I have a simple rule.  If people start complaining about set design or CGI, they’re usually just expressing a strong hostility toward the film they’re watching.  It’s not that I think there isn’t such a thing as good and bad set design, subtle or sloppy CGI.  I just think that complaints about these elements come from a complete lack of cooperation from the audience.  I don’t care what story you’re telling or how well you tell it.  If the audience doesn’t want to like it, you can’t make them.  Conversely, the opposite is often true.  If someone is determined to enjoy something, they can usually dig out a positive nugget or two.

I’m not out to tackle all the elements of Green Lantern, but I will go ahead and talk about one complaint that always bugs me.  There’s a bunch of people who just can’t seem to accept the fact that CGI is here to stay.  And they also can’t seem to accept the fact that it won’t always be seamless.  These complaints seem so frivolous to me that I almost hate addressing them.  But it comes up again and again, so let’s just do this.

CGI isn’t going away.  It will remain a vital part of modern filmmaking and will only grow more important in the future.  An even more important observation is that CGI isn’t going to fool you into believing the unbelievable.  The job of FX is not to be invisible.  Most of the time, they can’t be.  If there’s a giant monster or a laser or a spaceship, you will know it is fake.  The job of an FX isn’t to convince us these things are real.  It’s to allow us to pretend (along with the film) that they are.

Some of my favorite movies have lousy FX.  The original King Kong, Clash of the Titans, and many others use extensive stop-motion animation.  These FX are actually astonishingly good, but they are “bad” if your definition is that they are clearly FX.  The Muppets are terrific, but they’re clearly puppets.  But what kind of asshole is going to poke a kid watching Sesame Street and constantly remind him of that?

So it is too in Green Lantern that there’s really just no way to make an utterly convincing alien planet populated by thousands of strange life forms and make it completely convincing.  And when Hal Jordan flies through space or fights a giant yellow fear monster, we know it’s mostly special FX.  If we didn’t, we’d be delusional.

Yeah, it’s fake.  We all get it.  The people that can play along aren’t being dumb.  They’re just allowing themselves to enjoy the experience.  And, no, it’s not dumb.  It’s fun and cool and completely ridiculous, but what part of magic green space cop made you think realism was the goal?

Which brings me to my final point.  I know that, even in the world of comic books, fun, outrageous adventure is looked down upon.  People will praise The Dark Knight and X-Men: First Class for being “intelligent” superhero flicks.  They’ll heap compliments on Kick-Ass and Watchmen fore being elaborate deconstructions, kind of.  (Although neither of those films really qualify as deconstructions because they’re very much traditional superhero films, just with more blood and swearing than usual.  But that’s a subject for another time.)  What people don’t seem to be able to do anymore is enjoy a good ol’ fashion fantasy adventure.

The superhero “genre”, however you want to define it, is pretty damn diverse by its very nature.  It’s impossible to compare characters like Batman and the Punisher to characters like Superman and Green Lantern.  Or Green Arrow.  Or Spider-Man.  Or just about any other character.  Not all superheroes are meant to be dark and gritty.  They’re not all meant to be brightness and hope, either.  They are all these things and more.  When I loved superhero comics (though it’s been a while), I loved their diversity most of all.  I could read about the Punisher fighting crime on the streets and the Silver Surfer flying through space.  It was a world where mole people could attack a city, or street thugs with colorful gimmicks could commit crimes.  In short, superheroes work best when they’re treated not as uniform category of fiction but as a sprawling category.

It’s unfair, even downright silly, to expect the same thing from Green Lantern as you would from Batman or X-Men.  Because Green Lantern isn’t that character.  His powers are completely outlandish.  His universe is utterly fantastic sci fi.  It’s not a lack of “sophistication” to write a Green Lantern movie where our hero gets his heroic mantle then saves the day by destroying a giant yellow fear monster.  It’s not “childish” for a film to have a good guy who is obviously good and a bad guy who is obviously bad.  And it’s perfectly fine for some stories to be about kicking ass in the name of justice.

Also, it’s okay to say that Green Lantern has some very strange powers that are goofy if taken at face value.  Sure, he makes catapults and race cars and swords out of pure willpower.  That’s what makes him unique and interesting as both a superhero.  It’s the kind of silly conceit that makes no apologies.  (Which is another thing that always irks me.  I hate apologetic fantasy, especially apologetic superheroes.  But again, another topic for another day.)

It occurs to me that I haven’t discussed the specifics of Green Lantern much.  Possibly because I was less annoyed by the critics of the film than by the flimsiness of these recurring criticisms.  So let’s talk about the film itself.

Green Lantern will no doubt have the same problem Thor has.  It crosses an invisible line that most superhero films avoid.  While Iron Man and Batman Begins are both about superheroes, they’re largely grounded in the real world.  And even characters like the Hulk and Superman, while incredibly powerful, are human and human-like.  They also live and work on Earth.

But Green Lantern (like Thor) is a very sci fi character.  While Hal Jordon lives on Earth and mostly hangs around there, he still has a link to a much grander universe.  But where Thor is built on established Norse mythology (admittedly loosely), Green Lantern is an entirely original mythology.  And it’s probably even a bit stranger than Thor’s.  After all, millions of years ago, immortal aliens created a bunch of magic rings that they hand out to worthy beings to act as cosmic law enforcement officers.  At least the Asgardians (and their foes) are human and human-like.

There’s a scene that encapsulates everything great about Green Lantern and everything wrong with Green Lantern, depending on your point of view.  It’s when Hal Jordan is on Oa, surrounded by countless other Green Lanterns.  The movie could’ve played it safe and avoided anything too weird.  Just slap a few rubber forehead aliens in the scene and keep it simple.  Instead, we see an incredibly diverse group of creatures.  There’s a giant bug lantern, a rock lantern, a robot lantern, and so on.  (Side note:  If DC decides to make the robot lantern an official character and is looking for someone to write the story, I happily volunteer.)

Your reaction to this scene will probably tell you everything you need to know about the movie.  If you think it’s “cheesy”, “silly”, or “dumb”, then you are not the kind of person who should go to see a movie about a magic green space cop.  If you (like me) think this is awesome, then you should go ahead and ignore the negative reviews.

Really.  That’s all you need to know.

The acting is good.  The story is fine.  The FX are more than solid.  There are thrills, fun, and at one point, a giant yellow fear monster gets punched in the face by a huge green energy fist.  And if that doesn’t convince you that this is everything a sci fi superhero spectacular should be, then save us all the trouble and don’t bother.  Some of us are here to have a good time, and we don’t need you harshing our mellow.

Oh, and one last thing.  The movie isn’t dumb just because it’s fun.  If being smart always has to equal depressing and dull, then it’s no wonder we take such a dim view of intelligence.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

B movies (and C and D movies) can have a certain charm.  Not everyone gets this.  Most people like B movies in the “So Bad They’re Good” way, and I do enjoy many a B movie for that reason too.  But then there are other Bs that aren’t really horrible enough to laugh at and aren’t all that great either.  They kind of sit in the middle and exist in this state of quantum uncertainty.  Are they bad enough to make fun of?  Sorta.  Are they good enough to surprise you?  No, not really.  So what are they?  Who gives voice to B films that aren’t quite bad, aren’t quite good?

Yours truly.  That’s who.

And so today, I begin my (possibly) semi-regular feature on B movies that I’ve seen.  I’m not going to suggest you go and watch these films.  That’s your call.  But they are available on Netflix, and people went ahead and made these movies.  So why not give them a look?  I’m fairly certain that if you made a film, these filmmakers would go ahead and watch yours, no matter how bad it was likely to be.

Today, it’s 2010′s Titanic 2.

I will just say off the bat that this isn’t a bad movie.  It’s not very good either.  But it isn’t boring, which is nice, and it has some decent FX and acting.  It managed to entertain me for 90 mins, which is more than Cameron’s version did.  And it doesn’t waste two hours with morons when really, I’m there to watch a boat sink.  Titanic 2 understands this, and I give it mad props (as the kids probably don’t say anymore) for knowing what I’m there for.

Titanic 2 is about a boat called (you guessed it) Titanic 2.  Granted, this is an incredibly stupid idea.  If there was a reason our hero billionaire (played by Shane Van Dyke) had for building a replica of a boat synonomous with disaster, I didn’t notice it.  Maybe it’s his thing.  Maybe he’s working on a Hindenburg 2, a Lusitania 2, and a New Coke 2.  If so, I can respect his moxy.

On the plus side, the boat is designed to only look like the original.  It has modern engines and the latest in lifeboats.  So, hey, it’s not like the project is a complete screw up.  Although, if you haven’t guessed that Titanic 2 is probably headed for disaster, you should stop reading this right now and go watch the film.  Spoilers are to follow.

By the way, it’s mentioned several times that the ship’s engines haven’t been fully “tested” yet.  I’m not sure what that means.  Did they just slap on some engines and decide to see if they turn on later?  Are engines like calf muscles on long distance runners?  Will they seize up if they don’t get a chance to stretch?  Or maybe they’re warranty just expired.  This is a mystery I have yet to decipher.

In addition to our billionaire friend, there’s also Marie Westbrook as a ship . . . er . . . lady.  I think a nurse.  I’m not quite sure.  She once had a relationship with Billionaire, so that’s going to come up.  And there’s also a pair of scientists studying glaciers or ice caps or something.  Guy Scientist (Bruce Davison who you will recognize even if you don’t know his name) is also Nurse’s father.  He knows Titanic 2 is not up to snuff, but, of course, Nurse fails to listen to him.  Lady Scientist (Brook Burns) is along just to give Guy Scientist someone to talk to, as far as I could tell.

That’s really the extent of the characters.  There’s a second nurse who is friends with Nurse, but let’s be honest, we all know she’s going to die at some point so it’s hard to get too attached to her.  Titanic 2 seems to understand this too because it doesn’t waste a lot of time with secondary or tertiary characters.  We don’t meet any passsengers.  We barely get to know a handful of crew.  The brief time we spend before disaster strikes is spent with Billionaire, Nurse, or Guy and Lady Scientist.  And that’s just fine with me.

Through a series of complications, a giant wave shoves an iceberg into the Titanic 2.  The ship immediately starts sinking, and people run around in a panic.  In the disaster, half the lifeboats are destroyed so that’s a problem.  Although not really much of a problem considering that the second wave destroys all the lifeboats and everyone on board them.  Yeah, Titanic 2 racks up quite a body count.  And then at about the halfway point, the ship even explodes.  So that’s not good.  And to add insult to injury, near the very end, another giant wave capsized the ship like the Poseidon.  In the meantime, Billionaire and Nurse run around trying to get to various locations for various arbitrary reasons.  And Guy and Lady Scientist talk about stuff while riding around in a helicopter.

Really, that’s the plot and everything you need to know.

But let’s get something straight here.  Titanic 2 isn’t all that bad.  In fact, the directing is competent.  The FX are adequate.  And the few characters we do have seem like nice enough people I didn’t mind rooting for.  I give the movie credit for a few unexpected twists.  Billionaire isn’t a bad guy.  The disaster that befalls the ship is more one of circumstance than of his greed or incompetence (as is pretty standard in these sort of films).  And he even demonstrates his heroism by loading wounded people into his own escape helicopter and staying aboard the ship to help.  So technically, some people do survive the disaster though they are never mentioned or seen again after the helicopter scene.

This might be a good time to point out that Shane Van Dyke AKA Billionaire is also the writer and director of the film, so maybe he just wanted to make himself look good.  Still, I enjoyed that he wasn’t just a douchebag who gets people killed as so many A and B movie billionaires tend to be.

The film moves at a fair clip.  If there are some strange scenes that don’t add up to anything, they’re over pretty quickly and then we’re off to watch our heroes try not to die as things go from bad to worse to more worse.  In the end (spoiler) everyone aboard the ship but Nurse dies.  And honestly, that was a bit of a downer.  I kind of wanted Billionaire to live by the end of it.  He seemed like a decent sort.  But maybe that’s in the rulebook for decent Billionaires.  They have to die so evil billionaires can take their place.

HIGH POINTS:

These are some points that left a positive impression on me.

There’s a scene where a random bearded guy punches Billionaire while shouting “This is all your fault!”  It’s surreal to watch as a guy who actually bought a ticket for a boat called the Titanic 2 complains about it sinking.  What did he expect?  Furthermore, it doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense to punch Billionaire, who is about to die with you anyway.  I enjoyed this brief scene because it was both absurd and actually, probably fairly realistic.

There’s a cool shot of a helicopter trying to rise about a rushing wave.  It’s nothing compared to something a blockbuster would put out there, but for a low budget flick, it’s not bad.

There’s a lot of shots of people looking at something in awe.  Very Spielbergian.  But, y’know what?  If I saw a giant wave coming at me, I’d probably gape too.  So this is a situation where gaping is permissable.

LOW POINTS

Not many.  The movie really isn’t too bad.

There’s a scene where our heroes have to use some pipes to climb past electrified water that went on too long.

There’s another scene where Billionaire fails to save a man dying on the other side of a door.  I think it’s to highlight his powerlessness and guilt, but at this point, the ship is already half sunk and on fire and a whole bunch of people have died, so that plot point was already made.

And then there’s the end, in which (SPOILER) Nurse drags Billionaire’s frozen body through the icy submerged depths of the ship with the hopes that the freezing water will preserve him enough to allow her to revive him.  Preposterous, certainly, but this isn’t The Road.  I’m wililng to suspend my disbelief for a happy ending here.  After all, our heroes have gone through a lot to get to this point.

So she gets him to the surface and tries to revive him.  And . . . nothing.  He dies.  The end.  Kind of a downer.  And an unnecessary one at that.  I don’t know if Shane Van Dyke was trying to be artistic by dangling false hope in front of me, but it only ended up annoying me.  So, hey, maybe Titanic 2 is high art, after all.  Maybe Cormac McCarthy coached Van Dyke on how to end on a depressing note in hopes of getting Titanic 2 an Oscar.  Who knows?  Who cares?

All I know is that, sure, a few hundred people died, but I didn’t give a crap about any of them.  But I kind of cared for Billionaire, and if he’d lived, I would’ve probably given Titanic 2 a better recommendation.

So, overall, the film is decent.  It probably won’t leave a tremendous impression, but it’s not bad.  If you happen to be bored one afternoon and want to watch something about a boat sinking that doesn’t take three hours to get to the sinking part, then you could do a lot worse.

Thumbs Up from this reviewer.

NEXT WEEK:  Mega Shark Vs. Crocasaurus!

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

Being Human is not a bad show.  It’s well acted.  The writing is decent.  The dialogue is believable.  The FX are good.  Unlike Sanctuary, which always comes across to me as something you could see on Youtube, except better and more interesting, Being Human comes across as a competent, well-made television show.  To criticize it on any particular level of quality is difficult because there’s nothing wrong here.

But it’s just so damned generic.

Maybe it’s just me.  Possibly a hazard of being a novelologist is that I write stories, and I think about stories.  I analyze them, break them down, see how they fit together, try to make them fit together in new and interesting ways.  Perhaps, just as real police find most cop shows ridiculous or real doctors find medical shows absurd, a writer of fiction loses his ability to just enjoy something at a basic level.

Or maybe not.  Maybe it’s something simpler.  As Futurama once put it, “People don’t like clever and original.”

See?  That came across as critical.  For the record, Being Human is clever.  It is sharply written.  It’s not very original, but originality is overrated anyway.  Nothing is really original.  Everything’s been done and done again about a thousand times over.  Everything I’ve ever written is just a variation of something someone else has already done (and quite probably done better).

It’s not a question of originality.  Or cleverness.  But absolute and complete predictability.  Having watched a few episodes of Being Human, I have yet to be surprised by any of it.  Not even a little bit.  It’s not that I expect to be blown away by the show, but after watching the first episode, I could tell you practically everything that happens in the show thus far.  Heck, just giving me the premise and the title tells me everything I need to know.  None of that matters.  Yet at the same time, the show bores me because there’s really nothing new or original about it.  Not even an attempt at new or original.

Of course, the werewolf is a poor schlub who is harmless and almost geekish in his human form.

Of course, the vampire is incredibly handsome and struggling to overcome his primal lust for blood.

Of course, vampires have a secret society that lurks hidden below the surface of the mortal world, manipulating and conspiring.

Of course, the werewolf nearly kills his sister when she tries to help him.

Of course, werewolves and vampires don’t like each other.

Of course, the vampire’s old sire shows up to tempt him to the dark side.

And, of course, vampires love to have sex covered in blood.

And there it goes again.  I don’t want to sound insulting because without a doubt people work hard on this show.  This doesn’t come across as a show that just got thrown together.  It doesn’t seem phoned in.  It seems like people really care about making the show.  All the ideas above are staples because they work and make sense.

The reason I don’t want to sound critical is because I’m not sure the audience wants anything different.  People who like vampires, for example, seem to really enjoy the handsome, tortured, struggling monster archetype.  And a werewolf that’s comfortable with who he is and has learned to deal with his problem makes conflict difficult.  If the vampire had a way of handling his cravings for blood, you’d have to find conflict elsewhere, and then why are we watching a vampire show in the first place?

I don’t know.  It’s not that I want everything in the show to be original.  Or much of anything.  But it’d be nice to have one or two underused touches.  Wouldn’t it be cool to see vampires having a support group who tries to help them deal with their bloodlust?  Or maybe the werewolf could actually like the perks that came with being one (minus the huge inconvenience of being a menace once a month).  What if werewolves secretly ran the world and vampires were the outcasts, the down and out?  What if supernatural creatures of all types got along fairly well in the world?  There are loads of possiblities, but none of these will be explored.  Because they aren’t the possibilities Being Human wants to explore.  And as much as it might bore me, the show is probably right to not try anything very radical.  The audience doesn’t tune in for that sort of thing.  Any more than anyone wants to watch a cop show about paperwork or a doctor show about changing bedpans.  There’s no appeal, no demand.

In Gil’s All Fright Diner, I wanted to make my monsters very human.  Duke doesn’t kill anyone by accident.  Earl’s craving for blood isn’t really any stronger than our desire to eat.  Neither is cool.  They’re just a couple of normal guys.  But I had that luxury because I was writing a story with ghouls, zombies, and monster gods to spice up the conflict.  Without that, a story of just Duke and Earl sitting around talking probably wouldn’t be very interesting.

Being Human isn’t an adventure show.  It’s not about grand adventures.  It has to find its conflict somewhere.  So having the characters being conflicted by their natures is not only necessary, it’s the entire premise of the show.  And judged by that necessity, it’s a good show.  It’s probably better than anything Syfy has had in a while with sharper writing and characterization than its other generic shows.

Still, it would’ve been nice if it had taken one or two chances, changed a few things up.  Nothing groundshaking.  Nothing too radical.  Just something to say that this contemporary supernatural universe is at least a little bit different than all the others.  But perhaps that’s too risky for television, and perhaps they’re right that the audience doesn’t want those kind of challenges.  They want a well-produced show and the rest is irrelevant.

It makes me glad I write novels.  There’s a certain pressure there, too, but it’s less.  I have more options, and it’s unfair to expect television or movies, which are harder to produce and make profitable than books, to take the esme kind of risks.

Oh, and about the ghost.  I didn’t really comment on her because she’s not very original either, but there haven’t been a lot of TV shows with ghost protagonists.  So even if her storyline is fairly standard, it at least feels like something I haven’t seen a million times before from this perspective at least.

Beting Human is a good show.  If you like vamps or werewolves, I’m sure you’ll probably like it.  As for me, I won’t be watching.  Unless they add a giant robot to the cast.  That’d be awesome.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

Watching the film, I found myself wondering why anyone bothers making live action fantasy films anymore?  Animation is clearly a better medium for this kind of material.  Animation is such a flexible art form that it can capture both the small moments and the big action and do so without any jarring shifts.  The FX are flawless because you don’t need a CGI replica of a character to perform an amazing stunt if the character is already CGI.  In essence, with animation you can create a flawless reality that can do just about anything.

I exaggerate, of course.  I still think live-action fantasy is viable and worthwhile.  I am looking forward to Skyline because humans versus giant alien robots…what’s not to love?  And that it’s live-action doesn’t deter me.

But still, animation is incredible and continues to impress me.  Clash of the Titans was good.  How to Train Your Dragon was awesome.  My favorite love story remains Wall-E.  My favorite superhero movie remains The Incredibles.  My favorite kung fu movie is Kung Fu Panda.  There’s just something about them that I find appealing, an unfettered ability to create reality from the ground up while still building wonderful, relatable stories regardless of who or what the characters are.

I also think it helps immensely that animators like physical action and are far less likely to have long talky scenes.  They are far more likely to incorporate character and plot development in a visually appealing way, which is at the heart of what makes film work.  They are also less likely to get fancy with the direction in terms.  Animators work their butts off to animate a scene.  You can bet they aren’t going to be tempted to shake the camera just to simulate excitement.

Maybe it’s just me.  Maybe I’m reading more into it, seeing more in it than is actually there.  I’ve always been a fan of cartoons, of weird characters and strange realities.  And this is what animation has been consistently used for, from Looney Tunes to Batman: The Brave & The Bold and a million things in-between.  Heck, even as I write this I am wearing a Ducktales shirt, and I do so proudly.

Regardless, I loved Megamind and would say it was one of the most enjoyable films I’ve seen in a while.  Highly recommended.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

P.S. I’ve gotten some interesting responses to my last post about what I should and should not post on this site.  Thanks for chiming in, gang.  Your thoughts are always appreciated, and know that I’m mulling some things over.  I’ll get back to you.

It got me thinking.  So many aspiring writers just don’t seem to “get” query letters.  A while ago, I wrote a blog post about it.  It ended up getting deleted when my website went through a spot of trouble, but fortunately, I had a backup at the ready.  I guess we could classify this a rerun blog, but hey, if you haven’t read it before, it’s new to you.  And more importantly, it’s something I think every aspiring writer should take a look at.

So without further ado…

Being a writer is tough.  Being an aspiring writer is tougher.  It seems like there are a million pitfalls, and you can never be sure if you’re doing the right thing or not.  So in search of inspiration for something to post about, I’d like to present a semi-formal feature where I address some common questions.  The kind of questions that I hear all the time.

Today, let’s talk about QUERY LETTERS.

Plenty of aspiring writers break into clammy, cold flopsweat about query letters.  You’ve put your heart and soul, blood and sweat, into writing your novel.  Then you have to figure out how to sell it in a one page letter.  It’s like meeting the guy / girl of your dreams and having 30 seconds to convince them that maybe a date is worth a shot.  Good luck on that.

Here’s the good news.  It’s not nearly as hard as you think.  I’m not suggesting that there’s any such thing as a perfect query letter or that after you read this you’ll be getting requests for your manuscript with every letter you send.  That just ain’t gonna happen.  Rejection is part of an aspiring writer’s life.  Even yours truly, gifted and talented as I am, had so many rejections that I can’t even remember them all.

Here’s the first thing, the most important thing, you need to remember about a query.  It’s a sales pitch.  A tiny, tiny sales pitch, but a pitch nonetheless.  All you’re trying to do is get the reader interested in hearing more.  It really doesn’t matter how you do it, but there are a couple of solid notions I adhere to.

QUESTIONS: Queries aren’t about answers.  They’re about questions.  Think about it.  You don’t go to a movie or buy a book because you know what’s going to happen.  You go because you want to know.  Or, if the sales pitch is really good, because you NEED to know.

Many aspiring writers tend to spell out their plot in their query letters.  Bad idea.  Most stories sound uninspiring when spelled out.  It just doesn’t matter how cool your story is.  It’ll sound dumb if you describe it in three or four sentences.  Or contrived.  Or, perhaps worst of all, uninteresting.

A great example available to all writers is found on the back of nearly every paperback book on the shelves of any bookstore.  The next time you’re in a bookstore, go ahead and pick a random genre and just start reading the back of books.  You’ll discover the perfect query letter format.  Colorful, intriguing, and mysterious.  They give questions, not answers.  They pose complications, not solutions.

Now most query letters should be shorter than what is written on the back of books.  But the principle is still the same.  Tease and intrigue.  Don’t explain.  Just pose questions and complications.

UNIMPORTANT DETAILS:  Don’t give unimportant information.  Don’t open your letter with details about yourself.  Even if you were a supermodel, ninja, jewel thief, rocket science, nobody really cares.  You’re selling your story, not yourself.  The first paragraph should really get right into your story if it can.  (Unless you’ve met this person before, in which case a sentence reminding them where they met / heard about you is a good thing to do.)

Don’t give the technical details at front.  Don’t tell your word count in the first paragraph.  Don’t tell how long it took you to write the book.  Don’t say that this is based on your life experience.  As my own agent once put it, if you’re writing something about yourself, what do you do when you run out of experiences to write about?

Remember that you’re trying to sell your book.  You are expected to be honest, but you aren’t expected to tell them stuff right off the bat things that will discourage them.  Word count is a great example.  If your book is 10,000 words longer than what the agent / editor wants, they might overlook that if your query letter was sufficiently interesting.  But if the first thing you do is tell them your book is too long, they’re likely to put it aside before even getting to your sales pitch.

THREE PARAGRAPHS / HALF A PAGE:  The shorter, the better.  When in doubt, cut it down.  My queries tended to get great results (though rejection followed after), and I kept mine down to three paragraphs / half a page.  The first paragraph was usually the tease, less about the story and more about something unique about it.  For GIL’S ALL FRIGHT DINER, for example, I listed the more fun and memorable elements of the supernatural: Zombie Cows, Magic 8 Balls, Pig Latin.

The next paragraph gave brief character mentions along with the weird situations they find themselves.

And the final paragraph gave the technical details, page count, genre, etc.  Done.  Don’t overstay your welcome.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT DON’T: Avoid strong comparisons to established writers.  It’s okay to mention a similarity, but it can be dangerous to make too much of it.  Sure, everyone’s looking for the next Harry Potter, but everyone is also writing the next Harry Potter.  In other words, it doesn’t really distinguish your novel.  It just makes it seem like another copycat.  And you’re better than that.

Well, look at that.  An awfully long entry for an awfully short subject.  Just remember.  It’s not as hard as you think it is.  And a bad query letter is better than no query at all.  So don’t get discouraged.

Just get to it.

And remember, I’m rooting for you.  Just as long as you don’t sell more books than me, that is.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee