Okay, so the basic structure of this seems to be holding some water. With input from a variety of sources, here's the new version:
Lady Rosalind Brighton knows knights in shining armor are more interested in winning castles than princesses, so when her knight turns out to be an Irish racehorse trainer with lofty ambitions and an unexpected penchant for altruism, she faces a thorny dilemma: defend her castle or surrender her heart.
Given that it's ideal to cut the sentence to the fewest possible words, however, I wonder whether the following isn't a bit better, length-wise if not structurally:
Lady Rosalind Brighton knows knights in shining armor are keener on winning castles than princesses, so when her knight turns out to be an ambitious Irish racehorse trainer with an unexpected penchant for altruism, she faces a thorny dilemma: defend her castle or surrender her heart.
What sayeth the masses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I like this! Looking for ways to make it shorter, I wonder if you need the altruism phrase? It's a bit more mysterious without it, and heighten's the conflict a bit if you leave it with the ambition. I haven't read the story, though -- is it important to know up front that he's got a softer side?
ugh. I hate blog typos. No 's ...
Hi Chris,
Yes, I agree the altruism phrase could go and I considered that.
I do think it's important to the heroine's internal conflict--she doesn't trust a man to want *her* because she sees her wealth/property as more valuable than herself, so when a man comes along who clearly is hoping to better himself but at the same time does nice things for people without any obvious personal benefit, it definitely messes with her preconceptions.
But if I were trying to get it down to the back of a business card like Lacey's done with hers, that's definitely the phrase I'd lose.
Thanks for stopping by and venturing an opinion. I need all the help I can get, LOL!
I like the second one, but would skip the altruism and keep the lofty ambitions (does that make sense?)
Wellllllllllllllllllllllll here's my opinion:
Patrick being an Irish racehorse trainer is clearly at odds with "Lady Rosalind Brighton," who must be an earl's daughter or better to have that courtesy title, right? So that sets your story apart. HOWEVER. I also think if you were trying to get it down to business-card size this would capture the internal conflict better:
Lady Rosalind Brighton knows knights in shining armor are keener to win castles than princesses, so when her ambitious knight turns out to have an unexpected penchant for altruism, she faces a thorny dilemma: defend her castle or surrender her heart.
I'm liking the second one better. Short and pithy.
I think maybe strike out the altruism phrase and replace it with something that more clearly illuminates the plot.
As Lacey pointed out, "Lady" and "racehorse trainer" are clearly at odds (societally speaking) but (to me) this doesn't explain how or why her castle is in danger, or why she can't keep the man AND the castle.
(And I'm apparently the only one who likes "more interested in" better than "keener on winning", but that's neither here nor there.)
So... maybe something like...
Lady Rosalind Brighton knows knights in shining armor are more interested in winning castles than princesses, so when an [adjective that indicates what she likes about him] Irish racehorse trainer decides to [external conflict relating to castle here], she faces a thorny dilemma: defend her castle or surrender her heart.
my two cents...
Okay, the one thing I'm learning from Miss Snark's crapometer is that specifics rule. I like the "knight in shining armor" metaphor, but if I make myself forget everything you posted summarizing your book, I would scratch my head in puzzlement.
I agree with Lacey--the juxtaposition of "Lady Rosalind" tells us what the conflict is going to be.
So here's my much-shorter suggestion:
Lady Rosalind Brighton never expected to fall for an Irish racehorse trainer with a predilection for altruistic con jobs.
(Food for thought: the con job angle was what hooked me when you described this below.)
The dilemma is implied, and the non-specific stuff about "winning castles" versus "princesses" is left off. If you have only one line to sell your book, you don't want to waste a single word on anything that's not your book.
This doesn't capture everything important about your story. But if you could do justice to your story in one sentence, there'd be no point in writing the novel.
If you want to get fancy, use two sentences and make it:
Lady Rosalind Brighton never expected to fall for an Irish racehorse trainer with a predilection for altruistic con jobs. But she did.
I think we're getting closer!
Post a Comment