Sword & Sorcery: "An earthier sort of fantasy" discussion

I'm currently working on the blurb for my next release ...

I have four books I'm using as reference on how to create effective blurbs:

* How to Write Sizzling Synopsis by Bryan Cohen

* How to Write Fiction Sales Copy by Dean Wesley Smith

* Hook, Tagline, and Sinker by Red Adept Publishing

* Gotta Read It: Five Simple Steps to a Fiction Pitch That Sells by Libbie Hawker

Part of how I'm forming the blurb contains elements from all of them, but the question of length is still there.

DWS and Bryan Cohen's books lean heavily toward writing short blurbs. Libbie Hawker leans heavily toward long blurbs. Red Adept is the closest to the middle, but leans to the short side.

So my question for you is this:

As a reader, do you prefer short blurbs or long ones?

Other things to consider, if you would:

Do you feel the genre you read influences the length of that preference or the length of blurbs in general?

Do you feel longer blurbs tend to reveal more of the plot even before you open the book?

Do you feel longer blurbs contain more of an emotional impact over shorter ones?

Short.

And when asked to write blurbs, I try to be short and pithy.

But, for me, it's not the words that count. It's the source. Years ago, I was often motivated to buy books recommended by The Cleveland Plain Dealer. I never saw copy of the paper, but I discovered over time that whoever was writing reviews for them had the same tastes I do.

As a reader, long vs. short blurbs is tricky to choose. Too short and I can't distinguish one book from another. Too long and it gives away too much plot information, and I certainly don't want spoilers on the back of the book (nor in an introduction, as has happened for numerous classics).

Let me tell you a recent time the blurb on the back of a book was the deciding factor in me buying it. It's actually a rather long blurb, but I was sold in the first line:

"As the daughter of an alchemist, Petra Dee has battled supernatural horrors and experienced astonishing wonders." Sold! I need read no more! But the blurb did continue, as I said, and kept piling on more and more winning bullet points, which certainly didn't hurt matters. So who knows?

Yes, the genre does have an influence on the preferred length, but that's merely because of the fact that since I already know we're in a particular genre, it's not necessary to describe the genre in the blurb, except for any interesting differences it might have from its peers.

The Joy of Erudition wrote: "As a reader, long vs. short blurbs is tricky to choose. Too short and I can't distinguish one book from another. Too long and it gives away too much plot information, and I certainly don't want spo..."


Thanks for commenting. :)

Matthew wrote: "Short.

And when asked to write blurbs, I try to be short and pithy.

But, for me, it's not the words that count. It's the source. Years ago, I was often motivated to buy books recommended by The C..."

Thanks for the reply, Matthew.

Shorter -- give me the premise, not an outline of the book. If you haven't hooked me by the first sentence or two of the blurb, I'm not going to finish reading the blurb. A favorite blurb started out with, "The world ended on a Thursday." Hook, line, and sinker!

I'm not sure I ever need a character's name in the blurb. Some authors include them when it's not even relevant. "A woman, named Shirley Anderson, has seen...".

And I hate blurbs that ask question after question, as if the author wants me to make the decisions about what the characters should do. I'm not the one writing the story.

I've noticed a 3-point pattern for a lot of romance blurbs:

1. "Jack was a..."
2. "Jane was a..."
3. "When they met..."

@Randy I agree with the series of questions, maybe one or two at the most.

I’m not a fan comparisons in a synopsis. ‘In the vein of Tolkien...’ ‘in the tradition of Conan...’ ‘for fans of Game of Thrones...’.

Richard wrote: "I’m not a fan comparisons in a synopsis. ‘In the vein of Tolkien...’ ‘in the tradition of Conan...’ ‘for fans of Game of Thrones...’."

I agree. Whenever I see such a comparison (or a mash-up), I think back to the 1988 Presidential debates when Quayle compared himself to JFK. Benten's response was an instant classic:

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Just ran into one that asks useless questions:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

An early morning office meeting in Bethesda Maryland quickly evolves into the most terrifying experience ever for a team of financial advisors. As an ancient evil is accidentally released back into the population, the dead rise up and feast on the living. Trapped high up in their structure with few good options, can any of them survive or escape? How quickly can the wave of zombie madness spread through an urban environment and what actions will the government take to respond? Find out as day one of the zombie apocalypse is here.

I would prefer it much shorter and to the point, say:

Day one of the zombie apocalypse is here. An early morning office meeting quickly evolves into the most terrifying experience ever for a team of financial advisors, trapped on the [20th floor] of their office building.