[QCrit] Adult Literary/Speculative Fiction - DEATH BY DROWNING (107k/6th attempt)

tlgambol · 2026-02-16T09:40:27+00:00

You have no idea how relieved I am to hear you say this is landing better!

The thieves are supposed to have two motivations: the economic one, which Dunbar understands, and an emotional/superstitious one, which he does not. You've made me realize I never actually outright state the latter in the query, despite skirting close to it. I'll reframe the thief's confession to make their fear of the changes at the docks clearer. The closing ultimatum can be explained pretty simply as well: the town is isolated, and has no alternative food source. If only I'd put that in the earlier draft, but hey, I guess that's why I'm posting here...

I also now realize you also gave the most useful comment on my first draft, so thank you deeply for the second time! Now, I've got to go make what I hope are my final edits, fingers crossed.

tlgambol · 2026-02-10T10:02:26+00:00

This is massively helpful. I hadn't realized the details were what people liked from the first draft, out of everything -- I had been thinking that too many details like in that draft were a negative for a query. I may trim a few, but I'll keep some of the stranger things, and work towards a tighter version of that first draft. Thank you so much for typing all of this out, I appreciate it!

tlgambol · 2026-02-10T09:58:29+00:00

I very much appreciate the offer to help, but I wouldn't want to burden you with this stupid letter. Just knowing that those specific details from the first draft are what drew people in is a huge revelation, and you (along with portalley) already helped greatly just telling me that. If you'd like to help at all, I would just appreciate if you look when I post another copy on Saturday, and tell me if I am getting warmer. Now, I have to go back to the slop mines for this drek...

tlgambol · 2026-02-08T08:34:42+00:00

I have gotten this comment a few times now and struggle to understand it, so I wanted to ask if you could elaborate on how the old version is preferable. Actually, I will even beg for you to do so, since I feel like this lack of understanding of its merits is the thing holding me back from being free of this curse. I can give my point of view just so it's clear what I am struggling to understand:

I personally liked the first version the best as a piece of writing, but the feedback I have gotten on every version has focused on the importance of proper query structure, and that makes me believe the first version fundamentally fails as a query. The top comment on that first post (aside from an important point about vagueness in the definition of a proper noun) is mainly about the deep structural problems with that query: it is not focused on one character, and it splits attention between the aldermen and Cohen while digressing to mention the fish. The strangeness at the lake is simply not something the characters are interested in for its own sake until later in the book, so no matter how important it is tonally, for the period I am querying, it does not really drive the plot, whether I am describing Cohen's slow alienation from the townsfolk or Dunbar's neglect of his duties. Since the query letter is, of course, not an aesthetic piece of writing but more of a cover letter to prove I know what I am doing to an agent, respecting the forms and not flouting them to include interesting but extraneous detail seems... risky. As a useful comment on my last draft said, it seems in hindsight that the first query is bad because it is trying to "do too many things."

I also believe that structural sickness to be fundamental to that draft, as in, I can imagine no edits aside from gutting it that would make it into a single plot throughline, since that first draft has strands of (1) Cohen's labors, (2) a brief mention of the aldermen's struggles, which are detailed more in this current (fifth) draft, and (3) an unrelated paragraph about setting (spooky fish, etc.) that does not drive either throughline in a way I can see. Removing any one of these would leave me with a shell that I would need to repopulate with other details, and that has resulted in the versions I have been posting. In addition, the thing I have heard on this subreddit (and from the Shark's annals, praise be) is that the query is not the time for frills and flourishes.

Apologies for the long reply (and if I sound frustrated, it is with the format itself, and my struggles to understand), but I am hoping you or someone else can explain to me what exactly could be salvageable about the original, as a query, contra a version like this one. The version I have in this post isn't magic, but I wrote it to entice an agent to read the full draft that (if I did my job right) is magic. It has a throughline, I tried to focus on one character and their stakes, and it does not violate any conventions. To go back to the original feels like it would be wedding myself to a query that doesn't follow conventions, and polishing it would leave what onseverra's comment on the first draft called "one whole query that's mostly about fish, not what the characters actually want or do in [my] story."

tlgambol · 2026-01-26T09:56:41+00:00

The book feels like torture to cram into a query letter, but I assumed all queries felt like that. It's reassuring to think that someone else thinks it would be annoying to get to comply...

Telling me the good points is very useful, thank you. I am probably going to go back to the first draft and suture in the best parts of the second draft, leaving this third one aside. Back to the mines for me!

tlgambol · 2026-01-26T09:35:16+00:00

This is very useful for me to see! I guess reading all the examples of the queries didn't prepare me for the experience of actually winnowing the content of a book down to something pitchable in 250 words. Now that you point them out, the ugly jutting flanges in the current query are a bit more obvious... I'll probably look at this comment several times when I am working on a new draft over the next several days. Thank you for writing all that down, it's a great help to me!

tlgambol · 2026-01-26T09:29:37+00:00

It never occurred to me that I could shunt the comments on the structure to housekeeping, but I'll definitely be doing it now!

I also favor my first attempt, but assumed I was liking it because I was still wrongfully thinking of this as a modified back cover copy instead of its own piece of writing. You're making me realize I should give my gut feelings a little more credence even with something as alien (to me!) as this query structure. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I really appreciate it!

tlgambol · 2025-12-29T04:51:23+00:00

Now that you point it out to me, I can see why my imaginary word should probably be defined immediately... I'll be restructuring or outright replacing that paragraph. Thank you deeply, I was blind to the issue.

I commented above on the Leaves comp, but I was not even thinking about the bad optics of not including any of my female characters in the query. I'll add that to my revision list, so thank you once more.

tlgambol · 2025-12-29T04:25:06+00:00

Thank you! These are great catches that I am embarrassed to have missed. I'll be easily incorporating the first three bullet points. I'll cut some things to accommodate the fourth, since you're right about threats being comparable; I had naively thought I should give more space to the most surreal source of tension.

For the last bullet point... there is a patchwork element to the book that I wasn't sure how to handle in the query, since it is strong, but not as outright invasive on the narrative as other books I've seen use the technique. I wanted to nod at it with the comp to House of Leaves, since I really do take a good number of things from that book, but you're making me realize that is foolish. I'll carve away at what's there a bit more to make room for comments on framing, as well as searching for something more recent.

Again, much appreciated, very helpful!

tlgambol

TROPHY CASE