How this for a log-line/synopsis?

[myrtle]

Karen-

Seems you've been casting pearls before swine frequently as of late. That's a sad thing because your critiques are consistently fair, insightful and comprehensive. I know how much thought and time goes into a good critique and I appreciate the second-hand knowledge I've gained from reading your critiques of other's work. Thanks.

-myrtle

[Karen Dionne]

Thank you, Myrtle. I appreciate your perspective. I do feel as though I and the others who offered Grant suggestions here and over on the Unpublished board have been trampled on. It isn't that I expect anything in return for a critique. I realize I'm making a choice when I offer one; no one's twisting my arm, and what the author does with my suggestions is certainly up to them. Perhaps I'm just being a little naive in expecting people to be upfront and honest in what they ask for, but in my mind, duplicity is such a waste of time.

Nice to know that some of what I wrote was appreciated, though. Thanks for that.

Karen

[Gary Kessler]

Karen: I don't think it's always clear when the duplicity occurs. As I suggested in a general discussion on these critiques in another forum, I think it is far more common than posting under false request that the requestors for critiques believed they had posted highly polished material that was exactly what they claimed it to be (here a synopsis ready to send to an agent) and then just backpeddled later about their original intentions in the thought that this is less embarrassing than to own up to thinking what they posted was the cat's pajamas.

[Jerry Hatchett]

Agree. Nuff said.

[Jerry Hatchett]

Plenty have already explained that this is a blurb, not a synopsis. And definitely not a logline. A logline is usually one or two sentences, twenty to thirty words.

[Elizabeth]

PLEASE don't give up on us - I for one have learned so much from reading your critiques.

[Karen Dionne]

Thanks, Elizabeth -

I won't stop giving critiques now and then as I'm able, and anyway, you must know me well enough by now to realize that when I've got an opinion, it's nearly impossible for me to keep quiet! :-) I'm just a bit peeved at Grant's seemingly cavalier attitude toward the efforts of the members of this board (and toward his writing too, for that matter. He thinks he can "knock off" a publishable novel in a "few weeks?" Sheesh! is all I have to say).

Thanks for the kind words. I thought you made some excellent points in your comments to Grant too. I always look forward to what you have to say.

Karen

[Daphne]

Yes, I was just a little bit put off by the knocking off of 100 pages on Monday part. Okay. I'm being cynical, but c'mon!

Karen, fwiw, every critique you've given on WN has been so insightful and excellent--they're really a joy to read. If Grant is wise, he'll learn the error of his ways and only improve with the help he's received here by you, Elizabeth and others.

Best to all,
Daphne

[Grant Meadows]

Well, here I sit: A size thirteen shoe in a size 9 mouth.
I never intended to mislead any one. I used the wrong heading, so I apologize. I did, though, state that I appreciated the help, and the suggestions.


Believe what you need to "...I think it is far more common than posting under false request that the requestors for critiques believed they had posted highly polished material that was exactly what they claimed it to be..." this is simply not the case.


Also, "...I was just a little bit put off by the knocking off of 100 pages on Monday part..." Well, there again, I never said I did this in a single day. I said "...I simply had an idea on Monday, so I knocked off 100 pages..." This took five days. The idea is what I had on Monday: The following four days were the typing part.


As I stated, I apologize for the mistatement, but that was all it was: a mistatement.

[Karen Dionne]

Grant -

It wasn't only your heading which misled; it was beginning your post with "(This is where the obligatory to's and from's would go. Overlook it.)" which made me and others think this was intended as a query letter. But I appreciate your apology for the misunderstanding, and I think I owe you one as well.

It's true your expressed thought that you can write a book which will be ready for querying in a few weeks in incredibly naive, but my mistake (and I've done this before) was thinking you were as serious about your writing career as I am, and I apologize for making that assumption. I tend to forget that some writers are dabblers, or that some are writing and even querying more or less for fun. Not saying that either is the case with you, since I don't know you personally. I'm just trying to make the point that not every writer has that burning desire and level of commitment to perfecting their work that getting published requires.

And you see, there I go again with yet another assumption: because I'm only considering publication by the major publishers, once again, my viewpoint regarding what consitutes being published is too narrow. I forget that others are perfectly happy to see their work picked up by smaller publishers, or to self-publish.

Obviously, your approach to your writing is your own business. I'm sorry for presuming to make it mine.

Karen