What to Do, What to Do

You know I can't resist trying to help you, but you don't want my honest help. I could put forth my best effort to draft a good synopsis for you, but you will toss it aside and say it's no good. Why? Because you didn't write it. Because you only want me to tell you that what you wrote is the best thing I've ever read and you are a fucking genius. But I can't tell you that.

What I want to tell you is that you need to rewrite this novel. This novel, that novel, the screenplay, all of it. It all needs to be seriously rewritten because no one come up with one draft and have it be perfect. No one. And, as I'm sadly learning, especially not you.

The main problem with you writing a comedy is that you are not funny. In that last chapter I read of Susie Essman's book, I learned two things: 1) I'm not wrong in thinking that the main character of the second worst novel ever lacks the passion we want to feel and the details we want to hear when describing why she wants to be a writer and 2) you're just not innately funny. I think I'm four chapters into Essman's book, and she describes how she started out memorizing comedy albums as a small child. Reading it, I was like, Wow, this is what that stupid paragraph in your novel wishes it were. They are two pages you should read and think about and take to heart when rewriting... Oh. You don't rewrite. Not seriously.

If I could, I would send you the first couple paragraphs of a synopsis—to justify the work I did rereading the second worst novel ever for a third time and to get the ball rolling for you. Then I would explain that this story starts to really blow after page 50. Why? There is so much action for the first 25 pages. It is a good fish-out-of-water story with lots of conflict between the main character, Gretta, and the higher-ups at the corporation where she works. The problems mount and... Gretta quits to become a full time screenwriter. Okay, so now our Man v. Man story has just become a Man v. Himself story. And that's fine and all, I guess, because Gretta is supposed to be on a spiritual journey, but there just isn't a lot of conflict in 300 pages of some write bellyaching that her phone hasn't rung in a month. We don't see her do anything. We're reading her diary entries and all she does is obsess about how this agent or that producer is ignoring her. People she's never even talked to! She says she mails out query letters, but there's never a scene where she's struggling with the wording, a scene where she has to wait in line at the post office, a scene where she scours the writer's market for new agents to approach. She doesn't DO anything for 300 pages. She doesn't even write. I mean, sure, we're reading her diary and after I think 200 pages she mentions that she's decided to start a new script, but we really never see her do any work. She's just bellyaching for 300 pages about petty problems.

Where is the humor? Gretta is trying to harness the power of positive thinking to attract millions of dollars and unparalleled fame into her life. Gretta is based on the most negative person ever. Not Eeyore, but definitely not Pollyanna. When Gretta, who is egotistical and judgmental, says her in-laws are vile, we should get to see what that interaction is really like. If her in-laws are based on your in-laws, then the way the scenes would play out is that the in-laws, who are equal parts amused and concerned, would question the sanity of quitting a well-paying job to sell a screenplay. They would innocently ask, "And you're sure this will work?" And Gretta would start foaming at the mouth, working herself into a tizzy about how this is the greatest screenplay ever and so-and-so is going to kill to be a part of it. And the in-laws would laugh. And Gretta would get upset that no one is taking her seriously and cheering her on. As you write it, we don't see any of the actual interactions. Gretta recounts asking her husband why he told his family anything about her writing. Yawn. There is nothing interesting in that conversation. And we don't believe Gretta that her in-laws are vile. And no one can question why, if she were able to succeed in attracting anything in the world, would she choose to be rich rather than cure cancer or save the environment?

The second worst novel ever should be at least a satire about how idiotic The Secret phenomenon was. But it's not even a humorous account of your life.

I have no idea how to tell you that...

Tooting My Own Horn

"I think it's incredibly unclear in your synopsis that this is the story of woman who really, really wants to be a make millions of dollars as a writer, so she quits her job, burns through her 401k, compares her work to everything already in theaters, irrationally hates her parents and in-laws, hates children, is wildly envious of everyone else with whom she crosses paths, tries to convert everybody she meets into a positive thinker, suddenly decides she wants to have a baby, and sells her screenplay to a big-time director who knows someone who works with her at TGI Fridays."

My posts can be long. If you never read anything on this blog, read the above sentence. For how little thought I put into these posts, I've impressed myself with the accuracy of summarizing the second worst novel ever (and consequently the author's life).

Oh wait. You know what I missed? That our "everyone be happy" lady is super negative.

Turns Out I Was Wrong

So, my synopsis was a terrible synopsis. It was the classic "writer mistakenly attempts to draft the text for the back cover that only a real copy writer handle as opposed to writing the requested synopsis." But at least my piece had heart. I was right about that part. Your synopsis, dear author, lacks emotion. Whoever is reading the unsolicited materials you send will want to feel attached to your characters. If I am reading your synopsis (or your query letter or your... novel) I want to CARE about your characters. I don't care that this is supposedly your first novel. (A statement which by the way makes me judge every word after more harshly.)

Anyway, I only now know for sure that my synopsis was not a synopsis because you emailed me again. (Subject line: MORE SYNOPSIS STUFF)

Hi

I'm still confused.  Do you think I should use the synopsis you wrote instead of using my own new one?  Are you saying my new synopsis isn't good enough yet?  I really need to know.

Today I got a rejection letter for my other novel. This is the only agent that actually asked to read my other novel.  I was very disappointed they said they don't want to represent it.  I had high hopes.

Getting published ain't easy.  Don't let anyone tell you it is.

Tell me what to do,

[Author]

First, gee, after all the success you've had in the past 30 years, I tell everyone I meet, "Being a writer is Eeeeeee-Z!"

Second, omg google "what makes a good synopsis." Don't use quotes. Don't use a question mark. You'll find countless resources. In my three minutes of research, the first site I found referenced a romance writer who then linked to "successful" synopses. Amazing link. I only read half of the first sample and then skipped to the end—but that's how good it was. Too steamy for a quick email session with my infant son two feet away. Go here: charlottedillon.com

Third, enough with the drama. First you're screaming in your subject line and then you're all "Tell me what to do." I'm giving you an opinion (a watered down, sugar-coated opinion) about your synopsis, not instructions for how to administer CPR to someone dying on the kitchen floor.

So now what? Read the advice. Take your time. Do it well. And maybe (seriously) you should rewrite your novel. (Or find a new hobby.)

A Brief Summary or General Survey of Something

The other day you sent me an unsolicited synopsis. Two actually. Feeling very much in the "Ugh, I seriously have to read this" frame of mind that I'm sure most normal people have when they go to work and attack the slush pile, I feel I gave your old synopsis and your new synopsis a fair read.

The old synopsis starts, "In her first novel," just like the back cover of your other "first" novel. Then it went on for like 89,000 words and I wanted to cry. It was so boring. And strange. You outline what happens to the main character without ever really mentioning any secondary characters or subplots. I had a vague and jumbled picture of the action in my head—and I've read this entire manuscript twice. Luckily, you tossed out that version (except that you emailed it to me) and wrote a new synopsis.

NEWEST SYNOPSIS

[Second Worst Novel Ever] portrays a year in the life of Greta Nueby. Greta is a woman who believes in positive thinking. She writes out a list of resolutions for the new year, including her desire to drink less. She also intends to become a successful screenwriter.

Each chapter of the book represents another month in the life of Greta and is told in both long and short snippets. She wants to be rich, lose weight, and make her husband happy. She quits her job after encountering many problems with her managers and follows the advice of her guru, Lydia. Lydia is convinced Greta can become successful if only she will do things like create a treasure map, meditate, do some visual imaging and other assorted tricks.

Greta’s pals, Andrew and Samantha, are supporting characters. They have their own problems. Andrew is a gay man who can’t find love. Samantha is determined to get her boyfriend to propose to her. Their problems reflect Greta’s own lack of success.

Greta manages to obtain a producer who promises to turn her screenplay into a movie. It looks like success is on the way. After a long summer of no good news and many troubling diary entries, the producer dumps Greta. Now Greta is forced to find another producer and she begins to lose faith in positive thinking.

She faces numerous money problems and plays various games with her credit. Her marriage isn’t going so well. She begins to feel like failure is all she is capable of. Eventually she meets a director who wants to buy her script. Her story ends happily, though she knows positive thinking isn’t for everyone.

I didn't like this one much better. (Apparently I found it more exciting. Or at least that's what I say in the email to you.) I found it less boring and something akin to a school assignment. Again, I didn't feel like you really grasped the story—and this is YOUR story. Shouldn't there be more energy? Don't you want me to be salivating, wondering where those first 50 pages are? I should at least be able to tell that this is a comedy, right?

So, I took the liberty of rewriting your synopsis:

[Second Worst Novel Ever] portrays a year in the life of Greta Neuby, a writer who just wants to be happy. Though she’s never been much of a New Age disciple, Greta uses the advice she gleans from her hairdresser and quits her well-paying corporate job to begin a comical journey of following her True Intention.

While her husband is less than thrilled that Greta will now be thinking positive thoughts full-time to "attract" money, Greta couldn’t be happier. At first. As the months go by and the money begins to run low, Greta finds it harder and harder to believe she can become the successful screenwriter she’s always wanted to be.

When Greta can’t find support at home or in Hollywood, she tries to turn her nay-saying best friends, Samantha and Andrew, into believers. Greta is infectious with her tales of mini-successes and wild antics. Soon everyone is buying expensive new cars and taking chances in romance. But how long can it last?

As Greta begins to run out of tricks to pull with her credit to keep her marriage afloat, she also begins to run out of faith. Does the Universe really want her to be a writer?

I was pretty sure you wouldn't be crazy about the "Does the Universe really want her to be a writer" part because Greta is supposed to be you (minus the whole helpful daughter), but that wasn't your problem.

Hi

The ending you wrote doesn't really tell the ending of the story.  From what I understand, it's important to tell the agent what the ending is.  Here is my new ending, with a slight change.

She faces numerous money problems and plays various games with her credit. Her marriage isn’t going so well. She begins to feel like failure is all she is capable of. Eventually she meets a director who wants to buy her script. Her story ends happily, though she knows positive thinking is positively impossible for all but those with childlike dreams.

Tell me what you think...

Oh, no. You don't think "positive thinking is positively impossible" is really witty, do you? And what are you trying to say about your main character? (Do you have "childlike dreams"?) Who cares if the ending is disclosed—none of what you wrote accurately explains this novel. I think it's incredibly unclear in your synopsis that this is the story of woman who really, really wants to be a make millions of dollars as a writer, so she quits her job, burns through her 401k, compares her work to everything already in theaters, irrationally hates her parents and in-laws, hates children, is wildly envious of everyone else with whom she crosses paths, tries to convert everybody she meets into a positive thinker, suddenly decides she wants to have a baby, and sells her screenplay to a big-time director who knows someone who works with her at TGI Fridays.

You still don't realize I've read this manuscript twice, do you. Yeah, twice. When you first started writing this book, my best friend said there was no way you could do it. And it was true. But the first time I read your "memoir," I was too busy trying to match up reality with your account of reality. The second time, not only was it more obvious to me where you had pulled punches or completely missed your mark, but it was also plain that my friend was right: You can't see what's funny about the whole story. Greta is unlikable and nasty, narcissistic and defensive. While we see that she is an unreliable narrator, you don't. The joke suffers. The most miserable woman in the world is trying to be a ray of positive light. She's going to harness the power of spiritual enlightenment to get rich quick.

It pains me that you are giving this to your writers' group to edit. Seriously? You really want to sell this right now, but you're going to hand it out five pages at a time to a bunch of people who have a common hobby? Maybe I'm all wrong, but these are the same people who have you working on a synopsis. And your synopsis sucks. I guess I should be happy you're going to have anyone at all read it before you give up and send it press on Lulu.

Oh My God, Just Give It Up Already

Hello, Author. We need to talk. Seriously. You've sent me the two versions of your synopsis for the latest book you are trying to inflict on the world. And they are terrible. (Yes, I will come back and post separately about the horror of a long, boring synopsis later.) But that's not the real problem. Your biggest problem is that you want an agent, but you've never been published.

For countless years now you've toiled away on screenplays and novels, never giving a care to getting another poem or short story published. You couldn't blog to save your life (or sell your other novel). You haven't even written a letter to the editor in two decades. When was the last time you were published? (Not counting Lulu.) Agents and editors want to work with writers who've been published, just as writers want to work with agents and editors who've actually published books. You could have the greatest synopsis in the world, but these people want nothing to do with you because you have no record of playing nice with others.

So what do you now? It's really kind of late to start working on building up credentials, don't you think? There must be something else you could do with all this money you waste on postage. Surely there's another hobby that interests you?