 Writer's Digest short Story Competition and have been published in print anthologies Moose House Publishing and Nevermore Press. Linda. Linda is my debut and the results of a Linda or two in my life. Thank you for your time and consideration. Deborah Whittall. It's 355 words without the blatant yet sincere flattery off the top.

[Carly Waters]

Love it, Debbie. Thank you so much. My mother's name is Linda. I'm just putting that out there. Okay. Cece, would you like to kick us off in terms of the query letter?

[Debbie Whittle]

Yes, let's do it. Okay. First, thank you so much for the lovely, lovely paragraph. Definitely worth the extra words. So kind. I'll start with a really silly but I think important comment. I've heard from a few marketing and, like, publicity people in publishing that having things like forward slashes in titles or hashtags or something else can really get in the way of SEOs. And so I don't know if that's even true anymore because I know that these things change all the time. And it's me. Technology is not my friend. But I would just remove the forward slash. I would just call the title Linda. Linda. I don't think you need the last sentence in the first paragraph. The sentence that begins with set in the 1980s. Linda. Linda is dual POV. I want to know about the 1980s and I want to know about the dual POV. But the whole befriends betrays be devil's love as a sentence, but it's not actually adding anything to justify the extra sentence. And to be totally honest, your hook sentence is so good that I don't think you need to mess with it. Like, I what I wrote when I got to the end of not so subtle ways that some women support the patriarch, I was like, I love this hook. Like, it's a really interesting hook. There's lots of potential for like messy emotions, messy dynamics, ambiguity. I love ambiguity. So I don't think you need it. Going to the next paragraph. And this is actually something that is a general note for all the plot paragraphs. I really struggle to see the plot. I see emotionality, I see interiority. That's awesome. I also see really, really well set out premises. But the plot, like, if I had to shoot the movie trailer, right? Like, that's my always my litmus test. I don't know how to do that because I don't know what certain things mean. So examples of things that I don't know. Eleanor wants to escape her mother's overbearing shadow. Okay, that's the premise. But not plot. Not something I could shoot. Linda's position at work is precarious again, is it like a promotion? She's up for a promotion, doesn't get it. And because of that, she has three months till the end of her contract. Like, is it that? Do you know what I'm saying? I just wanted something more concrete. Like, Linda wants to be more than Belle's boss. What does that mean? Like romantic? More something else. Belle must reinvent herself. Eleanor is forced to stand up to her mother. I love that, you know, the emotionality and the interiority behind your plot. But I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know the plot of your novel. Like, I understand the emotions. And I'm so glad you're here because I can ask you once we get to the pages, we can talk. But I will say, and like, of all the problems to have, this is a good problem. I guess your query letter does not do your pages justice. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but like, your writing is really strong. And so if I'm reading this query letter, I am not getting the juiciness that I did see in your pages, you know, and if you have to choose between strong query letter or strong pages, I always prefer strong Pages. And I do read pages, regardless of the query letter, but not every agent does. So I think we need to focus on plot. And I hope that you'll be able to tell us, you know, once Bianca kicks it off to you, because I think we need to work on that.

[Carly Waters]

Thank you, cece. Yeah, we'll hand it across to Kali, and then after that, we'll open it up to Deborah to answer questions and ask her own questions as well. So, Kali, absolutely.

Thank you so much for coming on. I've missed having authors on. This is so fun. I'm always like, the person's not here to ask the questions. Anyway, I'm thrilled that you're here and we can get into it. And I know it's hard for you to sit quietly while cece and I come at you, so you're being very patient and gracious. So I love the title. I agree with cc. Like, there is some metadata issues, because, again, when publishers are logging things in their, like, internal systems, a slash can mean different things within their systems. You know what I mean? Again, it's a very silly, boring thing to be, like, your artisticness in relation to, you know, the technology and the systems and publishing. But I love the double, like, Linda, Linda. So if you want to query Linda, slash, Linda, I think that's fine. But again, just be open to the fact that, again, titles change. But, yeah, I love, love, love the title. So I think you did a really awesome job there. Okay, now, I completely disagree with cece in terms of which line has to go. I think the line that has to go is the subtle and not so subtle ways that the women support the patriarchy. While I love that as a topic, I think the line that has to go is that one. And the line we keep is the befriends betrays bedevil. So, again, even though the authors on the show were not actually making a lot of progress here in terms of cece and I agreeing on anything, because to me, that's all theme, you know, And I'm very much like, we got to get away from theme in a query letter. We got to focus on how are the subtle and not so subtle ways that the women support the patriarchy. You know what I mean? Like, to me, that's the most interesting part here. So I want to know how they accomplish that. I don't want you to tell me that. I want to establish that through the plot itself. So the comps. Like, I think you picked two great books. Only thing I will say is it seems like it is A Canadiana, you know, Canadian novel, obviously, with the setting and the characters. You might want to pick a Canadian author as a comp. You know, again, up to you. The other thing is, both of these are contemporary and your book is set in the 80s. So again, you might want a historical. You might want a book in the 80s or a film or, you know, you can. Again, you can choose another form of multimedia. I would choose something Canadian. And the other thing that I always say is. And I know people who have pitched me and I've requested their fulls, know this is when I request somebody's full, I ask for alternate titles and I ask for alternate comps. So you might just want your, like, long list of comps in your back pocket so that when an agent does request it, then you're like, here are alternate comps. So you're just ready to have those handy. So, yeah, something in the 80s, something Canadian would be. Would be useful there. Okay. And I kind of had more questions like, you know, she befriends, she betrays, and she bedevils. But how? Like, by doing what? Like, I actually didn't feel like you had a hook sentence here. The, like, this happens, and because of this, then this. And then when she doesn't get what she wanted, it's this, you know, like, you didn't have a sentence like that. And so I can see again, through the query and obviously into the pages, we know there is some juicy stuff that happens, but you're not actually telling us what the juicy stuff is, which leads the agent to either think there's nothing happening here, or I don't have the bandwidth to do the mental gymnastics to figure out what it is, even if it is interesting. Right. Because agents, again, are reading lots of query letters at one time. Okay, next paragraph. So you don't have to put the ages in brackets. It is a more of a synopsis technique. Because you have, like, Eleanor Stewart, bracket 25. Don't worry about that. Ideally, you know, through the context, we'll understand that they're early in their career. They are youngish women. Okay, So I think another one of my big questions is, who is the main character? Because obviously you have dual pov. So you're saying Eleanor is a main character and Belle is a main character because it's dual and they're in the query letter. But the book is called Linda Linda. So I'm like, okay, and obviously we're gonna talk about the pages. But their first person. What I read was first person. And so is the book actually about Linda, because you have, through the eyes of the two other women whom she befriends, which is why we have to keep that sentence, which. Why I think cece is wrong about the sentence that has to be cut. Because we need to understand the framing and why Linda is so divisive and what she does to them through their eyes, which is, again, why I want to know what Linda does. So I feel like the tone you were suggesting that what Linda does is malicious or what Linda does is really bad. Like, your tone is like, you know, she's not finished with them. It's very intense, and I feel like you have the promise of this intensity, and then I have no idea what is going to happen. Like, is it backstabbing? Is it, like, sabotage? Career sabotage? Is it something else? Which leads me into what I think the something else is, which is, this has very sapphic undertones, and I don't know if that is intentional or not intentional. And we can get into this in the pages as well. Like, is there any romantic relations between these women? It's a question mark for me. I very much read this with it with a Sapphic lens based on, like, just different layers and comments and things like that. So if, again, if it is, then I think that's interesting, and that needs to be part. Okay, so everybody. She's shaking her head no. So then I. My read is wrong on this, which, again, as an agent, I went do, do, do, do. My mind wandered. And again, I don't know what's. You know, what the drama is, which means that, as the author, you're going to have to do the job of telling me what the drama is. Okay, now let's move to the author bio. I would cut out the years. So you have 2024 and 2021. You're kind of just dating yourself, you know, Even though it's, like, just a couple years ago of the competitions, I just wouldn't name the dates of the competitions. It just, again, saves you from just, like, nailing that down in time and place a little bit. So. All right, I will stop talking. And those are my notes.

Thank you, Carly. Okay, Debbie, we're now going to hand it across to you. You get to tell us a bit more, and you get to ask us questions as well. So take it away.

[Cece Lira]

First question. I'll address your comments first. I struggle with the movie trailer because it's a quiet book, and really big things happen in the third quarter and the fourth quarter that are only big because of the setup and the emotionality. And stuff. So I struggled with that. If I were to use in the query letter some specific examples, Linda's behavior or the mother's behavior, like shooting her daughter down, or Linda once demands that an assistant give her her pantyhose because hers are running and she needs to go into a meeting, like that kind of thing. There's this. There's a backstabbing betrayal involving a man, but Eleanor doesn't find out about it until, you know, So I. I struggle with that. That's why I used Romana Lem as a comp. Because it's quiet and not, you know, so much happens. The other. That's. That's just me babbling. The question is, I have since gone through with a chainsaw, not a scalpel, so there are typos and. And words missing, which I'm sure you noticed, but it's now down to 70,000 words. Is that too short for upmarket women's fiction?

[Carly Waters]

I mean, I think there's a lot within that question. Like, to me, I don't think this is upmarket women's fiction. To me, this is a historical novel and potentially literary. Again, literary is always dependent on the writing. We're not at the writing part yet, but because it is more quiet, because you have a historical setting and you have kind of an interesting structure, the title is literary. Like, to me, this is a. This is more of a historical literary novel. My read of it, I don't think it's upmarket women's fiction. So does that help answer that question? And then in terms of the length, I think the length is fine. You know, if it takes 70,000 words just to tell the story, I think that's okay. But, cece, do you want to chime in? We're very much in disagreement today, so feel free to go the other direction.

[Debbie Whittle]

I like it when we disagree. It highlights the subjective nature of all this. I'm right about the hook line, by the way. Just say, if we don't hear so.

[Carly Waters]

Many, I would be walking across the room telling you, good thing we are separated by.

[Debbie Whittle]

I. I would throw Brigaderos at you. I think that, like, 70,000 is, again, 70,000, 80,000. That. That's not what's going to make or break your novel. It's more like, are you using the words right? You know, like, I don't think you have to worry about that. The thing is, I actually want to focus on the thing you said before. You said, it's a quiet novel. Not much happens. That's why I. I comped it to rich and pretty. As you know, I love rich and pretty. I've read it multiple times. It is a quiet novel. Nothing happens. It's fantastic. The thing is, it's not up market, so you gotta change that. You know, like, you have to decide a what you want your novel to be. Do you want it to be upmarket? If. So we need plot. If you don't, then cool. But then it has to be literary. And that's a whole other set of notes, whole other situation. You don't get to have a quiet novel if it's upmarket. Like, I'm sorry, it's just not how publishing works. And I wish it were, because I enjoy a quiet novel. But we need. We need more plot. I also, I'm not entirely convinced when you say there's no plot in the beginning because you're saying things like betrayal, you know, and you're saying that Eleanor overlooks certain things, like fibs, flaws, like. And even in Ruman's book, like, I could tell you the movie trailer for that, it starts with Lauren mentioning the engagement and then Sarah doing her faux pas, like, asking if it's to Dan. And then there's the trip. Like, nothing happens, but there are scenes. You're not giving us scenes. I think that's the issue, you know, like, so maybe, maybe, and this is on me, like, maybe we shouldn't frame it as what happens so much as, like, what are the scenes and what's the power imbalance in each of these scenes? And what's the shift in expectations in each of these scenes? Because if I'm reading a query letter and it's very Vibey like yours, I do worry that you won't grab the agent with that sense of curiosity of, oh, my gosh, I wonder if Eleanor is going to get the promotion, because if she doesn't, then her mom will find out about that thing she did, and that will mean she'll be cut out of the will. Do you know what I'm saying? I really do think I need more. And it might be just an issue of, like, okay, well, then it's not for me. Or it might be an issue of you bringing that up to the surface.

[Carly Waters]

Yeah. When I see a query like this, it makes me wonder, like, what you think you're protecting me from as the agent and as the consumer of this piece of material. Because, like, do you think you're protecting me from spoilers? Because I want to know where the juicy parts of the book are and when writers send me a pitch like this I'm like, there's clearly so much drama here that I had to make up a whole sapphic storyline in my mind to, like, you know, put all this together. And so, like, I just encourage you and people listening. Obviously, this is an educational experience for everybody. Like, you don't have to protect me, the agent, the consumer of a query letter from anything. Like, your job is to sell the crap out of this thing. Like, what's the drama? Where's the juice? You know, like, go for it. You know what I mean? And I just felt like this was a timid way to introduce me to the juicy parts of your novel.

Something I just want to throw in before we carry on is that you were saying the third quarter, in the fourth. Fourth quarter, all these things happen. But when it comes to causality in a novel, the dominoes had to start tipping over in the first quarter and the second quarter to get to the juicy stuff happening in the third and fourth quarters. And that's where causality comes in. A happens, which leads to B, which leads to C. And all those things happening in the third and fourth quarters couldn't have happened with all the things that happen early on. So, you know, again, look at quiet novels. Like, I am currently obsessed with Charlotte Wood, her Stone Yard devotional. The weekend they were both so quiet, virtually nothing happened. But have a look again at her flap copy and how, you know, those sort of simmering tensions are woven in there. Maybe. I mean, are there things that happen that you would like to mention to us and say, would that work in terms of the plot paragraphs?

[Cece Lira]

Well, and still not wanting to give it away. But if instead of saying that Linda ultimately betrays them, if I had said something more specific, like, you know, when Eleanor sees through Linda's facade and Belle falls in love with the wrong man, would that solve the sapphic problem? And the. It's still too vague.

[Debbie Whittle]

Cece sees through facade is not specific. You know it's not. You know it's not. Stop protecting us. Carly made an excellent point. You're protecting us. Stop it.

[Carly Waters]

It has to be, like, on the nose. I don't know how else to explain it. But, like, I think you have to tell me what happened. Like, you have to tell us what happens. Right. So there's a romance, and then Linda messes. Like, Linda steals the man.

[Cece Lira]

No, but she sabotages.

[Carly Waters]

Okay, but what.

[Debbie Whittle]

Linda, what does sabotage mean? Like, you. You. Debbie. Debbie, you were very good at finding words to, like, like, euphemisms, you know, sabotage.

[Carly Waters]

Can I just say that in Your pages themselves, your verb choices were excellent. Your verb choices when you write are phenomenal. So when you are being vague in your query letter, there's a reason for that. It's not because you don't know the words. It's because you're hiding behind.

[Debbie Whittle]

No, but. But even. Even the word choice in the query letter is phenomenal. Like, these are good words. They're just not plot specific works.

[Carly Waters]

Yeah. So how does she sabotage? Like, how does she sabotage? How does she see through that facade? What is the facade? What does she actually see?

[Cece Lira]

So Linda encourages Eleanor to stand up to her own mother. And Eleanor sees an interaction with Linda and her father, and she realizes she doesn't stand up to him. He doesn't respect her. And Linda sees on her face that she sees this. And she always comes across as the leader, the woman who sucks all the air out of the room. She can see that Eleanor sees that she has her own daddy issues, and she just cuts her off, stops returning phone calls. Just the 1980s version of ghosting her, which is the worst thing for Eleanor, who just wants a friend, you know? And then she finds out later that a guy, a cute guy she met at a. At a party, Linda went up to that guy and told him that they were gay and that they. That she was not available to him because she was. And so then they struggle to find out did. Did she say they were in love or did she say that she like it? It's questionable for a long time whether Linda actually did sabotage the relationship or not.

[Bianca Murray]

This weekend, we were at a birthday party, and our francophone friend asked my son a question in French and he was able to converse with her. This felt like a huge parenting milestone. Immersion education for the win. But a bit of a womp womp on my part because I only learned English as a kid, and I'm still getting my French up to conversation level. I'm always looking for the best tools that I can keep up with my friends and my kids in their French speaking. Rosetta Stone is the most trusted language learning program available on desktop or as an app. And it truly immerses you in the language you want to learn. A trusted expert for 30 years with millions of users and 25 languages offered that. Spanish, French, Italian, German, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Dutch, Arab, Arabic, Polish.

[Carly Waters]

So many more.

[Bianca Murray]

With that fast language acquisition, Rosetta Stone immerses you in so many ways. There's no English translation, so you can really speak, listen, and think in that language. It's an intuitive process. You pick up a language naturally first with words, then phrases, then sentences. There's the speech recognition. The built in True Accent feature gives you feedback on your pronunciation. It's like having a personal trainer for your accent. It's convenient, flexible learning anytime on the go, on the app or on the desktop. And it has amazing value. Lifetime membership for 25 languages for any and all trips and language needs in your life. That's lifetime access to all 25 language courses on Rosetta Stone for 50 off. That's a steal. Don't wait. Unlock your language learning potential now. The shit about writing listeners can grab Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership for 50 off. That's unlimited access to 25 language courses for life. Visit Rosetta Stone.com today to get started and claim your 50% off today. Don't miss out. Go to Rosetta Stone.com today and start learning now.

[Carly Waters]

You've heard me say it all the time on the podcast that you need to circle the building of your work to find the best entry point into it. But this process doesn't just ensure strong opening pages, it allows you to navigate the whole building with confidence, knowing which doors to throw wide open and which ones to keep locked, which walls to smash down and which ones to reinforce as you space you'd like to live inside. In my Circling the building of your Work webinar, I'll guide you through the transformation of my latest work in progress, showing you examples of my constantly evolving pages in my quest to find the best way into a story I've always wanted to tell. In doing so, I'll highlight the intentionality you need to bring to your decision making. How to play around with point of view, structure, timeline, voice and other essential elements of craft. How to frame a narrative and choose the lens through which you'd like to view it. The questions you'll need to ask yourself throughout the process how to circle back from false starts and how rewarding the entire process can be. You'll also be assigned to other delegates to work with after the webinar to gain objectivity, input and fresh perspectives as you circle the building of your own work in progress. This course will be run on the 13th of May from 7 to 10pm Eastern Time. For more information and to register, go to Bianca Marais and look for the courses tab.

What is Linda getting out of all of this attention?

[Cece Lira]

So the the upshot is that Linda feels better about herself when she stands beside a broken person, so she looks for broken women to prop herself up to make herself feel whole better. It's difficult to shoot A movie trailer, but I'm going to keep at it. What if I were to mention vibes like weeknight wine and Saturday morning Scrabble matches? Scrabble is a huge no.

[Carly Waters]

Okay, good, everybody. Cece is shaking her head. If you're not watching us, not letting.

[Debbie Whittle]

You do any of that. No Scrabble Nights in the query layer. Nobody wants that. No.

[Carly Waters]

This is just highlighting how difficult it is to write querying letters for quiet novels.

[Cece Lira]

Yeah, exactly.

[Carly Waters]

CCNR convinced that, you know, we could get there, but we don't have a couple extra hours to kind of dig into it. So let's move to the pages.

[Cece Lira]

Yeah, I will keep on trying the pages.

[Carly Waters]

I agree in what they were both saying is that the query letter did not do the pages justice. So we're going to discuss the pages now, which were really, really good. So we're doing a different exercise. Kali and cece are each going to summarize the pages themselves so that we can show how different people approach information and what stands out to them. Cece, would you like to begin?

[Debbie Whittle]

No, Carly should begin, because I have mine written down so mine won't be influenced.

[Carly Waters]

All right, all right, all right. As I said, if we were in person, we would be having Battle Royale today. All right, so my summary is the following. So we are in Eleanor's POV. It says, Toronto, spring 1983, chapter one. So we are in a boardroom with our main character, Eleanor, and Linda has an interaction with her where she's kind of, like, potentially trying to embarrass her. In the boardroom meeting, the two have a laugh, everybody gets distracted, and we understand the relationship between Eleanor, her mother, and Linda. Then Linda takes her out for coffee and tries to understand a little bit more of the relationship between Eleanor and her mother. Then they kind of become friends, and Eleanor and Linda go on a kind of weekend away in a cabin. And we learned a little bit more about the friendship that builds here.

Okay, Colleen, now we're handing it across to cece, who's going to read us her summary of the pages.

[Debbie Whittle]

Okay, this is what I got. Linda asks our protagonist for tissue. Our protagonist says, do you need one? And then Linda clarifies that, no, the protagonist needs one. While touching Linda's nose, that universal gesture of, you need a Kleenex. So this interrupts the presentation. They're in a boardroom. Protagonist's mom is presenting, and Linda looks professional and poised, dealing with the death stare that the protagonist's mother gives them. Linda asks the protagonist for coffee. Linda insists the protagonist should have more power at the firm because her brothers do. Linda invites her on a trip. They play Scrabble. Linda refers to the protagonist as a friend.

[Carly Waters]

Okay, all right, so let's now discuss the pages. So, Carly, would you like to begin?

[Bianca Murray]

Sure.

[Carly Waters]

I'm going to continue with why I think this was an entirely Sapphic plot line. And then you're gonna have to make your edits accordingly because apparently I'm out to lunch. These two women are intensely focused on one another. No, they're not really paying attention to other people. There is a mother character, but, like, again, they're having this intimate connection about the tissue. It seems like they are trying to take care of each other through the tissue thing. So again, they're building this bond. Then Linda invites her to coffee after, where they have a pseudo date where they aren't obviously talking about some work issues. Then invites her to a romantic cabin weekend, just the two of them. So this is why, again, I thought this was a completely Sapphic, you know, romance plot line. I don't know. I don't know what else to say. I completely felt like these two were. And again, it's not that I thought it was all, like, sunshine and rainbows. I thought there was something ominous, but I got a very like. Like, romantic vibe here. Again, maybe from one more than the other. But anyway, so that's. I'm defending my potential illusion here. Okay. But in terms of the. The pages itself. So I guess I. I haven't read a lot of books set in the 80s. I will say I was born in the 80s, but didn't, you know, read a lot of books back then as I was, you know, too small and couldn't read. But, you know, I felt like there was a very, like, youngness to her in a way that felt probably intentional. Like, I wrote this in my notes, which you'll see is that it seems like you're a very intentional writer. So I'm trying to figure out why you kind of infantilized her so much in the pages. And I think it was probably intentional to make her seem young. You know, again, the Kleenex issue, it was very, like, maternal that again, she's having. It's not running out of her nose or booger situation where somebody has to. To take care of her. It felt very young. So that was very much like, I was like, how old is she? Like, is she a 8 year old in the room or is she, again, a business person in the room? I didn't know. So again, I got a very huge Age gap, dynamic parental, again, maternal relationship between everybody there. So I just kind of want to flag that. She came off really, really young to me. And as I said, you'll see. You'll see in my notes. Kind of what I was getting at there. And in terms of a technical note, when you are switching kind of scenes, let's call them, like, you're in the present and you're going back into the past from memory. You need to leave more lines. Because I wasn't really clear of, like, okay, she's in the physical situation of having coffee, and then she's going back into her mind thinking about her mother. And you need to leave a couple lines there so I can emotionally and spatially understand, like, we are time traveling. That would be important there. I found it really interesting that you didn't have the two of them, like, do small talk between, you know, deciding they're gonna go for coffee and then going to coffee. She just, like, bobs her head, you know, say nothing of. To make her way to the elevator down 16 flights. Very interesting to me that two people would take an elevator for 16 flights. Like, wouldn't she be like, why is this lady taking me out for coffee? Or think about her relation to her, or, you know, she's standing like this, and I'm standing like this. Or people get in and out of the elevator. Like, I'm not saying you need to, like, bloat that section, but it was very interesting to me about why they would say nothing. And then they sit down, and then it's a little like, what's your story? You know, why do you let your mom treat you like that? Right?

Yeah.

I don't know. I just found there was an opportunity there to get into the layers of, like, why all this matters to each of them. That's kind of what I was trying to get at. Get from you in the query conversation. Like, what is Linda getting out of this? I can't figure it out. And it is very interesting and curious to me for me to be like, tell me why. And I'm, like, trying to figure it out. So, like, there is an intellectual part of my brain that's, like, stimulated from trying to figure. Figure all of this out and try to figure her out as a character. But as a reader, I only have so much capacity for this because at some point, the reader's gonna say, I can't figure her out. Done. You know what I mean? And that's the hardest part is, like, the curiosity so that you keep us on the hook and Then you don't kind of let our minds wander and then just give up. So that is something that I was kind of frustrated with Linda about and disappointed with Eleanor in terms of her lack of challenging the situation. And again, kind of what I was coming back to with the 80s. Like, I wasn't a young woman in the 80s. I don't know what that relationship would have been like to be maybe one of few women in a boardroom, and you know what I mean? So. And maybe you can do an improved job of kind of setting the scene and the stakes and the tone of, like, what it would have been like, the nepotism. All of that stuff is interesting. And I think we left off the page. And then other than that, the other note I had, which, again, you seem like a very intentional writer, so I found this very interesting, is that a couple times you referenced things in the story that presumably they've already discussed outside of the scope of what's on the page and left the reader a little bit confused about how well these two know each other in almost that, like, unreliable narrator kind of way. And I just want to give one example, so you know what I mean? So she said, you know, Linda. And this is when they're. The cabin, I think. So. Linda lifts an eyebrow and changes the subject, reaching into what she calls the diversion bag, mostly filled with wine. There's a board game slid in along one side in an ancient mixed nut tin that rattled almost as much as the bottles clinked when I carried it in from the car, which I thought was really interesting, that clearly there was a conversation that happened when she was carrying the bag in from the car, but the reader wasn't privy to that, which gives the illusion there's a lot more depth to this relationship than is on the page, which is, again, very interesting, and probably I'm intentional, or, you know, maybe not. Speaking of intentionality, like, what did you decide to put on the page and what did you not decide to put on the page? You decided not to tell us about this interaction, you know, not to dialogue, this interaction between the two of them. You decided to reference it later. So, anyway, I just found some of your choices curiosity inducing, which is. Which is good. And just made me wonder, like, what are you not telling the reader and when are you going to tell the reader and why? And as I said, I stand behind the fact this is a romantic encounter in a cabin. But I will set up about that now.

Thank you, Carly. Before we hand across to Cece. I mean, yeah, it makes sense to me, that Debbie would make this main character really naive and someone who's desperate for approval.

[Cece Lira]

Right?

[Carly Waters]

Because a Linda person preys on somebody like that. And so when your mother treats you like crap and you are kind of naive and so desperate for approval, you are more likely to fall prey to somebody like that than someone who's confident and who acts the age and. And all the rest of it. So, like, from that point of view, it makes sense to me. And of course, you've listed her as the title, and yet we never get a point of view. So we are constantly going to be trying to understand her through everyone else's point of view, because we're never going to get inside her head and know for sure why she does the things she does. Even I'm assuming by the end of the book, we. All we have is our perceptions of how she behaves the way she does, which is why people like us lie awake in the middle of the night going, why would somebody do that? It doesn't make any sense. So the overthinker in me totally gets that part. Okay, Cece, we're handing it across to you. What was your take?

[Debbie Whittle]

I loved the interiority, like, the observations she was making, her self awareness, the comparison. Something I'm always looking for when I read pages, especially pages that are promising literary fiction, but really all pages, is to have the protagonist comparing, you know, because human beings do that all the time. Like, if you see someone. And so she compares her appearance, Linda's appearance to her own. You know, Linda's poised to her own, and just comparison after comparison. And it was just so subtle, so well done. Like, not overwritten. A lot of people, when they write interiority, I think they get excited and they overwrite. You never did that. I thought that was. You did a really, really good job. I also think that the way she observes Linda was really masterfully done. It made me really curious, I guess, to Carly's point as well. Like, we're like, okay, so what's. What is it about this woman? And, you know, there's a. There's a moment where the protagonist calls her one of the beautiful people. I really liked that. You know, it shows the categorization that we all do in our minds. You know, like, oh, those are the popular kids. Those are the beautiful people. Those are the athletic people. Like, you know, framing your protagonist as an observer is one of the best ways to learn about the protagonist. It sounds weird, right, because they're observing others, but it's actually a very effective technique to develop Your protagonist and you, you're doing this fantastic job out of it. Like, I really, really loved it. I'm going to mention two things that I think we need to work on. The first is there's a couple instances that I felt, weirdly enough, were venturing into info dumpy. Forced territory. More forced than info dumpy. So the tissue thing, no one would ask, do you need a tissue? People would hand over a tissue. They assume the other person who is asking for the tissue needs the tissue. And then Linda would be like, no, no, no, it's for you. So I love that surprise element, but that question didn't seem plausible to me. And when Linda's talking to the protagonist and she says, why do you let her treat you like that? Her, I assume, being the protagonist's mother. If I'm wrong, please stop me. And then she says, your mother is CEO of Stuart limited, the grand oyen of Canadian public relations industry. You're a steward. And again, that didn't make any sense. Because if her mom has power, and that line is kind of highlighting the fact that her mom has power, people with power can get away with treating others badly. Like, it makes total sense. It would make much more sense for her to be like, why does she treat you and not your brothers like that? You know, and I know eventually we talk about the brothers. But that, again, that line, I read it. I went, wait, what is the her not her mother? Because if it is her mother, then the question makes no sense. But if it's not her mother, then I don't know who it is. So it's a small thing, but that kind of tripped me up. My big picture note for you, Debbie. And, I mean, I don't know if you're open to a brainstorming session. We don't know if we have time for one. But I think this even more after hearing you talk about your book's plot. I think you need to work on your scene. Your first scene, like, your first scene is good, but I think it could be great with higher stakes and more disruption and more surprise. I do think the boardroom is a smart choice. I think that, like, again, if you want ideas, I can. I can suggest an idea. But I do think you need certain fundamentals of starting in the right place. Place that you don't have. You do have her current position in her world, which is essential. You have a very small disruption, which is her mom looking at her. If you want to keep the small disruption, that's fine. I would start with the bigger one. Just because it's the first scene, but then we don't have change in power dynamics, and we need that. We need that shift, that story forward shift. So, again, I have ideas. Happy to brainstorm. If we don't have time, we can just do it off camera. And that's fine if you're interested, but I think that you need to dial it up. You know, like you're in the right, like, sort of like neighborhood, but dial it up.

[Carly Waters]

We've got 13 minutes, so we definitely do have time to brainstorm. But let's get Debbie to ask her questions first so we make sure we tick those. Those boxes.

[Cece Lira]

First of all, the two of you did not notice that Eleanor doesn't name herself in the entire first chapter. And so I know that. Okay, she does not name herself until page 240 in the book. Is that. That's what I would call a literary device. Does that have a place in the query letter or not?

[Debbie Whittle]

Absolutely not. Also, don't wait till page 200. Name her earlier.

[Cece Lira]

Okay. Yeah. It's like, it'll be on the flap copy, and it's on the subhead, so it's not like her name is a secret.

[Carly Waters]

You cap off the chapter, though. Like, it says chapter one, Eleanor's. Eleanor's point of view. Is that what you mean? Like, you mean that she doesn't name herself, but it's very clear. It's Eleanor chapter, you know, and then.

[Cece Lira]

In the next chapter, Linda gives her an unflattering nickname, and that's how she's known until a dramatic point. I'm just absorbing all this information, so I don't have many specific questions about the pages other than I will say to Bianca about and about the intentionality. I changed Nods or Bob's her head from Nods her head after listening to somebody, you know, you talking to somebody about the, you know, the nodding being overused. I changed that specific. And, Carly, I think it's fantastic. You think that it was intentional that they suddenly started playing Scrabble, But I combined two chapters into one and actually, like, took out information. And that's the chainsaw aspect of it. During the deep dive, Bianca, you were saying that your. You were told your chapters were too short, and you said they were about 2,000 words. Mine were 800 words. So I just went through and I combined a lot of chapters to make them, like, 2,000 words short. And that's how. That's how that positioning happened. But I would love to brainstorm. Let's brainstorm just.

[Carly Waters]

Just on the chapter thing for Everybody else who wasn't part of the deep dive. What I said was my readers always. The one thing I always get complimented on is that I have lovely short chapters. It's not really what the writer wants to be complimented on, but that's what I do get. And mine are generally round about the 2,000 word mark. So that's sort of the. The sweet spot there. But in terms of the. The brainstorming. Cc, what suggestion did you have?

[Debbie Whittle]

Okay, this is probably not going to fit your story, but it's really just to illustrate what a full scene could be, because you mentioned, oh, I took a chainsaw and I just made my chapters longer. But it's about making a full scene. It's not about a chapter. They're in the boardroom. There's always a presentation. Weekly, monthly, I don't know. Eleanor has never given a presentation. This is the day she is finally giving her first presentation. Her mom not supposed to be there. Her mom isn't there in the room. Her mom's traveling, and so Eleanor is okay because her mom isn't there. We have Linda in one of the many seats we have. Also have Bob. Whatever. Bob is an ally. Bob is always nice to Eleanor. He's always kind. And Eleanor feels comforted by Bob's presence. Right? And she's comforted, too, by the fact that her mom isn't there. So, yeah, sure, she's nervous, but she is forcing herself. We can see her interiority, her forcing herself. There's pressure, there's stakes. It's a boardroom, it's a presentation. It's her first time, but she can do this. Her mom shows up, that's the first disruption. Not scheduled, Totally out of the blue. Oh, yeah, my schedule got changed. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Her mom shows up, that puts Eleanor on edge. And so that's again, first disruption, first surprise to the protagonist, first surprise to the reader. We see the power dynamics because of her mom's influence. Eleanor was one person before her mom showed up. Then she's a different person now that her mom's there. She somehow messes up the presentation. I don't know how you're going to figure out a way. It has to be like a subtle, not on the nose, you know, believable way. And she looks to Bob for reassurance because again, it's Bob, Bob. Bob's not reassuring anyone because since her mom's there, Bob is not brave enough to stand up to her mom. Bob's laughing along with everyone else or doing whatever along with everyone Else, it's Linda who stands up for her or does. Does something nice. Nice and unexpected. And that comparison is important, the Bob and Linda comparison, because again, it's gonna make the reader go, bob, Bob, Bob. Bob's the ally. But nope, it's actually Linda. Surprise. Second surprise, second disruption. Well, second disruption is her messing up. And then the surprise is, is Linda stepping up because of that causality to Bianca's point? Because of that, you wrap up the presentation fine. The protagonist works up the courage to thank Linda, and in her head, she's going, I always thought of her as one of the beautiful people, but, hey, like, she's the one who stood up to me, right? Like, maybe she's not so bad. I don't know, whatever. She asks Linda for coffee, or maybe she just thanks Linda and then Linda asks her for coffee. But again, my point is one thing leads to the other. And I'm just pointing this out to say, because I. If I were a listener, I'd be like, that doesn't sound so different from her scene, CeCe. The difference is you're giving the protagonist a lot more agency because you're putting her in the spotlight. And right now, she doesn't have agency. And it's really. And I get that that's a part of her character arc, but putting her in a high pressure situation where stuff that's happened, stuff that happens, is more than her mom giving her a death stare because they interrupted the presentation. And a Kleenex exchange can go a long way for a first scene. Like, a long, long way. And I think it's really important to make the reader expect Linda to not be a nice person at first, because that's what the protagonist expects. We hear her say, I always thought she was one of the beautiful people, and then have that surprise element because it's going to throw us off. It's going to make us want to figure out Linda even more. So that's my brainstorm session.

[Carly Waters]

I really like it. What are you thinking, Debbie?

[Cece Lira]

I'm thinking it wouldn't work specifically, but I know where you're going with it, and I know, like, I can understand the reason behind it. And I also have to say that, you know, when you were talking cece about the emotionality of the scene, all of that was added after I took your excellent course. I will tell all the listeners that I had a story, you know, like draft one, draft two, add emotionality. All that changed. So draft nine will be adding, you know, breaking expectations, right? Like, crashing them somehow.

[Carly Waters]

And I like the Surprise elements that Cece mentioned. If we think one character in the room is going to be the, you know, nasty one, and they turn out to be the savior, there is that lovely element of surprise, and it does immediately make the reader go, oh, interesting. Especially since we don't get into Linda's point of view at any point. So we constantly kept guessing about in this kind of book. What I would love to see is moments when Linda saves the day and is amazing, and then she suddenly does something awful, and you're like, holy heck. Because in this kind of relationship, gaslighting is key, right? Somebody just thinks they've got a handle on it, and then the person does something mean, and when they try and call them on it or speak to them about it, they get confused, completely gaslit about it, which is how Linda keeps these people on their toes the whole time. So with this kind of book, there's going to be a lot of psychological elements to it in terms of them trying to figure her out and her behavior out, et cetera. So I love what Cece said because we immediately start off thinking she's one thing, then she becomes something else. And then soon afterwards, if we see her do something mean, again, as the reader, we're like, we don't know how to figure Linda out. Something else. I wanted to say, Debbie, before I hand across to Colleen, Cece is, it's great to take the scalpel and the chainsaw to your work, but not at the expense of the work. So, like, when Carly said, I wanted to see the scene, I wanted to see them walking from the car. And you cut that out and just combined that into one scene to save words. But sometimes saving words is not the best way to flush out a scene. Sometimes put in those extra 500 words that gets them from the car to the whatever. Because you add 70,000 words, which means you. You've got 10,000 words to play around with. So add them and flesh the work out, rather than just take a hatchet to the work at the expense of the work. Okay. Carly and CeCe.

Yeah, yeah, sorry. One thing I wanted to add was about one of the reasons, I think Cece's idea, just to underscore why that works, is because I felt like, you know, it really felt to me like Linda was forced upon us as the reader, right? Because we, like, all of a sudden, it's just like. And Linda's in her face, you know what I mean? With the Kleenex situation in the back of the boardroom, like, it was just like, boom. Linda's in her face. But in the example that cece's using, we center Eleanor. And then because you also have to manipulate the reader, like, this is kind of what Bianca was getting at, right? There's the gaslighting. And, like, you have to manipulate us a little bit, too. So you didn't give us a chance to be like, I wonder who this person is. It's just like. And she's in our face with a Kleenex, you know, and so if we sent her ELEANOR and then CeCe says, you know, Linda steps in to save the day, then it gives the reader the opportunity to be like, oh, is Linda on our side? We make this decision, you know, again, she comes into the scene in a way that is a little bit more what I think. I don't know what the right word is. Like, appropriate, you know, for the moment.

[Cece Lira]

Yeah. I've got an idea in my head already. And one of the ideas of CC's that I will be using is that she thinks about liking. Like, she might like to go for a coffee and find out more about this. And I'll try to play up colleague as opposed to lover, but she thinks it, and Linda says it. Like, I love that idea because that. That is Eleanor and Linda's relationship entirely. Right. Like, a. Eleanor wants to do something, wishes she could do something, and Linda pulls her along with her to do.

[Carly Waters]

Could even be like a walk and talk, you know, to make it less romantic. Like, it's like, oh, yeah, I. I'm ahead of the door, but, like, let's hit the coffee shop on the way out. Do you know what I mean? As opposed to, like, come on a date with me to the coffee shop. You know what I mean? Like, let's walk and talk or. Yeah, like, I have to go to this building for this meeting. Like, let's go together, make a quick stop at the coffee shop, that kind of thing.

And. And the thing with that kind of assumption, difficult. So once somebody like Carly, once a reader is like, oh, this is Sapphic, they're going to frame everything through that lens, which then is the exact opposite. What you want as an author, you want to be controlling the reader's perception at all times. They must be thinking exactly what you want them to think, and you don't want them going off on a tangent, thinking something, framing it through that lens.

[Debbie Whittle]

Cece, this might confuse Debbie more than help.

[Cece Lira]

Debbie.

[Debbie Whittle]

Debbie. I'm sorry in advance, but I didn't get Sapphic vibes at all. Like, the one time I wondered if it Was Sapphic is when in the query letter, you mentioned she wants more than something from Belle. But, like, I did. Intensity of female friendships for me is one of my favorite themes in novel. And it often does sound obsessed and filled with desire, but not in a sexual way. So, I mean, to be fair, you're never gonna be able to get everyone to, like, agree. That's not the goal. It's storytelling. But I don't know. I. I do think that it's important not to make people think it's Sapphic if it's not. I just didn't think it was at any point, like, till Carly said it. When she said it, I was like, oh, you know, interesting. Charlie, don't hit me again.

[Carly Waters]

No, I was just gonna say, this week, Chapel Rowan had a song come out called called the Giver. And I was, like, listening to it. Like a country song. It's a country song. And I'm like. And then I got on the Internet, everybody's like, this is a Sapphic country song. And I was like, I didn't get that in that song. You know, so everybody's gonna have their own, you know, read on it. I just wanted to be clear about the way that I was framing it and just so you could guard against that framing, because, again, that's not what you're trying to accomplish.

Yeah. Cece, do you want to add anything? Because we're at time.

[Debbie Whittle]

Like, one very quick thing to Bianca's point about the psychological torture. I have in the past offered consultations, like Manuscript Academy and stuff. And so I've read pages from people who were, like, working on drafts, and I read further than I would as an agent. And a common mistake. This is for our listeners more than you, Debbie. A common mistake with situations where you want to show psychological torture, essentially, of one character to another, is not to do that in a scene with pressure. And I worry you might do that, Debbie, because of your whole this is a quiet novel thing. Like, you gave us a quiet scene with the Kleenex, and then you added the psychological, beautifully written interiority. But if you don't do that in a scene with pressure, the stakes are rarely established. So I think you need to work on scene work. I think you need to work on pressure. I think you need to make sure that Eleanor feels more like the protagonist. And we see things like Eleanor and her mom before the disruption. Like, I. I just think that it's a mistake not to. I don't. Again, your novel. Don't want to overstep, but you have such a corporate hook and you have such strong writing. It would be in my opinion a waste to not leverage these things.

[Cece Lira]

Thank you.

[Carly Waters]

Yeah, for our listeners, I want you all to have a look at the critique of Debbie's work to see the excellent writing on the line level. The verb choices were so strong, the descriptions were so evocative. So well done on that Debbie. Really, really good line level writing.

[Cece Lira]

Thank you.

[Carly Waters]

All right, so that's it for today's episode. Thank you so much for joining us. We know it means making yourself vulnerable and I hope you know that we are cheering you on all the way.

[Cece Lira]

Thank you. My pleasure.

[Bianca Murray]

Thanks Debbie. A reminder that this is an unscripted program and our conversations have been edited and condensed and is not a full picture of our feedback or conversation directly with each author. As always, refer back to our written notes for the fulsome picture. Carly Waters and Cece Lira are agents at PS Literate Agency, but their work on this podcast is not affiliated with the agency and the views expressed by Carly and Cece on this podcast are solely that of them as podcast co hosts and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies or position of PS Literary Agency. A reminder about all the ways that you can support us as a show. Rate us five stars on Apple Podcasts. Tell your writing friends about us. We'd love to help as many writers as possible and follow us on our Substack Newsletter. Get our stacked newsletter on a weekly basis. Bonus videos, articles, essays, advice and more. You can find it@the shitaboutwriting.substack.com that's theshitaboutwriting.substack.com.

[Carly Waters]

And that's it for today's episode. I hope you'll join us for next week's show. In the meantime, keep at it. Remember, it just takes one. Yes.

[Bianca Murray]

It'S beta reader match up time again, where you can be matched up with those writing in the same genre and or time zone so they can critique your work as you critique theirs. Your manuscript doesn't have to be complete to sign up for this 3,000 word evaluation. This particular matchup will be open to registrations from now until the 4th of May, with the matchup emails going out on the 5th of May because my new novel, a most puzzling murder pub early June and will be keeping me very busy. This will be the last matchup until the fall. Please spread the word even if you aren't signing up this time. The more writers we have registered, the better the matchups will be, which means you'll be paying it forward to your fellow authors, and hopefully they'll do the same when the time comes for you to register. For more information, head to Biancamurrae.com and go to the Beta Reader Matchup page.