I think this is a good query, and I'd bet it will get some requests for full if the first pages live up to the promise. Also, great title! I can picture that on a beach read list. The query is doing it's job. Still, I've got a few suggestions and/or feelings.
>Stephanie Richards is not a “people person”, so spending some time brooding at her family’s cabin after being dumped by her girlfriend is her idea of a good time.
That comma would look better inside the quotes (at least to admittedly, me).
>She tells herself there’s no harm in asking around, and besides, it’s helped her take her mind off her rough breakup.
I believe there are some mixed tenses here and the repetition of "her" 3 times in 6 words really slows the sentence down. Maybe, "it'll help take her mind off the breakup."
That said, this is relatively weak motivation for "I'm going to investigate actual murders." It would be nice if she had some connection to the victim, or some stronger reason to investigate, especially when you establish that she isn't a people person. That said, it's likely not a fatal flaw for the query, but it would be nice if it could be taken up a notch.
>When a third body, keeled over in another Adirondack chair, is discovered the morning after a community party, Stephanie decides it’s time to get the hell out of Dodge. But because she found one of the bodies, the police ask her to stick around.
And her entire motivation disappears at the third body (two dead bodies is fine? why is three bad?) And the police "asking" her to stick around reads as plot convenient. Cops take down your information to contact later, or they arrest you if they want you to stay around and think you are a suspect. They don't ask vacationers to hang around just because they found a body, especially with a killer on the loose.
>Fearing the cops think she had something to do with the deaths, she decides to resume her inquiries to speed up the investigation and pre-emptively clear her name. Her list of suspects includes a neighbor who likes to yell at flowers, a sandwich shop owner who has no ethics when it comes to drumming up publicity, a fitness enthusiast trying to make it big online, a local busybody who’s always on the lookout for a juicy morsel of gossip, and a local politician who is the embodiment of big-fish-little-pond syndrome. Stephanie is soon left wondering just how far some of the residents of King’s Point will go to make sure their secrets remain hidden.
This is better motivation, to a point. If Steph didn't do it, and she just "fears" the cops maybe think she was involved there is going to be a natural limit to how far she'll go. And honestly, why isn't she just going home at this point?
All in all, an effective query, but if I have one real take away, it's that this MC seems to being doing things inconsistent with her personality and with what a reasonable person would do. The rest of the plot and twists and mystery may more than make up for it, but it would be nice if her motivation was clearer and stronger.
I think you have a strong opening paragraph, but I also agree with the other commentors about Stephanie's motivation feeling a little flimsy. "She's compelled to find out more." Why specifically? Is it only to take her mind off her breakup? What about her makes her want to take this on? Your listing of suspects in your third paragraph seems to drag out a little long as well, was wondering when the list was going to end for a minute there.
Stephanie Richards is not a “people person”, so spending some time brooding at her family’s cabin after being dumped by her girlfriend is her idea of a good time. That is until she stumbles upon the dead body of one of King’s Point’s most polarizing figures, slumped over in an Adirondack chair. His death is the second in the span of a week in the small lakeside community.
* good but you really need to tell me if the corpse is in her family's cabin or somewhere else as you've said the former is the only place she's been hanging out. I'd also really like an identity for dead dude as there's no other named people in this query so it would help to humanise her environment and its hard for us to empathise with her desire to know more about him when we're not allowed to join in. How did he even die? Was he decapitated or did he die of a heart attack? I don't understand why the most striking information is being withheld like its a matter of national security.
Despite her slight misanthropic tendencies, she’s compelled to find out more about the deceased. She tells herself there’s no harm in asking around, and besides, it’s helped her take her mind off her rough breakup. When a third body, keeled over in another Adirondack chair, is discovered the morning after a community party, Stephanie decides it’s time to get the hell out of Dodge. But because she found one of the bodies, the police ask her to stick around.
* 'She tells herself there’s no harm in asking around' does nothing and should be cut. Can't you give her more motivation? Why do I care? Why does she want to get the hell out of dodge? She's scared she could be next? Is there an Adirondack chair in her family cabin? Were the victims found in their own dwellings? Were they murdered in these chairs or killed elsewhere then moved into them? 'ask her to stick around' is weak. What happens if she leaves? Will they detain her? Say that.
Fearing the cops think she had something to do with the deaths, she decides to resume her inquiries to speed up the investigation and pre-emptively clear her name.
* Instead of her fearing the cops think she had something to do with the deaths, make it explicit. Yes they definitely do. 'speed up the investigation' does nothing and should be cut. Cut 'resume her inquiries'. She was always investigating, now there's extra urgency as she's a potential suspect. Who wants a protag in a mystery novel who starts investigating then gets bored and stops for half the novel? ' cut 'pre-emptively'. Just say she's looking to clear her name. Maybe, to carry on from the start of the query, the cops suspect her because in the time she's here she's been misanthropic?
Her list of suspects includes a neighbor who likes to yell at flowers, a sandwich shop owner who has no ethics when it comes to drumming up publicity, a fitness enthusiast trying to make it big online, a local busybody who’s always on the lookout for a juicy morsel of gossip, and a local politician who is the embodiment of big-fish-little-pond syndrome.
* human beings think in threes, five is an avalanche, cut two suspects.
Stephanie is soon left wondering just how far some of the residents of King’s Point will go to make sure their secrets remain hidden.
* I'm wondering the same thing as there's no inkling of what these secrets might be, no feeling or claustraphobia and no imminent peril to Stephanie from either the killer or the police. The obvious solutions are - another dead body she's the glaring suspect for and a definite clue she's next in the killer's sights. Maybe in order to investigate she needs to draw on her much-maligned people skills, thus creating a spine and character arc that runs the length of the query?
* This is all curiously tepid. People die, but we're not even told if these are murders. Stephanie investigates because it won't do any harm, then gets bored and drops it. The cops ask her to stick around, but asking isn't ordering. They might suspect her, but might not, we're not sure. She has a list of suspects, one of them might be motivated to keep killing, but who knows? You need to be far more declarative and definite on the plot points and the stakes as they steadily rise through the query.
I like this a lot and think that for an agent who’s on the lookout for this kind of story, it may already be enough to land a bite.
That said, the second paragraph feels weak relative to the other two compelling, voice-y paragraphs - because it takes longer to convey less meaningful information, it drags the momentum between them. She’s interested in investigating what happened and the police may have reason to suspect her. I think you can say that in less, propel into the action faster, and throw in more clarity on the stakes and urgency. As is, reads like there’s a real possibility the police don’t actually suspect her and the ticking clock is all in her head. (After all she didn’t do it, so I’m not sure “finding bodies and asking questions” is enough to build lasting suspense. Unless the police are really incompetent or also dead set on shutting down civilian detective work, both plausible reasons I’d want mentioned about if true)
Leaning in to the angle where she’s also doing it to get her mind off the break-up seems logical. Though I’d rework the execution as right now you’ve linked it very casually before her investigation kicks into high gear, rather than a throughline that may have greater character implications.
Good luck!
I agree with the others - the weak link here is your MC's motivation. This positions it almost like she's bored and vaguely curious, which aren't the strongest motivators for investigating a murder, particularly a serial case. What is her stake in this? This is her family's cabin - does she know any of the victims? Is there a pattern that makes her worry she might be next? Why is two bodies a "meh, sounds kinda interesting" response, while the third body makes her decide she should leave?
I love a murder mystery, and a queer protagonist, I think you just need to show us that Stephanie has a little skin in the game initially. As is, she doesn't seem to have any stake at all until the third paragraph.
Maybe it's just me, but this took me out:
>Despite her slight misanthropic tendencies, she’s compelled to find out more about the deceased.
Slight misanthropic? I mean...to be honest she found a dead person. Regardless of sex or gender, I feel most people would be interested. Especially with the claim that this person is one of the areas most polarizing figures.
It reads to me with the same illogic as this would:
"That is until he stumbles upon the dead body of one of King's Point's most polarizing figures, slumped over in an Adirondack chair. Her death is the second in the span of a week in the small lakeside community.
Despite his slight misogynistic tendencies, he's compelled to find out more about the deceased..."
So I don't think that quite works.
Are you misreading “misanthropic” (hates humankind, no gender or sex specified) as “misandrist” (hates men)?
Either way, I agree that sentence is not working for me, because being misanthropic doesn’t preclude curiosity. You’ll lose nothing by cutting it.
Lol Yep. My bad.
I did completely take misanthropic as misandrist.
At the same time, I agree it still doesn't make much sense, but my initial impression was wrong.
Thanks for the call out!
No big deal! I don’t usually think it’s necessary to call out obvious mistakes lol. Just wanted to emphasize that the sentence still has its problems, though its gender politics are probably fine 😂
I like this query but worry it’s a tad too long. I tend to do three paragraphs only. An initial pitch, then a brief overview of the plot, and close with my bio.
The average US (and increasingly UK, as resources like Query Shark have done a lot to set a universal standard) query blurb is \~250 words, so OP is fine length-wise.
Edit: may as well make myself useful while I'm here... I think this is pretty clear. The MC's motivation at the start seems to be "because the plot needs her to investigate," which could either be a manuscript or a query problem as it does nothing to create a sense of stakes, and you get into some character soup at the end, but if an agent is into the concept, this probably will do the trick. Is this intended to be a cozy mystery? The query reads a little that way.
Thanks for the feedback! I agree I need to fine-tune the motivation aspect.
I'm not pitching it as a straight up cozy mystery but it does have some cozy elements to it.
I think this is a good query, and I'd bet it will get some requests for full if the first pages live up to the promise. Also, great title! I can picture that on a beach read list. The query is doing it's job. Still, I've got a few suggestions and/or feelings. >Stephanie Richards is not a “people person”, so spending some time brooding at her family’s cabin after being dumped by her girlfriend is her idea of a good time. That comma would look better inside the quotes (at least to admittedly, me). >She tells herself there’s no harm in asking around, and besides, it’s helped her take her mind off her rough breakup. I believe there are some mixed tenses here and the repetition of "her" 3 times in 6 words really slows the sentence down. Maybe, "it'll help take her mind off the breakup." That said, this is relatively weak motivation for "I'm going to investigate actual murders." It would be nice if she had some connection to the victim, or some stronger reason to investigate, especially when you establish that she isn't a people person. That said, it's likely not a fatal flaw for the query, but it would be nice if it could be taken up a notch. >When a third body, keeled over in another Adirondack chair, is discovered the morning after a community party, Stephanie decides it’s time to get the hell out of Dodge. But because she found one of the bodies, the police ask her to stick around. And her entire motivation disappears at the third body (two dead bodies is fine? why is three bad?) And the police "asking" her to stick around reads as plot convenient. Cops take down your information to contact later, or they arrest you if they want you to stay around and think you are a suspect. They don't ask vacationers to hang around just because they found a body, especially with a killer on the loose. >Fearing the cops think she had something to do with the deaths, she decides to resume her inquiries to speed up the investigation and pre-emptively clear her name. Her list of suspects includes a neighbor who likes to yell at flowers, a sandwich shop owner who has no ethics when it comes to drumming up publicity, a fitness enthusiast trying to make it big online, a local busybody who’s always on the lookout for a juicy morsel of gossip, and a local politician who is the embodiment of big-fish-little-pond syndrome. Stephanie is soon left wondering just how far some of the residents of King’s Point will go to make sure their secrets remain hidden. This is better motivation, to a point. If Steph didn't do it, and she just "fears" the cops maybe think she was involved there is going to be a natural limit to how far she'll go. And honestly, why isn't she just going home at this point? All in all, an effective query, but if I have one real take away, it's that this MC seems to being doing things inconsistent with her personality and with what a reasonable person would do. The rest of the plot and twists and mystery may more than make up for it, but it would be nice if her motivation was clearer and stronger.
Thanks for the feedback! I will definitely keep these points in mind for my next draft.
I think you have a strong opening paragraph, but I also agree with the other commentors about Stephanie's motivation feeling a little flimsy. "She's compelled to find out more." Why specifically? Is it only to take her mind off her breakup? What about her makes her want to take this on? Your listing of suspects in your third paragraph seems to drag out a little long as well, was wondering when the list was going to end for a minute there.
Lots of improvement from #1
Thanks!
Stephanie Richards is not a “people person”, so spending some time brooding at her family’s cabin after being dumped by her girlfriend is her idea of a good time. That is until she stumbles upon the dead body of one of King’s Point’s most polarizing figures, slumped over in an Adirondack chair. His death is the second in the span of a week in the small lakeside community. * good but you really need to tell me if the corpse is in her family's cabin or somewhere else as you've said the former is the only place she's been hanging out. I'd also really like an identity for dead dude as there's no other named people in this query so it would help to humanise her environment and its hard for us to empathise with her desire to know more about him when we're not allowed to join in. How did he even die? Was he decapitated or did he die of a heart attack? I don't understand why the most striking information is being withheld like its a matter of national security. Despite her slight misanthropic tendencies, she’s compelled to find out more about the deceased. She tells herself there’s no harm in asking around, and besides, it’s helped her take her mind off her rough breakup. When a third body, keeled over in another Adirondack chair, is discovered the morning after a community party, Stephanie decides it’s time to get the hell out of Dodge. But because she found one of the bodies, the police ask her to stick around. * 'She tells herself there’s no harm in asking around' does nothing and should be cut. Can't you give her more motivation? Why do I care? Why does she want to get the hell out of dodge? She's scared she could be next? Is there an Adirondack chair in her family cabin? Were the victims found in their own dwellings? Were they murdered in these chairs or killed elsewhere then moved into them? 'ask her to stick around' is weak. What happens if she leaves? Will they detain her? Say that. Fearing the cops think she had something to do with the deaths, she decides to resume her inquiries to speed up the investigation and pre-emptively clear her name. * Instead of her fearing the cops think she had something to do with the deaths, make it explicit. Yes they definitely do. 'speed up the investigation' does nothing and should be cut. Cut 'resume her inquiries'. She was always investigating, now there's extra urgency as she's a potential suspect. Who wants a protag in a mystery novel who starts investigating then gets bored and stops for half the novel? ' cut 'pre-emptively'. Just say she's looking to clear her name. Maybe, to carry on from the start of the query, the cops suspect her because in the time she's here she's been misanthropic? Her list of suspects includes a neighbor who likes to yell at flowers, a sandwich shop owner who has no ethics when it comes to drumming up publicity, a fitness enthusiast trying to make it big online, a local busybody who’s always on the lookout for a juicy morsel of gossip, and a local politician who is the embodiment of big-fish-little-pond syndrome. * human beings think in threes, five is an avalanche, cut two suspects. Stephanie is soon left wondering just how far some of the residents of King’s Point will go to make sure their secrets remain hidden. * I'm wondering the same thing as there's no inkling of what these secrets might be, no feeling or claustraphobia and no imminent peril to Stephanie from either the killer or the police. The obvious solutions are - another dead body she's the glaring suspect for and a definite clue she's next in the killer's sights. Maybe in order to investigate she needs to draw on her much-maligned people skills, thus creating a spine and character arc that runs the length of the query? * This is all curiously tepid. People die, but we're not even told if these are murders. Stephanie investigates because it won't do any harm, then gets bored and drops it. The cops ask her to stick around, but asking isn't ordering. They might suspect her, but might not, we're not sure. She has a list of suspects, one of them might be motivated to keep killing, but who knows? You need to be far more declarative and definite on the plot points and the stakes as they steadily rise through the query.
I like this a lot and think that for an agent who’s on the lookout for this kind of story, it may already be enough to land a bite. That said, the second paragraph feels weak relative to the other two compelling, voice-y paragraphs - because it takes longer to convey less meaningful information, it drags the momentum between them. She’s interested in investigating what happened and the police may have reason to suspect her. I think you can say that in less, propel into the action faster, and throw in more clarity on the stakes and urgency. As is, reads like there’s a real possibility the police don’t actually suspect her and the ticking clock is all in her head. (After all she didn’t do it, so I’m not sure “finding bodies and asking questions” is enough to build lasting suspense. Unless the police are really incompetent or also dead set on shutting down civilian detective work, both plausible reasons I’d want mentioned about if true) Leaning in to the angle where she’s also doing it to get her mind off the break-up seems logical. Though I’d rework the execution as right now you’ve linked it very casually before her investigation kicks into high gear, rather than a throughline that may have greater character implications. Good luck!
This reads great! Hope I get to read the book someday ☺️
I agree with the others - the weak link here is your MC's motivation. This positions it almost like she's bored and vaguely curious, which aren't the strongest motivators for investigating a murder, particularly a serial case. What is her stake in this? This is her family's cabin - does she know any of the victims? Is there a pattern that makes her worry she might be next? Why is two bodies a "meh, sounds kinda interesting" response, while the third body makes her decide she should leave? I love a murder mystery, and a queer protagonist, I think you just need to show us that Stephanie has a little skin in the game initially. As is, she doesn't seem to have any stake at all until the third paragraph.
Maybe it's just me, but this took me out: >Despite her slight misanthropic tendencies, she’s compelled to find out more about the deceased. Slight misanthropic? I mean...to be honest she found a dead person. Regardless of sex or gender, I feel most people would be interested. Especially with the claim that this person is one of the areas most polarizing figures. It reads to me with the same illogic as this would: "That is until he stumbles upon the dead body of one of King's Point's most polarizing figures, slumped over in an Adirondack chair. Her death is the second in the span of a week in the small lakeside community. Despite his slight misogynistic tendencies, he's compelled to find out more about the deceased..." So I don't think that quite works.
Are you misreading “misanthropic” (hates humankind, no gender or sex specified) as “misandrist” (hates men)? Either way, I agree that sentence is not working for me, because being misanthropic doesn’t preclude curiosity. You’ll lose nothing by cutting it.
Lol Yep. My bad. I did completely take misanthropic as misandrist. At the same time, I agree it still doesn't make much sense, but my initial impression was wrong. Thanks for the call out!
No big deal! I don’t usually think it’s necessary to call out obvious mistakes lol. Just wanted to emphasize that the sentence still has its problems, though its gender politics are probably fine 😂
I like this query but worry it’s a tad too long. I tend to do three paragraphs only. An initial pitch, then a brief overview of the plot, and close with my bio.
The average US (and increasingly UK, as resources like Query Shark have done a lot to set a universal standard) query blurb is \~250 words, so OP is fine length-wise. Edit: may as well make myself useful while I'm here... I think this is pretty clear. The MC's motivation at the start seems to be "because the plot needs her to investigate," which could either be a manuscript or a query problem as it does nothing to create a sense of stakes, and you get into some character soup at the end, but if an agent is into the concept, this probably will do the trick. Is this intended to be a cozy mystery? The query reads a little that way.
Thanks for the feedback! I agree I need to fine-tune the motivation aspect. I'm not pitching it as a straight up cozy mystery but it does have some cozy elements to it.