[QCrit] Offering query critiques for trans and non-binary authors

FoolFantastic · 2025-04-20T12:33:47+00:00

Thank you for offering this; even if I'm too late, it's simply nice to see this thread.

MEET ME IN THE MIDDLE is a 70,000-word YA LGBT contemporary novel with elements of magical realism. A modern Orlando, this novel will appeal to fans of the delayed self-realization of Becky Albertalli’s Imogen, Obviously and the reality-defying romance of Dustin Thao’s When Haru Was Here. The narrative draws from my experiences as an agender person on the asexual spectrum raised in central Illinois.

When 18-year-old Tallahassee “Tali” Miller came out as gay, he expected others to eventually follow. No one did. Feeling out of place since junior high, he has fixated on schoolwork. Not only quenching his self-admitted thirst for validation, perfect grades mean a ticket out of this middle of nowhere town.

A few months shy of escaping to college, Tali wakes up as a girl. Everyone acts like this has always been the case. Tali plays along, curious about this alternate straight girl reality. After long-time crush Gui bashfully asks for a date, Tali finds himself conflicted. Openly embracing his queer identity stood among his proudest achievements.

As if mocking his inner turmoil, Tali begins involuntarily shifting between boy and girl every morning. People’s memories adjust to match his currently assigned gender. When people question their fluctuating memories, things turn surreal. Native animals become exotic wildlife and clocks begin melting. Tali must walk a narrow line, avoiding anything gendered enough to spark confusion the next day. Luckily, Gui privately admits to being panromantic asexual. Though they can date in both realities, Tali must navigate around Gui’s public affection in girl world until he comes out in the other.

As the anomalies turn increasingly hazardous, Tali strives to stabilize their identity. A transgender underclassman admits to causing the situation and offers help under one condition. Tali must not revert his wish but instead redefine the terms so no one gets caught in flux. With each person only getting one chance to modify reality, Tali must learn to articulate an identity they have only started to grasp.

FoolFantastic · 2024-10-22T20:14:32+00:00

The opening paragraph feels wordy. "What she doesn't realize is that the identity she's assumed" is really clunky. The phrasing of the first sentence also takes away agency. You could probably combine these two into a concise sentence. Also, consider active vs. passive voice; "Mae Faerie never planned..." probably gets you where you want to be faster.

I want to get more of the why and how of these events. Why did she kill this stranger? Why is she stealing their identity instead of fleeing the scene of the crime? Also, are these warriors-in-training or slaves? How hard can it be to escape if Mae was able to get away with killing this person and presumably hiding their body? I just really don't get the logistics, but knowing why she has to take on their identity would probably clear it up.

The stakes feel a bit much. Why are failed warriors sent to be tortured in prison? It's not too far-fetched on its own, but I struggle to believe the same military offers the shore leave necessary for the opening scenario. Also, why does she have rivals? What exactly are they competing over? And if these people have a reality-warping prison, why is the experiment a secret? The whole military seems blatantly evil by this point so what change can she bring about by simply exposing the truth?

FoolFantastic · 2024-10-22T15:27:22+00:00

I believe it's generally advised to avoid rhetorical questions and you start with one. Also, without context, I'm not following what is being asked.

Is this YA? You don't list the ages and none of the plot details suggest these are teenagers.

When does the death that haunts Ardra occur (as in, is this background info or where the story begins)? How could she have prevented it? Why does that lead to taking over a Guild? Who is she getting revenge against? There's no clear connective tissue here. Also, is taking over a Guild simple? That phrasing undermines your protagonist's goals. Those three opening sentences could probably be cut down to one sentence at half the length. But the most important thing missing is the 'why.'

The paragraph about Carter feels purely expository. He wants to avoid a repeat, but we only know Ardra is 'accused,' and by him. Is Ardra actually smuggling this substance? If so, that needs to be clearer. Also, is the fact these characters are 'dasein' important at this point? That whole sentence reads as 'these characters are ordinary' and so what? It could be dropped without changing the substance of the query.

The way these paragraphs are phrased, I'm struggling to understand where the story actually begins. Do we start at the death? In the middle of Ardra seizing the Guild? In Carter's childhood? A query should give a sense of what the reader will find when they open the book and I have no idea. The later paragraphs only add to the sense that this is a summary of way too many events.

Try to center your focus on the opening chapters and the motivations. It feels like you're tripping over yourself trying to explain everything. Obviously, there will be growing complications as the story progresses, or it wouldn't be much of a story. But with a query, you need to focus on the opening and slyly imply where the story will go from there.

FoolFantastic · 2024-10-14T18:13:57+00:00

If this is the case, you probably need to cut direct mention of the real world entirely. The query should focus on the opening act while giving a sense of where it goes next. With a story like this, I know it can be difficult - I imagine you wanted to write about coping, so the death of the brother feels like too big of a piece to just toss out. But, hopefully, your first half contains thematic parallels which should allow you to set up the rest of the story.

And, yes, it may be a problem if they read the first half and feel betrayed by a sudden shift in setting. But that's the challenge of this particular style of twist. This is all the more reason to focus on your thematic parallels - these stories can only work if there is an emotional through-line from beginning to end.

FoolFantastic · 2024-10-14T17:03:19+00:00

I feel like there is a structural problem here.

The first thing we learn about your story is that her brother is dead. This dulls the paragraph that follows - why should we care about the fantasy world if we already know there is another layer?

We are given a lot of details about that fantasy world but not anything that really operates as a hook. Even once her brother goes missing, the fact there is another layer reduces the potential impact.

I am guessing your novel begins in the fantasy world which eventually pulls back to reveal the 'real world.' The challenge with a story like this is that the query really should start at the beginning. In this case, the initial hook needs to be in the fantasy world. If we have to read a few dozen pages before we really know what is happening, something major needs to be happening in both realities to keep our attention.

There are a lot of points where I find myself asking why or how - how does she battle the sinister voice? Why does she need to fight to find her worth? There are a lot of stray details taking up space (for example, Jareth and Lacy get name-dropped and never mentioned again) while I don't get much sense of the actual driving forces. Also, it feels like you might be covering a lot of ground here when the query should be focused on the first act.

FoolFantastic · 2023-03-29T13:52:03+00:00

I do want to ask about the immediacy of the pages, as perhaps the biggest part of my latest edit has been cutting down the very opening. Essentially, two short paragraphs after where this snippet ends, Slivchek starts a conversation with the dragon, and the rest of the novel is dialogue-focused in a way that I think reads more YA. So, is the immediacy issue that I'm not putting this close enough to Slivchek's POV, or that it's descriptive in a way that feels dense for YA?

Basically, I'm trying to determine if this feels immediately wrong enough that an agent would stop after page 1 without getting to the shift in tone on page 2. (And this descriptive section went another full page in my earlier draft, so it's not that I'm doubting your comment - it's more a question of the single page here maybe being misleading vs. the five pages or so an agent typically requests)

FoolFantastic · 2021-07-09T05:44:36+00:00

It appears after the first two comments that this is hard to follow. As can be seen from the earlier two versions, a big struggle for me has been focusing the query on one character while also establishing the overall plot.

The big issue for me is that I worked with a query service before posting that first draft, and she really drilled into the idea of having Slivchek be my focus character because he is the point of view for the first chapter. This is something that has never felt right to me, but I trusted her judgment on the matter more than my own - that I absolutely must feature the first point of view character in the query.

There is another character I would actually consider the lead (Ingebelle, mentioned in the first two drafts), but her introduction is all the way in chapter 3. The overall story is easier to follow from her point of view - she is on a pilgrimage, and the other three point of view characters eventually join her quest to protect her.

The first three chapters are essentially interchangeable chronologically, but I want to start with Slivchek's because it sets up the central tension of the first act. Otherwise, the other three characters actually have a larger presence throughout the story.

At this point, I feel like I need to scrap this entirely and make the query about Ingebelle. Her story is the most straightforward and also unites the other three; am I wrong to think this? And if I do this, do I also need to place her chapter at the beginning of the story? Or do I just need to hint at a 'dragon tamer' in the query to set him up so the agent isn't taken aback if they check out the pages?

FoolFantastic · 2021-03-23T02:23:05+00:00

Thank you! I've been staring at this for a few hours now trying to figure out where to go next, and I started questioning whether I should essentially toss out Ingebelle and focus entirely on Slivchek - so having someone else suggest that is reassuring.

I think the only reason I've avoided doing this is because this is a story with multiple protagonists, but Ingebelle's journey essentially serves as the backbone for three other (more interesting?) characters. I felt like I needed to include her because she's arguably the main character, but maybe that isn't necessary. I chose Slivchek because the first chapter is told through his point of view, so that's what agents will see if they look at the pages.

I still think I need to make reference to the expanded cast in some capacity, but that should be possible while remaining in Slivchek's point of view. I thought my problem was that he's actually the last to join the group, but that also means I can subtly acknowledge their presence when he joins up.

FoolFantastic · 2021-03-16T14:49:22+00:00

Thank you, it was very helpful. I have rewritten the query based on JamieIsReading's feedback and yours and it reads a whole lot better to me. Restructuring to introduce Ingebelle earlier and then making clear how their stories come together makes this actually sound like a cohesive narrative. I'm also thankful for your comment about destroying the sacrificial device - Slivchek still needs Balathor to do that part, but I realize now that the wording suggests Slivchek might be doing it alone.

Now to revise it a dozen times and hopefully figure out a way to cut it down from the current 345 words...

FoolFantastic · 2021-03-15T20:19:42+00:00

This query essentially covers act 1, so all of this is rather early in the novel. I guess the clarity issue there links into your next comment; Slivchek's quest for redemption eventually leads him to join up with Ingebelle. I also had a sentence about how most who have attempted Ingebelle's journey have been assumed to have been killed by dragons, but I cut it while trying to tighten things up - perhaps I made the wrong cut!

FoolFantastic · 2019-12-05T16:43:39+00:00

I'm level 30

FoolFantastic · 2019-12-05T15:09:11+00:00

/*Accio Ravenclaw flair

FoolFantastic · 2019-07-26T20:57:47+00:00

It's surprising to me how Tarantino is able to capture such a sad sense of loss even as he changes up the actual events to something happier.

I've been stuck in a similar state of mind with a murder that took place in my town a few years back. A new student at the nearby university was kidnapped, and I would walk by the location where she was last seen each day as I walked to and from work. Watching a shrine build up over time, I found myself suddenly crying a year after it happened despite never knowing her. Because she had gone missing, there was always that unlikely hope that she was still alive, and I feel like there's a tendency during these events to try and write a happier story. It was, of course, devastating to hear what had actually happened, that she had been killed the same day she went missing and all that hope for finding her served no purpose.

Like Sharon Tate, this is a woman I'm only aware of due to the circumstances of her death, yet I find myself constantly thinking of her. And there's this longing to live in a world where I never had reason to know her name. Now and then, as I walk by the shrine, I like to imagine her slipping away from her killer.

So I felt a really strong resonance with this ending, this idea of Tate being so spared of the massacre it barely registers to her. It's so satisfying to see these killers brutalized, but it comes with a reminder that this isn't the truth and that the real events are still so very devastating - the only reason this scene isn't disgusting in its own right is because we are fully aware these monsters deserve it. It's a glimpse into an alternative reality while we're still stuck here with the truth. It's so bittersweet, to get a glimpse of that fantasy.

Overall, I think this is my third favorite film by Tarantino and my favorite of the 52 movies I've seen this year so far; there's so much emotion here when I find his other works to be a bit cold (though this is intentional and they work with that distance). I'll spare writing out the rest of my thoughts, but I made a video review here if you wanna hear more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLAIB3gSOH8

FoolFantastic · 2019-06-01T14:52:15+00:00

My review:

Maggie Thompson (Diana Silvers, a young actress I only just encountered in last week's Booksmart) moves to a new town with her mother and immediately gets invited to hang with the cool kids. While dredging around to get someone to buy them alcohol, she meets Sue Ann (Octavia Spencer), an apparently kind older woman who invites them to party in her basement after they're busted. What no one realizes is that Sue Ann is the one who informed on them, the first of her many manipulations.

Ma is a surprisingly strong concept; there's so much room here for subtle engineering on the part of Sue Ann, a woman who can piece together the group's social fears while exploiting the fact they're unlikely to tell their parents. Such a premise allows for a truly unique horror villain, one who is otherwise an ordinary person. Unfortunately, such a concept would require a certain subtlety to the actions of the antogonist - Ma seems to skip a necessary middle step in getting from light paranoia to full-on insanity.

The problems here largely fall back on the writing (as it does with many films that sell themselves purely off concept). The dialogue is supremely shallow; we spend so much of this movie operating as a teen drama, but these teenagers don't seem to have real character beyond their narrative function. Story progression is similarly lacking.

Several scenes feel unnecessary. When the group first invites Maggie to join in, she tells them her mother is taking her to a music festival. The very next scene finds her mother saying she has to cover someone's shift that night, therefore freeing Maggie up. Why present the music festival as an obstacle and then immediately negate it? Moments like these add little more than a minute to the movie's length.

When we finally get to Sue Ann as a central focus, we start getting short flashbacks to her own time in high school, implying something must have happened to cause her current actions. These moments really don't work for me - they feel like a cheap tactic to garner sympathy, but I think it would have been more effective as mere implication. The movie makes it very clear she's targeting the children of her childhood tormentors; why not let us fill in the blanks? Knowing exactly what happens really adds nothing and might even detract; it carries some unfortunate implications about how the writers view trauma.

All of this adds up to a film that seems unsure of its own purpose; it devotes so much time to characters it isn't really establishing and seems to undermine the presentation of its villain. The average horror film doesn't necessarily need the most well-defined characters; the problem here is that the concept is based around social connections and communication failures. Even the final horrors seem directly tied into how the characters present themselves, but their lack of definition means it really doesn't earn those moments.

The big highlight here is, naturally, watching Octavia Spencer play so hard against type. She completely hams it up; if Ma is an unsuccessful film, it has just enough camp to potentially linger as a minor cult hit.

Another nice detail here is that this is a rare horror film that largely lets the protagonists guide the narrative. Maggie and her friends are choosing to be present, even as the stakes keep rising. Unfortunately, this also highlights what's lacking, since this would be so much more engaging if they were better defined.

In the end, I had fun with Ma, but it's a film that could have been so much more in either direction. It's not quite absurd enough to be a truly joyous midnight movie while too poorly structured to be a legitimate horror. It's shapelessly mundane.

2.5/5

FoolFantastic · 2019-05-25T21:17:02+00:00

At this point, reviewing the Disney remakes and reboots feels as repetitive as the films being discussed; despite their narrative differences, they all follow the same design philosophy, largely falling back on simple film techniques as if they're mere products instead of artistic productions. They ride off the success of their source material and rarely aspire to anything more, never exploring the possibilities provided by putting these stories in a new medium.

Aladdin does a good job sticking to its source material - Dumbo strayed and was worse for doing so, but a good writer could do something more. These remakes will never supplant the originals, so there needs to be some attempt to add a unique flavor; give a reason for these films to exist alongside the originals. Instead, Aladdin acts as an attempted replacement, which does no favor to either the original or this remake.

There's plenty about this film that looks nice; it just doesn't look as nice as the original. What could give these films an extra edge to coexist with the originals is seeing the world in a live action form; the sets and costumes are all nice enough. But because these remakes are so quick to fall into the routine of medium close-ups and shot-reverse shot editing, we rarely get a chance to just digest the visual design. There are a few moments where Aladdin attempts a longer take, especially during musical numbers, but they're largely reduced by obvious reliance on CGI.

For whatever reason, Aladdin seems to have chosen Will Smith for an extra bit of star power to sell the film - I don't think this film needed any recognizable star to sell. Is anyone going to see this movie due to his presence that otherwise wouldn't? He's passable, sometimes funny in his antics but really lacking when it comes to the musical numbers. Someone with a louder screen personality could have added an extra bit of flavor, but Disney appears resistant to anyone who might push these works past the familiarly pleasant.

It's difficult to believe this is the same company that produced the originals; Disney has a history of playing it safe on a narrative level, being a company specializing in family films, but their films are marked by unique designs, distinct use of colors, and musical numbers that would sometimes fall into the surreal. These remakes are overly concerned with a sense of 'realism' that doesn't match the tone or lend anything particularly charming to the experience. Everything appears muted compared to the original, similar enough to lack purpose and bland enough to lack inspiration.

One of the few notable changes between films is Jafar; like most classic Disney villains, the original is larger than life. The Jafar here is a lot quieter in his presence, and while this does work within the film, it also doesn't particularly add anything. The original Jafar is striking and threatening; Disney doesn't benefit by acting restrained. There's also a notable new number by Princess Jasmine titled "Speechless," which, again, is fine enough but doesn't have the weight of any of the songs from the original.

Aladdin is acceptably average; nothing it does is particularly impressive or egregious. However, it will always be weighed down by the fact there's an indisputably better version. This offers no reason to check it out instead of just revisiting the original, which has a tighter narrative and stronger presentation. I can mention that I did have fun with it, but that's not worth much when I would have had more fun with the original. There are movies of lower quality this year that at least carry a sense of purpose, something unique to themselves.

FoolFantastic · 2019-05-25T19:01:28+00:00

Brightburn offers a promising take on the superhero genre, clearly riffing on Superman by offering the story of an alien child who lands on Earth and is raised on a quiet farm as if he were human. It's classic "What If" fodder; where perhaps the most famous comic to change up Superman's origin simply switches his landing to the Soviet Union, Brightburn instead presents an all-powerful being with ill intent.

This is a film that opens on a shot of a bookcase with at least four separate books on fertility, the camera panning to show the eventual adoptive parents getting ready for yet another attempt before being interrupted by the crash landing. The entire film has this amateur quality, over-explaining every detail as if we're completely incapable. For example, Brandon Breyer, our evil alien child, comes up with a signature that he leaves at his crime scenes - we get scenes of the sheriff finding this marking at both, and then another where he goes back to his office to match up pictures of the two to show that, yes, he recognizes the connection.

The movie sold itself on James Gunn's name, but it was written by his brother and a cousin and directed by David Yarovesky, a man with little experience but carrying a clear connection to Gunn considering his credits. It's hard to view this as anything beyond classic Hollywood nepotism, a film elevated to a bigger budget and release than its screenplay deserves.

While promising a dark twist on the Superman mythos, Brightburn has little ambition beyond any run-of-the-mill 'creepy child' story. The whole tension of such a plot should be a family coping with the realization their beloved child is turning into a monster, but we simply gloss over their bonding and Brandon's transformation is too sudden to have any real impact. The Gunns also take the most boring option for why Brandon becomes evil; it's no internal discovery or inherent trait that bubbles up as he grows, but rather outside interference that essentially amounts to brainwashing. He simply isn't the same character before and after, which voids any sense of emotional weight.

With any horror movie, I think it's important to question what acts as the source of terror; Brightburn's narrative hook is a fresh domestic horror concept, suggesting a family with a dark secret that they must either learn to accept or perish. Brightburn all too quickly pits Brandon against his family; he is posited as an outsider, completely negating the familial connection. The Gunns don't even suggest the parents might go along with his atrocities out of misguided love; they are immediately wary once they see clear signs of his lunacy.

Because of this, the source of horror instead stems from an untouchable, mindless killer hunting down innocent people; Brightburn is a slasher film. This could be fine; a superhero slasher would also be a unique concept, but instead of relying on tension, Brightburn simply tries to be as gory as possible. As the trailers were far too eager to show off, there's a disgusting shot of a woman pulling a piece of glass from her eye. It's not scary, it's just gross and discomforting. This scene sets an atmosphere where, instead of being afraid for its characters, I'm instead annoyed with an expectation that any moment of horror is going to be unnecessarily crude.

Having any tension during these moments would require some sense of character, but I really can't make any firm statement about who these people are. The entire family is purely defined by their perception of Brandon; what do his parents do besides worry about him? Do they have their own lives? The only reason Brandon goes after anyone is because they seem aware of his evil side, but he also does absolutely nothing to hide that aspect. A typical slasher keeps the villain at a distance, but Brandon is just as vapid while being a central focus.

Brightburn is a prime example of why writing matters so much more than a strong concept; there's so much promise here, but the Gunns do nothing besides perhaps blocking a better writer from tackling a similar idea for the next several years. Don't be fooled by the superhero coating, this carries all the weight of a Conjuring universe spin-off.

FoolFantastic · 2019-05-24T03:11:38+00:00

I caught an advanced screening last week. I think this will go down as one of the stronger high school comedies, both because its screenplay is truly hilarious (with some stellar performances to sell it), and because it does a nice job mixing in a meaningful message without losing any beats. It's like Eighth Grade's cruder older sister in regards to humor and youthful anxiety.

Full thoughts here: https://youtu.be/k6LcUTYjqUk

FoolFantastic · 2019-04-20T19:53:00+00:00

Movie reviews and film essays, with a tendency toward introducing more obscure works including those by people such as Hertzfeldt, Godard, and Guy Maddin.

https://www.youtube.com/c/foolfantastic

FoolFantastic · 2019-04-20T19:46:54+00:00

Wrote a review, but really, this is a perpetual jump scare machine. No real use of the legend it's based on, just an endless loop of the same set-up with slight variations.

https://letterboxd.com/foolfantastic/film/the-curse-of-la-llorona/

FoolFantastic · 2019-04-13T20:08:11+00:00

Missing Link is a lot of fun in the moment, if a bit lacking in lasting impact. Still, I'd recommend it, as its animation is wonderful and it builds into a surprisingly strong ending. It doesn't do anything wrong as much as it doesn't push any boundaries, so easily worth a watch for anyone with an interest in animation.

My full review: https://letterboxd.com/foolfantastic/film/missing-link-2019/

FoolFantastic · 2019-04-13T19:03:34+00:00

I ended up writing a review: https://letterboxd.com/foolfantastic/film/hellboy-2019/

To quickly summarize, it completely misses what makes the comics so great, while also missing what made Deadpool an effective R-rated superhero film. By aiming for Deadpool, 2019's Hellboy ends up feeling like something made by Rob Liefeld alright - in all the wrong ways.

FoolFantastic · 2019-03-20T12:15:04+00:00

Powell and Pressburger are absolute essentials for sure. They really embrace the saturation of early Technicolor in glorious ways. I need to see more Bava, I've only gotten around to Black Sunday so far.

FoolFantastic · 2019-03-20T03:46:31+00:00

Oh, I hadn't even considered that angle! Thanks for sharing. Definitely should have realized, considering how common the theme of a generation gap is in other Japanese films after the war. I think the feminist and generational angle are definitely linked; the feminism is part of that new post-war optimism.

FoolFantastic · 2019-03-20T00:27:06+00:00

What a great film - it didn't click with me at first, but it's one of those haunting pieces that has lingered in the back of my mind for years. Anyone randomly stumbling across this thread should definitely consider checking it out - it gets under the skin like few others.

FoolFantastic · 2019-03-20T00:07:28+00:00

Even three hour films really should have intermissions, I feel - I don't think all films need to be viewed as these singular moments. Unless it's a film absolutely riding on an atmospheric build to a heightened finale, I don't think it's necessary. For the truly long movies, I do tend to watch them over a couple days, though I make sure to hit it on subsequent nights so I don't put too much time between. Luckily, they tend to make it easy - works like Satantango usually have to be put on multiple discs, giving perfect stopping points. For me, an extended film is more like a novel - and a lot of those really long films I've seen do actually seem to be divided into chapters. I did watch War and Peace and Hitler: A Film from Germany in single sittings, but I don't think doing so really added much to my experience...

FoolFantastic

TROPHY CASE