Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Are idioms in query letters a bad idea?

+1
−0

I am writing a logline sentence of a query letter for my novel and used the idiom 'cat and mouse' as follows:

A military bioweapons collector is forced to engage in a game of ‘cat and mouse’ with his Russian counterpart as he seeks a cure for the epidemic he inadvertently created.

I was told it is a cliché and you shouldn't use idioms in query letters because they show lack of originality. The problem is, I cannot find a suitable synonym for 'cat and mouse game'.

Are ALL idioms really that bad? This one is very descriptive of a conflict that is an impasse despite all attempts at a resolution and the mouse occasionally wins. Is it preferable to spell out concepts like this even though a well-worn idiom like 'cat and mouse game' exists to communicate the concept quickly?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/27336. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

Writers often indulge a charming fantasy that publisher and agents are looking for originality. They are not. They are looking for works that fit into a well established sales channel and that habitual readers of a genre can quickly identify as the kind of book they like to read. Pretty much the worst thing you can do in a query letter is indulge in any kind or originality. This is about sales, and sales is all about established and reliable taste.

We might all wish be believe otherwise, but a moment's reflection will show it is so. Publishers and agents do this to make a living. They want things that they already know how to sell. Remember all the stories about how many publishers turned down Harry Potter? It was something they had not seen before (or not recently, at any rate) and did not easily fit any of the current sales channels. Publishers (and therefore agents) are not keen to take on that kind of risk. Brilliant and original often falls totally flat. Competent and familiar pays the rent.

What you need to establish in a query letter is that your book is something that the publisher or agent is going to be able to sell. "Cat and mouse game" is an idiom that seems to show up pretty frequently in the description of published thrillers. So that's a good sign that it works to sell books. Avid readers, the kind that keep publishers and agents in peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, are always looking for another fix of the same drug. They want the same, only different. But not so different that it is no longer the same. Sameness is not a vice, it is a virtue.

An agent or publisher looks at a query letter and asks themselves, is this a serious professional writer who can turn out decent books that meet the needs of a well established and profitable market? That's what your query letter needs to project. Originality has very little to do with it.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »