Blurb critique

[thaddeus6th]

Hey, everyone.

Crown of Blood won't be out for a while (months at least, limited time and other factors are making the proofreading ultra-slow) but I've been thinking about the blurb. It's the final part of a trilogy, and I've erred on the side of ambiguity. As well as other thoughts, I'd be especially interested in knowing if that works or if it just overeggs the cake:


As the conflict reaches its climax ambitious nobles struggle for supremacy, eager to claim the blood-soaked crown.

War ravages the kingdom, killing thousands and reducing cities to ruins. The Houses of Penmere and Esden empty the granaries and fill the graveyards, leaving Denland ripe for invasion by the King of Felaria. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

But even with the kingdom hanging in the balance, there are those who refuse to relinquish their lust for power.

In Hurstwood, a ghost stirs to reclaim her stolen birthright, determined to avenge her father’s murder.

Treachery infects every family competing for the throne, but only one can win the bloody crown.

 

[HareBrain]

This isn't my kind of story, but even so, it seems odd that there isn't a single named character to act as a focus for the wider events. Presumably readers of the earlier books will have favourite characters they've been following, who they'll be interested to see mentioned?

 

[Brian G Turner]

IMO you need to focus on CHRs and their struggles - especially in a 2nd book when we should expect to be rooting for ones from the 1st book.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Third book, but thanks both of you for that advice.

Yeah, I'll see about adding names. Maybe it's because I'm out of blurb practice, but it seems trickier than other books to actually raise the struggles in more detail without giving away some spoilers.

On the plus side, adding the names and decreasing ambiguity is relatively easy to do. I'll give that a crack a little later, when I'm more awake, and post an updated version.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Neville Shute - On the Beach

As the conflict reaches its climax ambitious nobles struggle for supremacy, eager to claim the blood-soaked crown.

War ravages the kingdom, killing thousands and reducing cities to ruins. The Houses of Penmere and Esden empty the granaries and fill the graveyards, leaving Denland ripe for invasion by the King of Felaria. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

But even with the kingdom hanging in the balance, there are those who refuse to relinquish their lust for power.

conflict reaches its climax
war ravages kingdom
bitter rivals face stark choice
kingdom hanging in balance

For me, those phrases sum up what always seems to be happening. Maybe something that's unusual about those events might sound more intriguing for me.

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree with what's been said about mentioning characters, even if they are just really representatives of their own countries. "While King X presses on with his bloody war of conquest, Duke Y seizes the chance to invade from the north" or something like that. Also, I think it would be strengthened if you mentioned a hero-type character, someone who might (even through evil and self-interest) bring some sort of non-calamitous resolution to the struggle.

It's worth mentioning that back cover of the copy of A Game of Thrones that I own mentions only two characters: Eddard Stark and "a boy king" from across the sea who doesn't actually do anything before dying. From reading the cover, you would get the impression that the entire book is from Eddard's point of view.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Thanks for all the advice everyone. The below is a modified version. I'd probably want, even if it goes down well, to perhaps fiddle with a bit, but it does change things for the better, I think.
*

The conflict between William Penmere and John Esden reaches its climax as both men seek to claim the blood-soaked crown.

War ravages the kingdom, killing thousands and reducing cities to ruins. William and John empty the granaries and fill the graveyards, leaving Denland ripe for invasion by the King of Felaria. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

A truce is agreed between William and John, but even with the kingdom hanging in the balance, Stuart Esden refuses to relinquish his lust for victory.

Beyond the mountains, Sophie Hurstwood stages a daring coup to reclaim her stolen birthright, determined to avenge her father’s murder.

Treachery infects every family competing for the throne, but only one can win the bloody crown.

 

[Toby Frost]

I like this version more, but my main query is whether the events in the second paragraph have already happened, or happen in this book. If they've already happened, I'd be inclined to leave them out or rephrase them as a question as to what John and William will do. So I guess the questions you seem to be asking are:

What will John and William do about the growing disaster caused by the war? Can there be peace?
Even if they can work together, will Stuart turn on them and what will stop him?
How will Sophie affect all of this?

 

[thaddeus6th]

The war has been going for two books by this point, and continue, with the addition of the Felarian invasion, in the third.

Those are the questions I was going for.

Would it be fair to say that the second paragraph could do with sharpening up, but the rest is ok?

 

[ctg]

The conflict between William Penmere and John Esden reaches its climax as both men seek to claim the blood-soaked crown. War ravages the kingdom, killing thousands and reducing cities to ruins.

You could take out the climax altogether, and write for example: William Penmere and John Esden both seek claim the blood-soaked crown of ????. The war between them ravages land, killing thousands and reducing once glorious cities in ??? to ruins.

William and John empty the granaries and fill the graveyards,

You already said that at previous sentence.

leaving Denland ripe for invasion by the King of Felaria. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

You could put that in an angle. King of Felaria must have observed from side of the other two having a serious head-bashing session. So, put it out deviously or make the narrator of the blurb to be the victim of the events.

At the moment all of this reads like small synopsis instead of just a blurb. I know you hate writing synopsis. So make it a story, and put it on an angle. You don't have to explain the whole things, just enough of hook for the reader to open the first page.

If King of Felaria is the big thing, then make mini story of how William and John bashed each other to death, leaving themselves open for strike from a shadow, or over the mountain or wherever...

 

[thaddeus6th]

Cheers, I've modified it a bit more:

The conflict between William Penmere and John Esden reaches its climax as both men seek to claim the blood-soaked crown.

War ravages the kingdom, killing thousands. The King of Felaria, seeing Denland’s leading nobles shedding rivers of blood, invades with a massive army. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

A truce is agreed between William and John, but even with the kingdom hanging in the balance, Stuart Esden refuses to relinquish his lust for victory. Beyond the mountains, Sophie Hurstwood stages a daring coup to reclaim her stolen birthright, determined to avenge her father’s murder.

Treachery infects every family competing for the throne, but only one can win the bloody crown.

 

[HareBrain]

Better, I think. Nit-picks below.

The King of Felaria, seeing Denland’s leading nobles shedding rivers of blood, invades with a massive army.

This is quite a complex sentence; you have three verbs, and "seeing" close to the visually similar "shedding". I tend to speed-read blurbs, and I think it would help if you could simplify this to two clauses, e.g. "Seeing Denland's leading nobles spilling rivers of blood, the King of Felaria invades with a massive army." Even better if you can get it down to two verbs.

Stuart Esden refuses to relinquish his lust for victory

The wording of this made me think Stuart had been mentioned before, but he hasn't. Who is he? What victory? (But the following line about Sophie is fine, because it feels self-contained.)

throne, but only one can win the bloody crown

To me, the mention of throne, with the word "win" (as in game) makes it feel a bit close to a certain other series.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Treachery infects every family competing for the throne, but only one can win the bloody crown.

I think it's okay, if one is writing in that vein, one would be looking for readers in that vein, and any common words that mark that vein should be fair game. If one can get a boost from already existing publicity so much the better. It gets the idea across with fewer words.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Latest version:

The conflict between William Penmere and John Esden reaches its climax as both men seek to claim the blood-soaked crown.

War ravages the kingdom, killing thousands. Seeing Denland’s nobles shedding rivers of blood, the King of Felaria invades with a massive army. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

A truce is agreed between William and John, but even with the kingdom hanging in the balance, Stuart Esden, John’s son, refuses to relinquish his lust for victory. Beyond the mountains, Sophie Hurstwood stages a daring coup to reclaim her stolen birthright, determined to avenge her father’s murder.

Treachery infects every family competing for the throne, but only one can win the bloody crown.

 

[FibonacciEddie]

It's been ages since I have contributed to SFF - sorry...

The latest version is good ... I agree with others that Characters should be named (even if readers are assumed to be familiar with them)

I'd be tempted to tweak as follows... just my opinion

"The conflict between..." (keep as is)

"War ravages the kingdom... " I'd split this paragraph... so the Blurb is just 6 separate sentences... but that's just me...

"The bitter rivals for the throne..." (Include 'The' to make it clear it is William and John... and link it back to 1st line)

In the line "A truce" ... you use the word 'but' ... however my sense is that there is no real 'but' to the kingdom hanging in the balance () ... the real 'but' is that Stuart is going postal... so I'd be more tempted to have something like this ...
"A truce is agreed between William and John, but Stuart Esden, John’s son, refuses to accept ... ... " type of thing...

I'd leave "Beyond the mountains... as a new paragraph"

One other thing... I really liked this phrase... "empty the granaries and fill the graveyards" but only in the first passive version ... not when you implied one person did it himself ...

does this help?

 

[thaddeus6th]

Always helpful to get external views on something like this. Little preoccupied at the minute but I'll make a note of your comments and see about fiddling it a bit more. Thanks

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

None of the versions work for me I'm afraid Sorry

Here's my reasoning:-

Latest version:

The conflict between William Penmere and John Esden reaches its climax (but it doesn't, they come to a truce) as both men seek to claim the blood-soaked crown.

War ravages the kingdom, (already established, both above and in previous books presumably) killing thousands (it wouldn't be much of a war if it was onlyhundreds). Seeing Denland’s nobles shedding rivers of blood, the King of Felaria invades with a massive army. Bitter rivals for the throne face a stark choice: unite to fend off the attack or risk losing everything for which they have fought.

A truce is agreed between William and John, but even with the kingdom hanging in the balance, Stuart Esden, John’s son, refuses to relinquish his lust for victory. Beyond the mountains, Sophie Hurstwood stages a daring coup to reclaim her stolen birthright, determined to avenge her father’s murder. (revenge or reclaim?)

Treachery infects every family competing for the throne, (So far we only have three at best) but only one obvious - there can be only can win the bloody crown (bloody crown - Blood soaked > repetative.

It would seem to me the big game changer here is the Falarian interjection so I would lead with that as it is a new factor for the faithful.

With the blood soaked kingdom weakened and ravaged by houses Penmere and Esdens lust for the crown "Henry" King of Flavaria assembles a massive army and marches to take the vacant thrown.

John and William are left with no choice but to unite against the common threat or face ignoble defeat. A truce is agreed, but John's son Esden refuses to reliquish his claim and defies his father.

Beyond the mountains, Sophie Hurstwood is determined to avenge her fathers death and reclaim her birthright to the province(?)

Just opinions and suggestions

Hope I helped

Tein.