Follow Up: "For Good or Ill..."

Thanks to Beth for the heads up...

So, Rachel Vater did post my hook. I'm in the "Women's Fiction/Chick Lit/Romance, etc. #1" entry, and my hook is #4. She said:

I have to admit I'm not crazy about time travel romance. This doesn't hook me personally, but commenters are welcome to say something about this one.

So, not a lot of input from her. But I guess I can take heart from what she didn't say... She didn't say it was cliche, or overdone, or a stolen/unoriginal premise (*cough*). She didn't say it was a bad hook, either, just that it didn't hook her personally because she's "not crazy about time travel."

I guess now we'll see if there are any comments from readers...

Heh...okay, a lot of Outlander comments. But the problem is the same one I catch a lot. People skim with the expectation of similarity, and don't realize what they see are actually differences - things that are unique and specific to my book. "Grey" John Campbell vs. Lord John Grey - Campbell was a historical figure (also here); I didn't pick the name. Or in some cases the skimmers are just plain wrong. Like the "she's a physicist and Claire was a doctor so that's the same thing" comment. Ummm...??? Physicist = radiation. Doctor = med school. For all that I'm a physicist and I do work in a medical field, it's a totally different occupation, with all the differences in educational background, job duties, and salary. *g* Also a different calling/mindset/characterization.

BUT if this is the standard reaction then I do have to get used to the idea that it is going to set me back. I know (and hopefully you guys know) that this is a unique story. Those who read parts of it are usually enthusiastic and want to read more, and those who have read significant chunks often tell me "it's nothing like Outlander." The trick I guess will be in describing it such that agents, editors, and eventually people skimming the back cover copy will think it's different enough to give it a chance.