Who would have thought a straightlaced Victorian spinster could con a con man out of his heart?I like it because it uses the best line from the query letter, sets the period (Victorian), and lays out the conflict (her uprightness against his naughtiness--even though he's really a very good, noble guy!).
The only thing that concerns me about it is the use of the word "con", which I know is 20th century and American. I doubt many people know that, but it trips me up because I know it! The non-anachronistic alternative here would be "swindle a swindler" but I think that looks too much like the same word twice!
Annie also suggested it could do without the word Victorian, which is helpful but perhaps not necessary. And then we get the nice, alliterative line:
What sayeth the masses?Who would have thought a straightlaced spinster could con a con man out of his heart?
4 comments:
I like the second version!
I think the second version of the sentence is going into the query letter's next iteration. The first version might go on my pitch cards (I like getting the exact period for my book out there right away!).
And Lainey, you must understand that writing historicals isn't a choice for me: it's a necessity. I simply CAN'T generate GMC in a contemporary and I can't world-build for paranormal. So that leaves me with historicals, for which I can dream up enough plot lines and GMCs to last a lifetime.
I like them both. The alliteration in number two is fine, but Victorian is more than a period, it's a description! For instance, I wouldn't use it to describe Patrick, but I would to describe Rosalind - make sense?
You're on a roll today!
Darcy
Depends what it's for -- I sort of like adding "Victorian" in there as a sure-fire cheat sheet to the time period. Of course if you mean to say this OUT LOUD, I suggest you ditch all alliteration and use one syllable words *heh*.
Post a Comment