Synopsis Spotlight: As If I Were A River

A blog-reader has offered this synopsis of her book for us (you and me) to advise and comment on. Many of you will remember that I often have a "Synopsis Spotlight" - I'm still doing this every now and then. I can't use every one that is sent to me, for various reasons, but I try to include those that I think offer some useful teaching points. I do not include those that I think are so far from the mark that they'll attract lots of negative comments.

DEAR CRABBIT: synopsis for a trilogy?

Dear Crabbit
I read 'Write A Great Synopsis' ( which I thoroughly enjoyed). I have a question regarding the submission. 

What of a trilogy? Do I include the synopsis for all three books and take three times the length to give the full outcome of the novel, or do I simply give the synopsis to the first book and no conclusion?

Is it presumptious to give the synopsis for all three books, will it be thrown away immediatley since I did not adhere to the rules on the website for synopsis length or will it help the agent to see how all three books pan out to its conclusion? 

A submission should be for this book. You may well have plans for (or indeed written or drafted) a sequel, trilogy, series or whatever, but you are first pitching this book.

So do a proper synopsis for this book.

If you definitely plan for this to be a trilogy, send a shorter, separate synopsis (e.g. half a page) for each of the other two. (Remember, if the agent doesn't want to read them, she needn't.) Do say what stage they are at. And remember that a trilogy must have a whole arc, as well as the arc within each book.

If you are proposing that there might be scope for follow-up books (whether one or more), but that this is not an essential part of the offer, by all means add a paragraph to this effect, perhaps identifying some directions the series might take or some ideas you have. 

Certainly the agent would be interested to know whether you have an idea for a follow-up, but she really does not need to see anything other than the idea at this stage.

Your submission should focus exclusively or almost exclusively on this novel. Because if it's not up to scratch, nothing else matters. The agent is not going to say, "Well, this is pretty mediocre but I'd love it if there were two more mediocre ones to go with it..."

Write a Great Synopsis launches at a crazy intro price! Wot? AND Tweet Right??

Announcing the launch of Write a Great Synopsis - hooray! All your troubles are at an end. Well, the ones relating to writing synopses, anyway. And that's quite enough to be going on with.

To celebrate, I have a crazy price promotion until the end of January: Write a GREAT Synopsis and Tweet Right - The Sensible Person's Guide to Twitter will each be stupid cheap on Amazon. I'm aiming for 99p, but VAT and currency fluctuations, along with Amazon's naughtiness, are making that hard to acheive. So, forgive me if it's £1 or even - gasps - £1.02.

But only till the end of January. So hurry! Unfortunately, I can't do the same price promotion on other platforms, and have less control over the price, but I'm going to try to set it low on Lulu, which feeds ibookstore etc, but it can't be lower than Amazon. (*growls*)

Here are the links to the books on Amazon UK:

Write a Great Synopsis on Amazon UK - for Kindle AND laptops/ipads/etc if you download the FREE Kindle app

Tweet Right on Amazon UK - as above.

For non-UK purchases, please see the Amazon.com site and do a search for the titles.

Spread the word - Crabbit has gone mad. And remember: it's January only. Imagine how weird it would be for a book on synopsis-writing to be near the top of the charts :) Together, we can do it.

And tonight on Twitter there will be fizz, as soon as I'm back from Oxford, where I had mucho fun with some workshoppers and a whole load of imaginary characters. Join us!

Synopsis Spotlight - Kip Cusack and the Spy Formation League

I've chosen this synopsis by Louise Kelly because it nicely shows how you can (and should) convey the tone and voice of your story in your synopsis. Louise's worries whether, although the comic tone fits the novel, some vocab/phrasing doesn't match age range. Also, she introduces a new character right at end. Is this odd/wrong, she asks?

It's a novel for children of 9-11 (I'm guessing.)

Kip Cusack and the Spy Formation League: Synopsis

KIP CUSAK AND THE SPY FORMATION LEAGUE is the first adventure of 12-year-old KIP whose world flips upside down when he finds that his ‘Support For Learning’ sessions are in fact a cover for a spy training network – the Spy Formation League. Not content with making him grapple with his spelling, life now seems to expect him to grapple with villains too!

Kip arrives home one day to find the contents of his GRANDA TOM’s potting shed being hurled into the back lane, and Granda Tom, locked inside the garden, denying that the clearly audible thumps and threats are any cause for alarm. And, why should they be? After all, Kip’s mum, ROSA, makes sure their life in the dull seaside town of Brawhaven is as humdrum as possible. But what Granda Tom knows, and what Kip is about to find out, is that all this is about to change … completely.

When Kip meets IRWIN, his new SFL [explain] teacher, it’s clear she’s got more on her mind than trying to deal with dyslexia. She’s there, she claims, to mould the group class (Kip and his two SFL classmates GUTHRIE and JAMEEL) [we don't hear their names again, so no need to include them here] into a top spy ring - oh, and earn her own stripes as a Spy Master while she’s at it. At first, Kip is sure it’s all some elaborate joke but when eccentric Spy Master SARAH BELLA contacts the SFL with some astonishing news his feet don’t have time to touch the ground before he’s catapulted into the SFL’s latest case: the plot by world-dominating seed research company, SPORE, to control the earth’s food supplies. As Kip and his friends discover, SPORE will stop at nothing, even kidnapping top seed scientist,Taru.[I've put this here and deleted next para. Neater.]

Sarah-Bella reports her fears that the Super-Yield rice seeds, unleashed by (supposed) seed research company, SPORE, are linked to some reported episodes of brain-washing. Then, when Kip and his co-spies contact the Global Seedbank – home of the world’s seed reserves – to check out the Super-Yield strain, they find that the vital seeds have gone missing. And what’s worse so has Seedbank scientist TARU. It is clear that SPORE will stop at nothing to make sure they can keep control of their newly developed rice strain and the wealth, and power over the world’s food supplies, that it will bring them.

Kip’s first botched attempt to stalk the seed-pirates ends up with his incarceration in the Seedbanks [need apostrophe] freezers. But he has been practicing [UK spelling: practising] some of his spy skills – honest – and uses them to escape as well as to uncover the identity of one of SPORE’s top operatives, POULSON. What’s more, his adventure alerts Granda Tom to his grandson’s new identity – and prompts the revelation that he too was part of the SFL in his youth. With Granda Tom on board, the race to uncover the details of SPORE’s plans and rescue Taru careers onwards apace [don't like that phrase] but also brings new dangers. Sensing that the SFL are closing in, Poulson and top seed-pirate, PATTERSON, decide they need to take drastic action and it is not long before Kip finds himself kidnapped and on a boat to an island prison.

Overhearing plans that SPORE are on the verge of completing their stranglehold on the seed supplies, and that Taru is also hidden somewhere on the island, Kip tries to signal for help… but when none arrives Kip knows he has no choice but to take on Patterson and Poulson on alone. Once again, however, he is overpowered and thrown to sea – with a lump of concrete tied to his leg for company – and left for drowned.

With only seconds to spare, however, one of his SFL companions reaches him - it seems that he had got a signal through – and plucks him from a watery grave. Kip’s tale, and the information they decipher from a coded message that he’s also managed to capture, show that there is no time to lose. Not only are the only [clunky repetition of only]viable rice seeds about to be spirited away, but Taru will drown if they don’t get to him before the tide changes.

Kip, the SFL and Granda Tom speed back over to the island but there is one more shock in store. Not only are Patterson and Poulson intent on absconding with their haul [cliché and clunky!] but Patterson intends to remotely detonate a device which will blow-up the Seedbank and everybody in it as soon as they are in open sea with their cargo. [That whole sentence could be: their enemies plan to blow up the island and disappear with the seeds.]

Gone are any traces of Kip’s former insecurities and indecision [first we've heard of this!]and now, in the face of such malice, he does not hesitate. Giving chase to Poulson and Patterson, he masterminds the cornering [clunky] of their escaping boat, dives across to them from his moving vessel, disables their engine and brings them to a halt. Then, with artful persuasion he extracts the over-ride code from Poulson and averts the detonation of the Seedbank.

[I have no idea what this next bit actually means!] If only escaping the wrath of his mum was that easy.

Maybe now Kip can begin to grasp just what it might feel like to have the quiet confidence of his eccentric dad FERGAL. And maybe his adventure has given him a taste of what his mum has been trying to protect him from all his life. And he thinks he might be ready to taste more.

OK, here's what I think.
Essentially, it's a great synopsis, Louise! Lively, fast-paced, age-appropriate and credible. I disagree that there's a problem with vocab not matching the age-range. OK, so I perhaps know which phrases you're thinking of but this is the synopsis and not the actual story and it's very marginal. However, your concern about the sudden appearance of a new character at the end is valid. It definnitely feels wrong, not least because I have absolutely no idea how he fits. So, essentially, you've messed up the ending of your synopsis.

One important point: you mention the scene with Granda Tom's potting shed as though it's important. Actually, we never discover the point of that, so I think you've put it in for all the wrong reasons: it sounds quirky, fun and scene-setting; but it's not ultimately important or interesting.


I've also cut out some unnecessary words and details and tried to tighten your prose. That does give you room to add back in some action phrases to spark it up again but do so in a snappier way than the bits I chopped out.


Any other comments, anyone? Essentially this is how a synopsis should be just before the final revisions of it before sending out. You could get this perfect in another fifteen minutes of polishing.

The key to a synopsis is to forget your book

I've always known that the best way to learn something really well is to teach it. You think you know something but until you put it into words for someone else to understand, you don't know if you know it properly. And you might find you don't.

My point? While writing my forthcoming book, Write a Great Synopsis - An Expert Guide, I have learnt something extra about how to write synopses. I learnt it from myself, I hasten to add, but it was the act of trying to explain everything about synopses as clearly and fully as possible that showed me a truth I hadn't been aware of.

So, am I going to make you wait till January when WAS comes out? Of course I'm not! I wouldn't be so cruel.
My lightbulb moment came when I was preparing to write a synopsis of Wasted, as an example to go in the book. I enjoyed writing it and it took about fifteen minutes, perhaps less. "Well, this is a doddle," I thought. "I always knew people stressed too much about synopses." I wondered why I found it easy. And then I realised.

I'd forgotten the order of events in Wasted. I'd forgotten everything except the most important events, characters and emotions, the core drivers of the book, the skeleton and the skin. I'd (accidentally) deleted from my memory everything that shouldn't be in a synopsis. And I didn't look at the book once while writing the synopsis because a) I didn't need to, which is the point and b) I'm lazy.

This made me think of two analogies which I'd already used in Write a Synopsis but which now became clearer.

The conscious human analogy 
If your synopsis were a human being, we'd see the skin and have a sense of the strong skeleton but we would not see the organs and veins, because the vital gleam in the eyes would be sufficient evidence that the body was properly constructed. Also, you need to include the ending, because otherwise you've got a body without feet.

The journey analogy
If your book is a journey, the synopsis needs to include:
1. Who is on the journey and why?
2. What is the intended destination and why?
3. What terrible thing will happen if they don't reach their destination and who or what is trying to stop them?
4. What happens to knock the travellers off course?
5. What characteristics and tools do they use to get back on course?
6. What is their actual destination and who survives and with what injuries?

Here’s what we do not need to know (unless what we're writing is an outline, which, as I explain in WAS, is different):  
1. All the detours they took along the way - unless without it we can't understand the book
2. The weather.
3. What they said to each other.
4. What the scenery was like.
5. The people they met along the way, unless without them we can't understand the book.
6. The route in order.

Because my dyslexic-behaving brain can't do sequences, I can never remember what order things happened in, or even that half of them did. This makes my brain perfect for writing synopses and the amazing thing is that until I tried teaching you lot about all this I didn't even know my brain was perfect for anything.

Hooripity-yay.

So my message to you today is: when writing your synopsis, cultivate a really crappy memory like mine, a memory that forgets everything except essence. To paraphrase all of our mothers: if you can't remember, it can't have been very important. And if it's not important, it has no place in your synopsis.

Therefore: whatever you do, don't look at your book when writing your synopsis. Your book has no place there.

Synopsis Spotlight - The Girl on Winter's Hill

Introducing the second brave synopsis-spotlight-provider, Margaret Kirk. If you don't know how these spotlights work, please read the previous one here, and the post here in which I introduced both the task and my forthcoming book on how to write a synopsis. Which is what all this is leading up to. (And, by the way, I have - I think - chosen my title for the book. To be revealed soon!)

In your comments, you aren't necessarily meant to be saying whether you like the sound of the book, but whether the synopsis does a good job of making it clear and coherent and whether it follows the general guidelines of synopsis-writing.

The Girl on Winter's Hill - by Margaret Morton Kirk

Everybody’s got a past.  Just not one like Chrissie Fraser’s…

Chrissie can’t remember much about that summer afternoon in the hills above Rossan.  She knows what started as a lazy day with her boyfriend Rob and his fledgling rock group, ended [clunky phrasing there, Margaret, and the comma is wrong] in a car crash which left her fighting for her life.  She knows Rob, the driver, escaped unhurt, while her cousin died and her friend Liam was badly injured — Rob’s fault, according to the village rumour-mill.  What she doesn’t know is why Rob disappeared, leaving her to face the aftermath alone.  And scared.  And pregnant. [Nice effect.]

Sixteen years later and six hundred miles away, Chrissie’s made a new life for herself and her daughter [add Eve].  But when her mother’s serious illness forces a return to Rossan, she discovers the past isn’t so easily buried [perhaps be more specific? This is slightly vague. Needs better link to the “not coming to terms bit” in next para. Also burying the past is a bit of a cliché?]. 

When Chrissie’s mother dies, fragile fifteen year-old Eve, bullied at school, begs her to let them stay in the village she’s fallen in love with.  Realising she needs to come to terms with the events of sixteen years ago, [Better to hint earlier that she hasn’t come to terms with them, I think] Chrissie agrees. A tentative romance develops with Liam, and Chrissie hopes she’s finally laid the past to rest [Again, this is a somewhat vague phrase, not to mention being a cliché!]. She couldn’t be more wrong. [But]While she struggles with her re-emerging feelings [You are the mistress of the vague statement, tinged with cliché!]  for Rob, newly returned to Rossan, an older, darker past is reaching out to her.[Ahem.]

Fascinated by the photograph of an unknown woman she finds amongst her mother’s things, Chrissie determines to discover her identity.  But her search creates a rift with Liam, whose increasingly controlling behaviour masks a disturbing family secret. [You are actually about to say this anyway.] Unknown to Chrissie, Liam recognises the woman from the locket she’s wearing; she’s his great-grandfather Callum’s first wife, rumoured to have deserted him for her musician lover, leaving Callum vowing revenge.  Only Liam knows she never left the village.  [As an aside about the plot, I feel that this seems unlikely. How many of us know what our great-grandfather’s first wife looked like? I hope you make this credible in the actual book?]

On the day of the crash he’d stumbled on a woman’s skeletal remains hidden near his family’s farm, a locket round her neck and a knife between her ribs. Sickened [again, suspension of disbelief issue: would he really be that traumatised? This is some generations ago - I'd actually be somewhat fascinated, or at the most disturbed. Or is that just me?!] by the thought that Callum could have been the murderer, he’d panicked and covered all traces of his find.  But after the crash, his traumatised mind [For this to feel believable, we need much earlier hints in the synopsis of Liam’s a) instability and b) involvement in the crash] had started to merge past and present.  At the height of a devastating mental breakdown, Liam had believed he was Callum—when Chrissie returns to Rossan after sixteen years’ absence, she has no idea of the danger his reawakening delusions will pose. [I’m a bit confused as to when Liam’s delusion started – at the time of the crash or later? I could probably work it out but your synopsis needs to be clear on first reading.]

As Liam’s possessiveness worsens, Chrissie grows closer to Rob as he and Eve forge a strong bond.  As the bells chime for a New Year, he asks her to give their relationship another chance, and Chrissie admits she’s never stopped loving him.  [Too much detail – sometimes too much detail makes it *less* believable, not more.]

When Chrissie tells Liam she and Rob are back together, he becomes increasingly unstable.  He blames Eve’s growing bond with Rob for Chrissie’s decision to end things with him.  With ‘Callum’ more and more in control, he mounts a campaign of terror, staging a break-in at Chrissie’s house and terrorising her friends.  In a final desperate act, he abducts Eve, hoping to rewrite history[Eh?]— with Eve out of the way, he believes Chrissie will realise she belongs with him.  But Chrissie’s learned enough of what happened that day to work out where he’s taken Eve.  Back where it all began, on the Winter’s Hill above Rossan, Chrissie and Rob confront Liam.  As the police close in, Liam’s mind disintegrates and he undergoes a complete mental and physical collapse.  Eve is found, suffering from hypothermia and badly traumatised, but alive.

As Eve recovers, Chrissie’s life is at a crossroads. [Make stronger – crisis, dilemma etc] She must decide whether to give her relationship with Rob another chance, or stay in Ceann Aird, the house she’s grown to love again.  At first she tells Rob their lives are too different for things ever to work out between them.  But with time comes a measure of healing for them all, and [cliché and feels far too vague] when Rob returns to Rossan in the spring, Chrissie’s ready to give him a different answer. [Need to find a way to make that ending feel stronger and more specific.]

 ______________

In my opinion this is a well written synopsis, which flows well and ticks most boxes Margaret said: “It's succinct, but at the moment that's pretty much all that's in its favour. Women's fiction, non-linear plot, interwoven time periods. Synopsis feels flat and one-dimensional, but I think the novel is a better and more sophisticated mystery than this makes it sound.” I disagree – I think it feels pretty rounded and multi-dimensional. I think it nicely weaves the strands and time-scales together in a way that gives me a good sense of the book. (Well, I assume so, as I haven’t read the book, but that’s the point, as the agent hasn’t either.)

My only criticisms, as you’ll see from my comments within the synopsis, are as follows:
1. You have a strong tendency to use clichéd and rather “wet” (sorry!) phrases to explain a situation.
2. We need more hint of Liam’s problems earlier.
3. You’ve made a couple of aspects seems unbelievable – even if they are not so in the book itself. It’s a good example of how sometimes giving too much detail makes a synopsis seem less believable – counter-intuitive, I know, but the inevitable loss of context causes problems. The knack is to find the phrase that conveys authority, without detail.

Nice work, Margaret. What do you think of my suggestions? Anyone else got any comments?

Synopsis Spotlight - Glass Houses

As you know, I'm writing a book on synopsis-writing. Last week, I offered you the chance to have your synopsis put under the spotlight, with a view to a) blog-readers commenting construcively and b) possibly having your synopsis (and some comments) featured in the book as an exemplar.

The first brave writer under the spotlight is Jackie Buxton, with Glass Houses, which she says is general fiction for adult readers. (She also says it's likely to appeal to women over 30 - I suggested she doesn't specify the age, but I do agree that it's more likely to be read by women. Sorry to those who object to that...) Jackie says that her problem is in making it succinct. I actually think she has made it relatively succinct (except in some details) and, in some ways, too succinct! You’ll see my comments in italics and brackets. Where I’ve crossed things out, those crossings out create the need to express the sentence differently but I am merely trying to give a sense of what detail we don’t need.

Glass Houses (103,000 words) by Jackie Buxton

There’s an [fatal] accident on the M62 motorway.  We see ETTA DUBCEK (35) sitting in the wreckage of the car in front of hers, holding the hand of a stranger who’s fighting for her life. [Add eg: and who caused the accident in a moment of carelessness.]

[Add: That stranger is] TORI WILLIAMS (50) is plunged into a coma after sending the text which allegedly causes the pile-up in which two adults and a baby die.  With the support of DOUG, Tori’s affable husband of 23 years, and daughter, CARLY, her body twitches its way out of paralysis as she attempts to force words from her lips.  [All we need to know is family supportive [eg] as she slowly [?] recovers.]

Etta finds it hard to shake off the experience [so, is this her guiding emotion? Doesn’t feel strong enough.] of being with Tori as they waited for the ambulance.  With a fraction of a second’s hesitation, she, too, might have been a killer.   Initially intending to visit Tori just once, she strikes up a friendship with her mother, RUBY, and becomes one of Tori’s few staunch defenders.  ‘I didn’t sit with a murderer,’ she writes, ‘I sat with somebody who’d done something foolish.’  Etta’s friend, PEARL, challenges this sympathy for Tori but realises that there is more to it than Etta is willing to admit. [Need more about this - or maybe later.]

A horde of reporters greets Tori as she emerges from hospital with blatant disabilities and scars.  The press is camped out on her doorstep.  Her business, Party People, has folded. [She becomes a damaged recluse.]Nobody invites her to dinner and the furthest she strays from home is the café in Out Patients.  When she is charged with the lesser offence of Driving Without Due Care and Attention, the family of the baby who died at the scene vow to sue. 

[Cut following para to the bone.] But Tori is only fifty and is not prepared to live the rest of her life trapped in this way.  [Does anything preciptate the change of heart?] She confronts journalists, becomes a regular on radio phone-ins – respected for her honesty.  She takes a sandwich board to the high street and amasses signatures from those who have also made mistakes.  The quiz show, ‘Tori’s Truth’, is launched to great acclaim and her presentation to sixth-formers on her, ‘Moment of Madness’ is an enormous success.  She is even training as a Samaritan.  But most of all, her positive attitude is catching.  There’s a buzz around the country.  Even the press are on board. [Delete some examples.]

Doug, however, cannot stand the attention.  He fears for Tori once the media bubble has burst and has promised their daughter that he will keep the press away. In a final attempt to persuade her to reject this new lifestyle, he leaves her.  Tori is devastated but cannot go back to her life pre-accident.  [Just say that after months of arguing/***/ etc, their relationship collapses and he leaves. Give a sense of how long this takes.]

Etta and Tori eventually meet. Etta, too, has a story to tell.  The pair bond, providing much needed emotional support for each other. [Add something more concrete.] Before a lunch date with Etta, Tori meets with her unpredictable step-father, GERALD.  He is a serial womaniser, no longer married to her mother but still keen to be a part of the family.  He blames Tori’s notoriety and new outspoken behaviour for the break-up of his latest relationship [this feels unlikely – find stronger motivation, or explain?] .  Her disabilities force her to walk holding his arm.  He is walking too fast.  He pushes her in anger.  She falls into the road and is hit by a car.

Paramedics are en-route.  A switched-on passer-by calls Doug from Tori’s phone.  Tori reflects.  She’s re-built her reputation from the lowest of bases.  Her contribution to society is so much greater than before the text message, her moment of madness, but she will always have blood on her hands.[Simply say, eg, “But Tori sees this as a way out – she has lost the will to live.”]

Doug is pacing down the road towards her.  She does not want to live without him.  Her heart is slowing.   Her chin sinks to her chest.  ‘When I wake...’ she thinks.  It is for the reader to decide how they feel about her death.  Now to Gerald.  How will society react to his moment of madness? How will his life be affected? The transiency of our lives continues. [Too many unanswered questions, ones we don’t sufficiently care about because Gerald only just arrived.]

 _________

This is an example of a synopsis that would raise concerns for the agent or publisher because the story feels somewhat thin for the 103k words. We’re left with some questions which the synopsis should answer. (They may be answered wonderfully in the book but there's a doubt in the synopsis.)

1. Who the hell is Etta and what is her secret?
2. Why should we care about Gerald? He’s a “serial womaniser” and appears only in order to kill the woman we’ve come to sympathise with. It doesn’t feel as though there’s enough about him before the climactic scene, and yet not enough after either. 
3. Who is the main character? We know why we should care about Tori but what about Etta? If she’s equally “main”, we need to know the part she plays; if she’s a secondary character, her role in relation to Tori seems so crucial that we should know her secret.

There is sometimes too much detail (“Doug is pacing down the road towards her”) and yet this is a 103k novel, so what major plot elements have been omitted? The knack is not in making a long or complex plot seem simple but in telling it succinctly, which are too different things. For example, “after several episodes in which x realises that y…” can cover fifty pages in half a sentence. The key is not in telling every episode but in making it clear that something has happened, something meaty and important.

Jackie, congratulations in getting this far. I would not have picked your synopsis if it was awful! There are some significant virtues: it reads quite elegantly and smoothly and is clearly expressed. I picked it because it had some examples of faults that could be identified and rectified. The main problem (I feel) is that it reads as being too thin. Assuming that you definitely have enough action and intrigue to fill 103k words, you need to give a sense of that.

Readers - your comments! Please bear in mind the genre. It's not a thriller so don't demand thriller content. Also, remember that we are judging the synopsis, not the book itself - though there may be aspects that cross-over.

Jackie, thank you! I'll let you know if I use it in the book and if you want to redraft your synopsis to show how you responded to our comments, that's great.

Your synopsis made short, sweet and stress-free

I am writing a book about how to write a great synopsis. I know this will make you fall at my feet in gratitude and that you are already almost literally drooling with anticipation. Possibly even literally, but I prefer not to think about that too closely. Calm yourselves and go and take a cold shower or something.

Because I know it will be hard for some of you to wait for a book of such enormous necessity, I have a plan. I will now have a series of Synopsis Spotlights on the blog, via which YOU will be able to pitch your synopsis to your fellow writers (and anyone else who reads this blog) and get their constructive criticism and help to improve it. In the past I have had Submission Spotlights, which have been hugely useful to those writers brave enough to expose their work to public viewing.

I've just remembered that I did also start to do this with synopses some time ago. Here was Dan Holloway's synopsis spotlight.

Here are all my posts giving advice on synopses. Please read at least some of them before posting your own. My forthcoming book has much more to say, much more succinctly.

OK, ready? Here's what to do:

1. Your synopsis should be no more than two sides of A4 ("normal" font and size etc, single-line-spaced).
2. Send it as a Word (not pdf) attachment to writingtutor@hotmail.co.uk
3. In the body of your email, tell me a) genre and age-range and b) something (just a short sentence) about any problems you are having with the synopsis - eg is this a non-linear novel? What do you think is wrong with it? What made it difficult?

Please read these important notes. They form Terms and Conditions and if you send me your synopsis you are agreeing to these conditions.

1. I cannot guarantee to feature your synopsis on the blog. I will be looking for a range of different issues, and I may simply have too many to use, or yours may be too similar to another.
2. If I do use it, I take no responsibility for any consequences. No one has ever been treated harshly in these spotlights and I would not use a piece which I thought might come in for highly negatively critical responses. I will remove any comments I consider unfair.
3. If I feature your synopsis, I reserve the right to reproduce it (and possibly some comments) in the book I'm writing on synopses. I undertake to do this in a positive and respectful way and will give you the opportunity to read the relevant section in advance and to object to any comment that makes you feel uncomfortable. You will not be remunerated for the insertion - sorry! - but you will be thanked in the credits and will receive a free pdf of the book, with certain restrictions. Please do not send your synopsis in if you are not willing in principle for it to be featured in the book.

So, submit succinct synopses snappily. Seriously.

WHIPPED INTO SHAPE: Synopsis Special

Whipped into Shape is a series in which a reader of Write to be Published comments or asks a question about something in the book, perhaps asking for further information or sharing their own take on a topic. And then I add answers as appropriate and readers add comments. Today's contribution comes from Joy Spicer, who writes a rather nice looking blog about art, riding and family.

SYNOPSIS SPOTLIGHT - Dan Holloway

When blogging about synopses recently, I offered to post here for public comment any synopses you wanted help with. So, here is the first one. The brave writer is regular blog-reader, Dan Holloway.

I'm going to kick off by putting my own comments here first. Mainly because I'm colossally under pressure with deadlines at the moment so I may not manage to comment again in the next couple of days. (But I will be watching, so please play nicely!)

So, my thoughts on Dan's synopsis

Rather obviously, it's longer than is recommended. Much longer... It's over 2,100 words long, if you want to know. So, it is a detailed outline, not a synopsis. It has the virtue of showing a potential agent or publisher that Dan can write and that he has really nailed the plot in fine detail. However, it is so much too long that the agent or publisher simply won't read it properly. This does not mean that it would necessarily be rejected on that basis, but it does mean that a grumpy agent or publisher's first thoughts would be a) this writer hasn't realised that synopses must be short - why has he not realised this? - and b) this looks like a writer who isn't ruthless enough with his own words.

Now, I happen to know that Dan is ruthless with his own words in one sense: he thinks about them all and knows how they each work. He loves words and he loves playing with them. But, he is not ruthless enough about getting rid of them.

What I've done is put in bold the most important bits, the bits which contain the most relevant info. Clearly, there's then a huge amount of story that I have not bolded, which Dan would need to find a way to squash to its barest bones in order to make the beginning and the end hang together. Also, the other characters, as long as not minor, need a sentence each at the most.

As two examples of details that should not be here, see the para beginning: "When Tommy discovers him..." You don't need to say what sort of wine it was, or that Becky had reurned from three months in Eastern Europe, or the details of the content of the papers Charles left. If Dan goes through and removes everything of that sort of level, it would probably cut about 400 words, which would be a good and easy start.

I also have a radical suggestion. There is no reason why you could not offer two synopses - the properly pared down one of no more than two sides, and then the fuller one (though still, I suggest, pared down). It is highly likely that that agent or publisher would only read the shorter one, but at least the longer one is there if they happen to want further clarificiation. This IS a radical suggestion and I've never heard it before. I cannot see how it would damage someone's chances - you are not giving the agent more work or asking them to read something, merely providing it, should they want it. But it would be essential that the short synopsis is properly short.

Oh, and by the way, I think the story sounds great! It deserves a much neater synopsis.

Here is Dan's synopsis:

What would you give up to be happy? Your principles? Your sanity? Your children?

The Company of Fellows
Dan Holloway
Thriller: 97,000 words

The search for an Oxford professor’s killer drives his former protégé back into the world that drove him to a breakdown 12 years earlier. The Company of Fellows takes place in contemporary Oxford, in the University and the affluent north of the city, at the end of September before the students return for the new academic year.

Tommy West, 35, atheist, turned his back on a brilliant academic career when he suffered a breakdown after finishing a doctorate in Theology twelve years ago. His health has forced him to lead a life that is comfortable and intellectually unchallenging. Now he lives in the sensual but impersonal world of luxury design, where a combination of taste and uncanny empathy has made him wealthy. Exquisite things shield him from the world outside and satisfy his need for instant pleasure. They are the sanctuary and the prison he has inhabited alone since college.

Emily Harris, 36, devout Christian, is a Detective Chief Inspector with Thames Valley CID, the job she wanted since she was a little girl. She has a happy but childless marriage to David, whom she met at church. Despite the terrible things she has seen at work and the bitter disappointments she has experienced at home, she has remained centred, and faithful, and good. David is the only man she has loved since Tommy left her eighteen years ago because she wouldn’t sleep with him. They haven’t seen each other since college.

Rosie Lu, 26, is Emily’s DS. She moved to England from Hong Kong as a teenager, on the eve of the handover to China in 1997. She is cultured and intelligent, a side of herself she is happy to hide behind lipstick, leather, and loud music; Rosie still lives the life of a Bohemian student in the rented flat that she shares with her pet chameleon, named Chris after Chris Patten, last governor of Hong Kong and Chancellor of Oxford University.

Charles Shaw, 53, is Professor of Ethics at Christ Church, wildly rich, and Tommy’s former supervisor. He has devoted his career to the study of pleasure, and devoted his life to its pursuit. He believes that the greatest pleasures are the ones for which we have to wait, like the pleasure of old wine. Haydn Shaw, 43, is his estranged wife. She married Charles at the very start of her academic career and is now a successful lecturer at the University, specialising in the Sociology of China. She has lived with Becky Shaw, her 18 year-old daughter, since the night Becky’s twin sister Carol was stillborn and Charles walked out on them.

Barnard Ellison and Hedley Sansom had been lecturers at Christ Church when the Shaws separated. Ellison remained there, with his wife Jane and their two children. He is now Professor of Old Testament History. Sansom, who moved abroad after his first wife Valerie committed suicide, returned with his second wife, Clarissa, to become College Dean.

When Professor Shaw’s lawyer dies on Tommy’s doorstep, leaving him only a box of research papers for an unpublished book, £98,000, and a plea from the Professor to find someone who is trying to kill him and to take care of his daughter, Tommy has to choose between his sensual cocoon and a return to the old life that drove him to the edge of insanity. What follows for Tommy, from the moment he makes the choice not to call the police, and goes to see the Professor only to find him dead, is a pursuit of the truth that becomes a desperate battle to fend off another breakdown. Tommy’s safe new world is blown further apart when he finally calls the police to report the lawyer’s death, and opens the door only to find himself staring at Emily.

Tommy’s journey takes place in an Oxford darkened by the shadows not of its crumbling spires, but of irrevocable choices, of the prices people have paid for pursuing their own happiness, and the prices they have paid for sacrificing it.

When Tommy discovers him, Charles is dead, in his own house, at a table laid with a banquet for one, accompanied by bottles of two of the world’s finest wines opened and empty, and a suicide note that says only There is nothing left to wait for. Emily breaks the news to Haydn and to Becky, who has just returned from 3 months in Eastern Europe. Haydn’s reaction to his note is that he must finally have enjoyed the pleasure he spent his life and career anticipating. Emily is unable to tell if her coldness is a result of hate, indifference or an incapacity for emotion. The papers Charles left Tommy contain wine catalogues and academic articles, going back to a piece on iconography by Bulgarian scholar Krista Markova from 1989.

Amongst them he discovers what appears to be a drawing of a miniature torture instrument. Becky begs Tommy to help her find Charles’ killer. She goes with him to the Professor’s house to collect a bequest of wines, but refuses to help him fetch them from the cellar. They are even finer and rarer than those from Charles’ last meal, one of them being the second finest vintage ever made of the Hungarian pudding wine, Tokaji Eszencia. This convinces Tommy that the hedonist Charles, who had yet to taste his finest wine, didn’t kill himself but was murdered.

At Charles’ memorial service Ellison’s eulogy reveals that Charles’ book was about the theology of parenthood. At the wake, Becky introduces Tommy to Dr Knightley, Haydn’s obstetrician. Knightley tells Tommy about Charles’ obsession with conducting thought experiments about maximizing the pleasure of experiences, such as a perfect seduction lasting almost twenty years. Becky explains that her twin, Carol, was stillborn, and that Knightley blames himself for the death. She also tells Tommy about threatening letters Charles had received before he died, taunting him with the biblical verse Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, a reference to God’s choice to redeem one of Isaac’s twin sons, and to condemn the other.

Tommy meets the Sansoms over dinner with Haydn and Becky. He discovers that grief over her own childlessness, compounded by Charles’ neglect of his own children, drove Hedley’s first wife, Valerie, to suicide shortly after Becky and Carol were born. After that Hedley left Oxford for the continent.

When Emily attends Knightley’s suicide at the Women’s Health Centre, memories of her own visits make her question both her faith and her feelings for David, and as she battles with her repressed anger towards the man who cannot give her a child she struggles to figure out what place Tommy now has in her life, and what kind of father he would have been.

Hedley reveals to Tommy that the reason for Dr Knightley’s suicide wasn’t remorse that he had failed to save Carol. “[He] didn’t kill himself because he let her die. He killed himself because he let her live.” From this moment Tommy knows Charles’ papers, including the drawing of the torture instrument, relate not to a warped thought experiment, but to a real experiment. Alone and frightened of his thoughts, Tommy calls the few people he knows, but the only person he reaches is Rosie, whose number Emily had given him to stop him calling her at home. He goes round and they bond at once. Despite increasing worries that his returning illness is blurring his behaviour, when Tommy wakes up with her he knows it feels right.

Amongst Charles’ things Tommy discovers a recording of the professor’s voice describing the torture instrument’s use in a trepanning procedure. He finds himself plagued by flashbacks of a dead girl, who looks like Becky, staring at him with harrowed, pleading eyes, a needle hanging from her arm. Then Tommy finds a file computer that shows the instrument was part of a sick sexual experiment involving a baby. It is only his flashbacks that drive him on, desperate to protect Becky from a truth he knows is pulling his sanity apart. As strongly as Becky seems drawn to Tommy as a surrogate father, he is drawn by the urge to look after her.

Tommy follows Charles’ movements after the twins’ birth to Spain, from where he discovers that Ellison took Carol to use in the experiment. On his return he takes Rosie to a concert where he hears the song that plays in his flashbacks; he remembers that after his breakdown he had watched a prostitute, the image of Becky, die from an overdose. Terrified, he had left her in her squalid room. Now helping Becky find her father’s killer is his only way of achieving expiation. Seeing from the presence of workers’ vans that Charles’ house is already being refurbished, he returns to the basement. The decorator, one of the contractors Tommy regularly uses, tells him the work is being done at Hedley’s request, and shows him proof in the stripped layers of paint that Carol didn’t die as a baby, but that Charles had raised her there until just a few months ago, before raping and killing her for his own pleasure.

Tommy confronts the Sansoms. Hedley, convinced Charles kept Carol alive before murdering her, and wanting evidence to take to the police, believed Clarissa had killed him out of revenge because Hedley’s obsession with Charles’ guilt for Valerie’s death that meant he had never been a proper husband to her. Clarissa had believed Hedley to be guilty, exacting revenge for Valerie’s suicide.

Jane Ellison reveals that she has always known about her husband’s sexual thought experiments but as long as they remained in his mind said nothing to protect their children.

As he prepares dinner for Haydn and Becky at their house, Tommy finds proof that Haydn killed Charles. Before taking it to Emily, he confesses his investigation to Rosie; she forgives him; they celebrate by opening a bottle of the wine Charles left him, but it is not the wine it should be. Tommy realises Charles has switched it with the wine he drank the day he died – now he believes Charles killed himself after all and framed Haydn. He goes to let Becky know but she tells him that she is, in fact, Carol; Charles raised her in secret for 18 years, giving her the best of everything; he intended her to be with Tommy – she has killed Becky and come back from Eastern Europe to take her place. Charles has indeed framed Haydn.

For Tommy, the journey has been one of slow descent towards breakdown. It is lightened by his growing relationship with Rosie, by the possibility of a new friendship with Emily, and by the reawakening of his academic brain as he works through Charles’ papers. At the same time his decline feels inevitable, presided over by the haunting figure of Becky and hastened by the journey deeper into the sickening thought experiments of the Professors, until he finds himself faced with a choice from which he cannot hide: to condemn Haydn or to condemn Carol? But he finally escapes his descent towards madness when his rediscovered friendship with Emily gives him the strength to face the choice, and its consequences, without collapsing under their weight. Tommy chooses Haydn’s freedom over Carol’s.

Weeks later, over dinner with the convalescing Tommy, Haydn admits she has known from the moment “Becky” returned from Eastern Europe that she was really Carol. She had made the choice never to let on – after all, Carol was her daughter too. After Haydn leaves, Tommy receives a letter from Charles that explains everything.. Charles had set out an experiment to be the perfect parent. He paid Knightley to fake Carol’s death and raised her alone. He selected Tommy as her future partner for his taste and his bipolar tendency; caused his breakdown so he wouldn’t start another relationship but gave him the tools to get well; then killed his own twin, from whom he had been separated when they were adopted, intending the hunt for his killer to trigger Tommy’s recovery and introduce him to Becky. Everything – from Becky’s red hair to Charteris’ heart attack – was part of his plan.

Shortly before Carol was born, Charles fell in love, but kept his obligation to Carol, the 18 year delay only enhancing his ultimate pleasure. Now he has discharged his duty to Carol he can finally pursue his own happiness.

Tommy faces his final choice – does he go after Charles, meaning Carol finds out she wasn’t the most important thing in her father’s life after all? He burns the letter and calls Rosie. Charles, with nothing left to wait for, begins his life in Bulgaria with Krista Markova.

SYNOPSIS FOR A NON-LINEAR STORY

Bugger, I am now under serious pressure from Twitter "friends" to say something sensible on this topic. OK, here's the sensible thing: do not make people think that you are going to say something piercing and helpful, when you might not be.

Thing is, I blogged on Tuesday about synopses and foolishly promised to come back today to add something about how to do a synopsis for a non-linear or unconventional structure. Looking at it more closely, I never said I was going to say anything at all piercing, did I? Meh.

This whole question was precipitated by the following email from a blog-reader some time ago:

"I've been working on a couple of synopses recently, and it occurred to me that synopses are usually fairly linear in structure.  But what if your novel has an unconventional narrative structure?  For example: a story interspersed with flashbacks or dream sequences?  A crime novel broken up by chapters which cut away to a murder taking place somewhere else?  A narrative that shifts POV from one character to another?  And so on - not necessarily the next James Joyce, but not a linear 3rd person narrative!

"With a story written in such a manner, what do you think is the best way form a synopsis around it, making the agent aware of its particular style?  A brief comment at the start of the synopsis?  Attempting (somehow) to replicate the structure within the synopsis?  Or something else?"

These sensible and lucid questions reveal two wrong beliefs: that a synopsis must relate the story in the same way it is told in your book, and that there is one perfect format within which a synopsis should fit.

No. There is no one prescribed format. There are, literally, more ideal formats for synopses than there are books. The only wrong ones are those that are too long, too detailed or too anything except clear. Simply tell the story in any way that  fulfils the purpose of a synopsis - to show the agent or publisher that you've got your story sorted and what it is like.

Let me unpick the specific questions. Obviously, I don't know the details of the stories suggested, but I will try to offer an example of how you might do it.

"For example: a story interspersed with flashbacks or dream sequences?" I would probably tell the main story in one paragraph and then say, "The story is interspersed with flashbacks in which Jake is taken back to a former life which he gradually begins to remember." And then one sentence which indicates the importance of this, perhaps explaining why the flashbacks occur.

"A crime novel broken up by chapters which cut away to a murder taking place somewhere else?" Again, I would probably tell the main story in one para, and then say, "At intervals, the story cuts away to a brutal murder of a young woman on a Greek island one sultry summer a generation earlier." And then I'd give a sentence to show why this is crucial / interesting.

"A narrative that shifts POV from one character to another?" It may not be necessary to say this at all - it depends how crucial it is to the understanding of your story's beauteousness. But, if I felt it was crucial - not to the story, where it obviously is crucial, but to the synopsis, where it might not be - I'd mention it, probably after telling the main story / MC / main theme. For example, I might say, "The story is told mainly from Ella's point of viewpoint, but at intervals it moves to Sebastian's." And possibly, not not necessarily, a sentence to show why or how.

"With a story written in such a manner, what do you think is the best way form a synopsis around it, making the agent aware of its particular style?  A brief comment at the start of the synopsis?  Attempting (somehow) to replicate the structure within the synopsis?  Or something else?" Whatever suits your story best, in the shortest and simplest way possible.

Important point: if any agent or publisher tells you his own preferred format for a synopsis, this is helpful but not to be taken as a universal ideal. It will doubtless conflict with someone else's ideal. The simple reason for this is that there is, as I say, no one correct way to do it. We're all trying to help you but the more detailed our efforts, the worse it becomes. 

Extra points for clarity (I hope!):

1. Just because your story has a complex structure, does not mean that its complexity must be conveyed in the synopsis. Authors tend to get very hung up on their beautiful structure - I tend to feel that, unless you've been really original, you should leave that to the story itself and just make your synopsis as simple as possible.
2. With a non-linear structure, copying the structure of the book in the synopsis is probably not a good idea, as it is likely to be too long and complicated. Better to say, for example, "Woven between this is the story of..." or "The story moves between ... and ... " or "Meanwhile, as Sukey is dealing with her recalcitrant weight problem, Jeff is snow-boarding with llamas." 
3. Agents and publishers have read many different structures. They do not need everything spelled out. Just capture the story, calmly and coherently. 
4. Don't get clever in your synopsis - this is not a time to show off. Yes, hone the words perfectly and make every word do its job precisely, but the synopsis is a functional exercise, not a display.
5. Imagine you are pitching your book to someone and that you have more time than the usual 10 seconds of their attention span. You have them for a whole minute - what would you tell them if you had one minute?

In short

I'm not saying it's easy, or fun. I'm saying it's not as hard as anyone thinks, because you are not trying to fit your complex story into a set format: you are simply finding the clearest, simplest way to tell the story. So, be ruthlessly concise. If in doubt, leave it out. (I would quite like to put that in capitals and delete everything else.)

I feel I've let you down a bit with this post if you were expecting more detail. So, I have a suggestion: let's have a Synopsis Surgery. If any of you would like me to post your draft or problem synopsis on this blog, email it to me at writingtutor@hotmail.co.uk and I will post the first two up here for anyone to comment on. No specific rules: just send me what you'd like posted, as an email attachment, remembering to include an explanation of the problem you are having. But I can't take any responsibility for what happens thereafter - obviously, I can't control what people will say (though I will remove comments that abuse anyone other than me) or what people might do with your synopsis. It's up to you...

Anyway, whatever you do with a synopsis of any sort, here's the key: make it short, make it simple, make it show your story in a crisp, bright light.

SIMPLY SYNOPSES

I have just seen a terrible synopsis. (Not from a P2P client - I would never use a client's material in this way, even anonymously.) No, someone passed it to me, after receiving it from a friend who was wanting advice. Thing is, he didn't actually want advice about the synopsis, because he believed it was brilliant and couldn't understand why agents were rejecting him. But, 'twas awful.

Why? Mainly, it rambled, containing the most ridiculous level of detail - for example, specifying the meal at which a piece of action took place, and the day of the week, and what a character was wearing during the conversation. (Trust me: it wasn't necessary.) It was an outline, not a synopsis, and I will explain the difference below.

[Also, I recently had a question from a blog-reader about how to write the synopsis for a non-linear plot. I'm going to cover that separately on Thursday.]

Anyway, here are my basic thoughts on synopses. (By the way, I have already blogged here and here.)

I was going to start by saying that I don't see the problem with the little darlings. Then I read that first post and realised that I'd either be lying or I've got a very short memory. I guess what's happened between then and now is that I've realised the truth about synopses and got to grips with them myself.

The truth? That their problems are greatly exaggerated and that writers worry far too much about them. OK, so I don't love writing them; I find them boring and I don't like how they remove the style and voice that are such an important part of what I'm trying to do in the book. But it seems to me that they are the easiest part of the package you send to agents and publishers.

The actual rules are few and simple:

• Make it short - as short as you can while giving the bones of the story. Leave out all details, including details about minor characters and minor plot strands. Even leave out mention of minor characters if they aren't necessary for the main story-line.
• Use the present tense.
• Use the third person, even if your story is written in the first person.
• Convey a sense of the style and feeling of the story - for example, if it's humorous, this needs to be obvious, not by saying, "This is a hilarious story", but through the action conveyed. If historical, we need to know period. Setting should also be included. The feeling of this story must come over in the synopsis.
• Do say what happens in the end, simply to show you've got this wrapped up.

A synopsis is not a blurb or pitch. A blurb (in UK-speak) is the nifty, enticing paragraph which goes on the back cover and in eleventy-million other places, such as Amazon and every blog or website that mentions your book. A pitch is almost the same, the only difference being that you'd use it to hook the publisher or agent in the first place. In US-speak, a blurb is that puff / quote that you might hope a well-known writer will give you to endorse your book. Whatever it is, a blurb or pitch is short and enticing, whereas a synopsis is longer and functional.

A synopsis is also not an outline. An outline is a episode-by-episode account of the action in your book, in the order in which it happens. You would only need to do an outline either a) for your own use, so that you can keep track of the action, or b) if your editor asks for one.

In length and detail, a synopsis is in between these things. And you can do it in any way that best serves the purpose of any synopsis: to show that your story works, from beginning to end; and to show clearly what sort of story this is, what it is like.

So, why the problems? I am sympathetic because I agree that synopses are uncomfortable things that strip your story bare and make you feel exposed. But your story will not be rejected on the basis of your synopsis - it will be rejected on the basis of the idea / hook / pitch in the covering letter (because that's what has to sell the book to publisher, bookseller and reader) and / or on the actual writing.

Let me give you a few more tips:

• Indicate whose point(s) of view the story is told through; if present tense, say so.
• It may be single-spaced, even though the actual writing sample and your MS must be double-spaced.
• If you have several POVs or time-scales or settings, or a particular structure, indicate this, in whatever way seems most sensible and clear. (More on that on Thursday.)
• Unanswered / rhetorical questions are not recommended - remember that the purpose of your synopsis is to indicate that and how your story works, not to entice a future reader.

Here are two tips from blog-readers, taken from when I blogged about this before.

Emma Darwin: "The best tip I've ever had for writing synopses is to write it in a single sentence: your hook, if you like. Then expand that to a paragraph. Then finally expand that to a full page. That way, instead of agonising over what to leave out and feeling the book looks limp and lifeless as a result, you're starting with the core conflict, and only adding what fleshes it out most effectively."

And Gemma Noon: "Extra bit of advice, though: get someone to read through your synopsis who hasn't got a blind clue what your book is about - you've never discussed it, they've never beta read it, never seen a draft if possible. It is ridiculously easy to leave out crucial info in a synopsis because you know the info backwards; an editor / agent doesn't." 

And the main advice: if you can leave it out, leave it out. The synopsis is absolutely the best place to kill darlings. When you edit your work, use a red pen; when you edit your synopsis, use a scythe.

See you on Thursday for a little bit more, to reassure you about non-linear stories.

Meanwhile: calm down! It's only a synopsis!

SYNOPSIS SPOTLIGHT

Remember when I used to do those Submission Spotlights? When brave blog-readers would offer part of a submission for public scrutiny and comment? As you may remember, I stopped doing them when I decided to help people more directly by setting up Pen2Publication.

Well, the other day I was contacted by a newish blog-reader, Siena, who was having problems writing a synopsis. Pen2Publication is fully booked at the moment so I couldn't suggest she use my services there but it struck me that since this is "only" a synopsis and since she said nice things to me, I could, with her permission, put the synopsis up here and hand her over to you good people for your reactions. So, I have.

Now, this is not a game, but someone's writing life we have here, so there are some rules:

• Please respect Siena's work by making only genuine and constructive remarks.
• Respect her copyright.
• Siena is not presenting this as a finished draft: the whole point is that she doesn't know what is right or wrong about it. So, bear this in mind.
• Remember that this would form part of a standard UK submission, so it would be accompanied by a covering letter and the first three chapters as a sample.
• In your comment, please say something to indicate your experience, if any. For example, if you are an editor or a published author with some experience of the genre, please say so. If you have no special knowledge but are offering more amateur (but still very welcome) advice, say so. Just something that allows Siena to know where you are coming from, so that if, some of the remarks conflict, she can judge how to respond.

Oh, and I asked her to write me a little "pitch" - the sort of thing that would form part of the covering letter. This is so that we can get a sense of the book's style and theme, which a synopsis doesn't always indicate.

Here's her pitch. She is not asking for comments on the pitch but if you have a startlingly useful comment, I see no reason not to give it. But do remember that it would be within a covering letter and, of course, Siena will have said what genre it is... (YA, btw.)

The Phantom Prince is about being young, famous and miserable – teenagers discovering themselves in the public eye, excess, escape an impossible love across the divide of the new ‘celebrity’ class.

Since Sophie’s sister made it as an actress, her world has been divided. At home, she is responsible for paying the bills and chasing down her father’s rent check, yet in another world her sister has been casted as the lead in The Phantom Prince alongside latest poster-boy Blake Edwards; star of the ‘Moonlight Saga’ films. The worlds cross when Sophie begins a summer placement at Pinewood Studios and falls for Blake, but her sister – not one to be outshone – is not happy and when her partying grows out of control, rumours on set threaten her career. Sophie must make a choice between family and love, and decide if that love is worth the sacrifice of her anonymity for ever.

And here's the synopsis, which is what she's asking you about. It fits easily onto two sides of A4, by the way.

At 17, Sophie Heaton’s most notable achievement is being the sister of Lydia Lowe - a bona-fide A list actress and her biggest worry is how to pay the bills; having a famous sister doesn’t mean that normal problems just end. When Sophie goes to see her sister at Pinewood Studios, it isn’t to get a taste of celebrity life (though she is intrigued by her sister’s world secret world); her father’s rent cheque is weeks later, and her mother - who had never got over the divorce, spends a good part of her day in bed- aided by her bottle of sleeping pills.

It wasn’t like she expected Lydia to make everything better, empathy wasn’t exactly her forte (not when it wasn’t scripted anyway) and Sophie was used to taking care of things on her own. Her sister had moved on, moved out of the family home, even changed her last name! So when she is met with her utter indifference, it doesn’t come as a surprise. Despite this, her journey isn’t wasted. Sophie is captivated by the world of film, and in particular Blake Edwards- a mysterious actor and star of the ‘Moonlight Saga’.

Blake has had little time to get used to fame, the press say he is the latest heartthrob, battalions of teenage fans think he is their dream guy, and the director considers him the best new acting talent since Johnny Depp; but alone in his luxurious Mayfair suite, he can’t remember what normal life feels like.

For Sophie, the situation at home reaches breaking point when her father admits that there will be no more cheques. She has no other option but to go back to Pinewood and beg her sister’s help. Lydia is more than forthcoming in offering it, and taking advantage of her sister’s good spirits, Sophie asks if she can stay and help out on set.

Finally, her life begins – sure, there are coffee runs and a lot of standing around, but she’s actually at Pinewood, there are no more bills to worry about and she’s found a friend!  Amelia Brightside is the daughter of Kurt Brightside (deceased rock-star), Lilly Brightside who last she heard was still in rehab and step-daughter to the director. It is no wonder that at the end of a long week, Sophie finds herself at a loss with what to do on her day off. And OK, it isn’t exactly a co-incidence that she bumps into Blake Edwards at the National Portrait’s ‘Live Fast Die Young’ exhibition (she did kind of steal the flyer from his trailer, which might technically be kind of creepy, but its Blake Edwards for God’s sake!)

It is the simplest of boy-meets-girl stories. They got on, they had a lot in common and...Yes she was smitten but that’s normal, right? When you meet a boy you like? And with the filming moving from Pinewood to location in Dorset in a matter of days, she doesn’t have long. Sophie’s fantasy begins to unravel when she learns just how far removed their two worlds are at a cast party. She knew Blake was famous, but the press and the screaming fans were more than she’s been expecting. More worrying is the Issue of Lydia whose excess has begun to draw attention. As Amelia explains, everyone does drugs, it’s fine as long as no one knows, but people were beginning to talk. Then, her last hopes for happiness are shattered as Blake is snapped leaving the party with her sister. A phone-call from Blake the next morning explains the situation, but Sophie has little time to be relieved. Lydia is in trouble, Blake found her five sheets to the wind and whisked her away before tongues began to wag. He forces Sophie to face up to Lydia’s problem and the sisters talk frankly for the first time in years. Her head full of other worries, Sophie is surprised when she is asked to go to Dorset with the cast...to actually accompany Blake, as his assistant. It is obvious to both her and Amelia that the request could only have come from one person.

A long drive north brings them together and feelings are re-kindled as Sophie enjoys Blake’s growing attentions; but he is confusing and indecisive, suspecting that Sophie has fallen for the public image, rather than the real him. He pushed her away, and Sophie- used to being the plain sister - believes herself unworthy, something which isn’t helped by her discovery that it was Lydia and not Blake who requested her presence in Dorset.

The loss of Sophie- the only person in his who does not judge him, and his only link to the real world – effects Blake more than he expected and when he makes his feelings clear, it looks like Sophie can finally be happy, but Lydia has other plans. Her condition deteriorates and she finds herself at the same time reliant on her sister and envious of the attention she receives. Lydia convinces Blake that it would be in Sophie’s best interest to be kept away from the media attention, and agreeing with her, Blake leaves Sophie with little more than a note explaining that he is returning to London, alone.

Heartbroken, Sophie tries to piece her life back together, but when your first love is Blake Edwards, getting away isn’t easy. She takes to her bed, and when Lydia finds her with a handful of their mother’s pills, she finally begins to take responsibility for the situation she has brought about. With Lydia in charge, the mother is sent away to get better and Sophie takes comfort in a world of credit cards and designer dresses, but Lydia continues to party and rumours of her breakdown finally begin to affect her career.

The Phantom Prince is premiering in the West End and Lydia asks her sister to go as her date. She is  confident that the new designer- clad Sophie is over Blake and sees no threat in the meeting, but she has underestimated the connection. Blake’s  is confused when he sees Sophie in front of the cameras, he confronts her and she learns of Lydia’s part in the break-up.  The lovers make a run for it, leaving the celebrity circus behind. Their exit down the red carpet is captured by a shower of flashing lights and no one notices that Lydia has stumbled out of the screening, determined to find her sister and explain. She finds a row of parked black cars, waiting to take the guests to the after-party. One of the cars is empty, keys still in the ignition and Lydia falls behind the wheel ; drunk. When Blake’s Porsche pulls up outside the Heaton house, Sophie immediately knows something is wrong, there isn’t usually that much traffic, and the police cars could mean anything, but she knows before she sees the wreck , that her sister is inside.

It has been almost a year since the accident. Sophie has moved to California with her mother to start a degree at UCLA. She hasn’t seen Blake since that night, well, aside from on TV. Sophie understands- she told him she needed to be alone and she thought he seemed relieved; being associated with the accident could bring negative PR. She’d caused him enough trouble. Amelia comes to visit, and Sophie arrives at the restaurant excited to see her friend. What she wasn’t expecting was Blake to be there too, his feelings for her, unchanged.  Sophie and Blake decides to give it another go, a new start in a new city, but being on the arm of the hottest actor in town will undoubtedly bring new problems.

Over to you - be kind! I hope to comment myself soon, but, as some of you know from Twitter, the mother of all house moves has begun...

OUTLINE and SYNOPSIS

A request to blog about outlines and another to blog about synopses makes it sensible to do both at the same time. Authors are often frightened about both. Bite the bullet, folks, and do it, OK?

(Erm, I have just read this post of mine from a year ago, in which I professed to be terrified of synopses. Silly me. Maybe I've learnt a lot the last year. Maybe practice makes almost perfect, or at least better, or at least less scary?)

What's the difference between an outline and a synopsis?

An outline is a detailed ...er...outline of everything that happens in your book, including sub-plots and minor characters. The purpose of the outline is to ensure that the plot all hangs together.

A synopsis is much shorter (and harder to write); it shows perfectly what the book is like and what it's about, without the need for chronological outlining. A synopsis omits sub-plots and minor characters. It tells us who the MC(s) is/are and their motivations, sets up the conflict, setting, theme, voice and denouement. The purpose of the synopsis is to sell the book and the idea, and give the agent or editor a very clear idea as to what this book is like. It must be brilliantly crafted and the more time you spend on it, the better.

When might you need them?

You are highly unlikely to need to show an outline to anyone in order to sell your book. The person who most needs an outline is ...you. Well, in my case at least, as my memory is shocking and I can't possibly remember what happens in my own books. It helps clarify the time-line, too.

You are highly likely to need a synopsis in order to sell your book. It will usually go with the covering letter and sample chapters. Even published authors are likely to need to write synopses for their editors before their editors can wave a contract under their faces.

Why do authors hate writing them?

Writing an outline is boring because you have to put so much in. Writing a synopsis is painful because you have to leave so much out. Both usually fail to convey what you really want to tell the world about your book.

So, the answer to the question, "How do I do an outline?" is: you just say what happens, in what order, giving the POV. Just lay it out as clearly as possible and be as brief as you can while fitting everything in.

And the answer to the question, "How do I do a synopsis?" is only a bit more complicated.

Top tips for synopses

• Keep it brief. How brief? Different people will give you different rules, for one good reason: there is no single rule. If you want a rule: keep within two sides of A4, though you'll get agents / editors who don't mind if it's a bit longer. One side is likely to be preferable to two - ie, generally, the shorter the better. I have heard it said that single-spacing is fine - fine, whatever. I care not whether it is single-spaced or triple, as long as it's clear. If I was an agent I'd probably prefer double. But then, "Mine's a double" kind of rolls off my tongue. Honestly, spacing in synopses doesn't require a firm rule.
• Make sure you say what genre it is, and what length. Mention the setting. We need to know.
• Always make it 3rd person (but say if it's written in 1st).
• Present usually works best for a synopsis.
• Say what happens in the end.
• Omit minor characters and sub-plots.
• Don't include unanswered questions, such as, "Will Jeff save the world?"
• Don't tell the reader how exciting / brilliant the story is.
• Make the writing tight - you are a writer and everything you write should be up to standard.

Other than that, you can make your own decisions about the form of your synopsis. For example, one that I've just written begins with what could be the "blurb" on the back cover, then has a paragraph on each of the two main characters and what they are about - because it is their actions which form the narrative and so their provenance and motivations are crucial. Then I briefly outline the main parts of the story, making it sound like a rounded whole. (I hope!)

Not easy to write, and therefore something that we shy away from, but writing a synopsis at any stage (before or after writing the book) can be a very useful and focusing act.

Edited to add two tips from blog readers - 
Emma Darwin says: "The best tip I've ever had for writing synopses is to write it in a single sentence: your hook, if you like. Then expand that to a paragraph. Then finally expand that to a full page. That way, instead of agonising over what to leave out and feeling the book looks limp and lifeless as a result, you're starting with the core conflict, and only adding what fleshes it out most effectively."

And Gemma Noon: "Extra bit of advice, though: get someone to read through your synopsis who hasn't got a blind clue what your book is about - you've never discussed it, they've never beta read it, never seen a draft if possible. It is ridiculuously easy to leave out crucial info in a synopsis because you know the info backwards; an editor / agent doesn't."

No excuses now: just do it!

FROM PITCH TO PUBLICATION by Carole Blake

I know I seem to be here but I am in fact away. I am in London researching a novel. This involves pacing around and absorbing the smells and the feel of the air on my skin. In my novel, I am unlikely to tell you the smells and the feel of the air on my skin but I need to know them. Ideas will come, characters will begin to speak, the story will grow legs. Well, that's the plan. Either that or I'll end up having coffee with friends and shopping in Liberty's. 

Meanwhile, I have a present for you if you have a UK address or would like to nominate a UK resident to receive it instead of you. I will send a copy of Carole Blake's book, From Pitch to Publication: Everything You Need to Know to Get Your Novel Published, to a randomly chosen person out of those who comment below. [Unless your comment is rude, in which case you will be disqualified.]

Carole Blake, of course, is a leading literary agent, director of the Blake Friedmann agency, a very good person to have as your agent (no, she's not mine, in case you're wondering, but then I'm lucky enough to have another very good person as my agent) and a very bad person to sent a dud submission to or to pester inappropriately by waving an MS in front of her face. She wears great shoes. The only thing I can find to condemn in her is that she doesn't like chocolate much. This is a bit weird, but her book is excellent despite her having written it without the aid of our friendly cocoa bean.

If you are not lucky enough to win one, I suggest you buy it. Not only does it cover all the practicalities of preparing and sending your submission, and dealing with rejection and acceptance, but it also gives you a great insight into how and why agents and publishers think the way they do. It's also a fantastic way of learning all the business aspects of publishing. The description of what happens during a book auction is fascinating - and will, in one fell chapter, stop you wondering exactly how agents help authors in ways in which most of us simply cannot help ourselves. Carole's agency, [at the time of her writing the book], deals with commercial fiction and she gives great insights into what makes a book sell. Too many authors assume a book will sell just because they think it's brilliant; too few actually go to the trouble of working out why anyone would want it to be one of the books they might choose to read that year, out of all the thousands and thousands to choose from. From Pitch to Publication will get you thinking about this. And no, I haven't been sent a free copy, in case you're wondering. I have my very own, bought with my very own pennies, and I will buy another for the lucky winner  -  you wouldn't want mine as it's all thumbed and has a few flakes of chocolate on page 84.

This book is, of course, not to be confused with Pen2Publication, which is a completely different kettle of trout. Luckily, Carole's book and my consultancy are not in competition, otherwise we could have seen stilettos at dawn. I would have won, naturally, because she's a softie and I'm crabbit.

Go comment. I'll be back to check that you've been suitably sycophantic, because there's really no such thing as randomness, according to mathematicians. They'd better be right, because I've just written a book about it...

______________________________________

WHO'D BE A (SMALL) PUBLISHER?

One of the most ignorant and annoying things that a frustrated unpublished author can say to excuse constant rejection is, "Kuh, publishers  -  they're only in it for the money, of course." What? So you thought they were in it for a free passage to heaven?

Publishing is a business. So is writing, though a weirdly unprofitable one. Yes, many of us are passionate about writing, so passionate that we do it for peanuts; and many publishers are passionate about publishing good books. But tell me why a publisher should deliberately pay to serve your passion?

Anyway. That's quite enough crabbit for one day because I would now like to introduce you to a woman who is passionate about publishing but who is learning just how difficult it is to survive in it, let alone become rich on it.

Her name is Lynn Michell and she is the woman behind one-woman band, The Linen Press. (Oh, for goodness' sake  -  I've just realised why Linen...) I'd like you to listen to her and then tell me that publishers are only in it for the money. The Linen Press has been running for two years and has published four books. I am not giving you Amazon links, though that would earn me some pennies  -  I'm just showing you the covers and if you'd like to buy one, or find out more, you could (I suggest) do so on the sales page of The Linen Press:

Right, let's talk to Lynn. (And do ask her questions or make comments afterwards.)

Me: How and why did you do this crazy thing called publishing  -  and on your own?

I had run writing groups for many years and had often mulled over the possibility of helping women writers reach a wider audience. The final push came when 92 year old Marjorie Wilson, wearing pink and purple and with three pairs of glasses round her neck, joined our group and I discovered a rare, lyrical voice.  Her memoir of Edinburgh at the turn of the century had to be published. I set up The Linen Press and Childhood’s Hill was its first publication.

Me: I wouldn't know where to start. How did you know or how did you learn?

It has been a huge learning curve for me.  I naively thought publishing was about reading manuscripts and choosing beautifully crafted, thought-provoking books which would sell themselves.  My role model is The Women’s Press.  Remember those striped spines that used to have a stand of their own along with Virago?  As a new writer I worked with Kathy Gale, then MD, for seven years. She always called manuscripts ‘projects’ because she worked painstakingly with her authors until she was satisfied. That is how I work.  I take on a manuscript that shows promise but requires a lot more editing and re-drafting than any big publisher would offer. But the book world has changed and now I dare not take on a writer unless her book has a strong selling hook and unless she can help with the publicity and sales. Stephanie Taylor, author of The Devil The Device and Me, is currently giving readings, talks, and approaching shops so it’s very much a joint effort between publisher and writer.

Me: What about the money side? People seem to think that publishers roll away with loads of profit. Can you spill the beans??

The financial challenge for a small publisher is formidable.  Let me give you some figures:

 - One book costs £4 to produce because I do small runs of 1000. I refuse to compromise on quality and I use environmentally friendly paper and ink.

 - I charge £10 a copy

 - Amazon takes 60% and I pay £1.75 to replace the book. If you do the sums, that's £6 for Amazon, plus £1.75 p&p, and the £4 production costs, so I am actually paying Amazon £1.75 for every book they sell. If readers ordered from my website I would make £6. [Good God  -  sorry, I can't help interrupting. That's horrible.]

- The big book stores charge me 50% mark up get a book onto one of those tables where people stop and browse. If I sell a copy, I make £1.

Me: if you're passionate about publishing, and you're certainly not going to get rich on it, you must have clear ideas about how to direct that passion. How do you decide what to publish?

Because we are the newest, smallest publisher on the block, I rely on my slush pile. So how do I pick the ones to read? First, despite the clear guidelines on my website, I get submissions from men, and children’s stories and chick lit and other stuff I say I do not publish. Second, I can usually tell from the introductory letter whether the accompanying chapters are worth reading. Third, I want a synopsis - not the plot chapter by chapter - but a synopsis, and if a writer does not know what a synopsis is then she too gets passed over. I am looking for writing which makes me think: ‘Ah I’m in good hands here. This person knows her craft.’

And when I get a professional letter, a good synopsis and some engrossing, beautifully written chapters I am fired with enthusiasm.  That excitement never goes away. I love the working bond that develops between myself and my writer.  I am personally involved at every stage of the production and am as proud as the author when I hold it the book my hands. The Linen Press has integrity and passion.  I hope we survive.

I am quite humbled by that, to be honest. It would be so much easier, wouldn't it, to focus on big-selling stuff, commercial books, the ones that tick all the boxes for flying off the shelves? But just as we don't all write those "commercially sensible" books, not all publishers publish them either. So, for all our sakes, and the sake of the future range of literature, we should support these small presses and spare a thought for the struggling publisher as well as the struggling writer.

Now, some of you will be thinking, "Struggling writer or struggling publisher: stop being so foolish and go and earn some real money! After all, no one's forcing you to do this." Well, then where would we all be? Getting Katie Price in our Christmas stockings, that's what. Euuwwww.

I am currently torn between buying Stephanie Taylor's book on The Linen Press website (because more money will go to author and publisher) and buying it from Waterstone's, (because then Waterstone's will be more likely to re-order it and notice it.) No, I'm not torn. Not at all. 

Do check out Stephanie's website. And the domain name that I want to kill her for.

I should declare a semi-interest here. I met Stephanie, Lynn's newest author, some months ago, though I had no idea she was published by Lynn who would later contact me through my blog. Stephanie is delightful and her book LOOKS stunning. I want it. And I am going to insist that neither Lynn nor Stephanie sends me a free copy, because the absolute least I can do is buy it.

Do you have any questions or comments for Lynn? I know she'll be happy to answer them. And I could very easily get Stephanie to drop by, too.

Good luck to both of them and very good luck to The Linen Press.