Back Cover Copy and/or Blurbs

J. Tanner · Feb 17, 2012

Old Hack said:
Yep, the writing is what lets down most of the self-published books I review (see the link in my signature). Not the cover design, although it's often abysmal; the writing.

Sort of a tangent, but still in the spirit of the thread concept...

I've read some of your reviews and you tag nearly every one with inneffective back cover copy (blurb essentially.)

Have you gone further anywhere to explain what's bad about a particular blurb, given examples of great blurbs, etc?

It's a pretty specific skill and one a lot of authors have trouble with and so could benefit from seeing a nuts and bolts deconstruction.

Old Hack · Feb 17, 2012

I refer to it as back cover copy because the word "blurb" has several different meanings attached to it. I use it to describe that back cover copy; others (mostly in the US) use it to specifically describe quotes that other authors provide to go on that back cover alongside what I call the blurb.

I don't provide textual line-by-line analyses of any of the books I review because it seems cruel to me, especially when dealing with very poorly-written books. Similarly, I am never specific when pointing out the problems with the back cover copy, although I do reproduce that in my blog posts. I'm not comfortable with doing so, because I think it would be far too hard for the writers concerned and anyway, it's not my job to rewrite their blurbs for them.

If you want to work out what the problems are, just read them. Compare them to the blurbs on books from trade publishers; compare them to the query letters highlighted on QueryShark, because those queries do a very similar job. You'll soon get the picture.

The most common problems are a marked lack of clarity (which is a nice way of saying the blurb is confused, confusing, jumbled, nonsensical, full of grammar errors and homophones, and/or badly-written); the blurb tells me little or nothing about the book; the blurb is dull; or the blurb tells me about the author, not the book. Often the blurbs exhibit all of these problems. I've had several books submitted which have no blurbs at all, or which use that useful space to tell me about other books the author has written but nothing about the book before me. It's amazing how many ways writers can sabotage themselves with this one little thing.

J. Tanner · Feb 18, 2012

Yeah, and still others use blurb to describe the short description of the book that appears alongside other metadata about the book in an online bookstore which is what I was getting at. The online equivalent of the back of the book. Confusing. Anyway...

Some of those generalities are obvious. Spelling, grammar, and such. Going from obtuse to okay is probably reasonably simple for the DIY crowd. The trick is going from okay to good, and that's where I think generalities are hard to apply and real nuts and bolts examples work better. So, unfortunately, not available from you but I'll keep looking.

Old Hack · Feb 18, 2012

Tell you what, Mr Tanner. I'll split this diversionary discussion of ours out from its original thread, so we can carry on talking about back cover copy without further derailing anything. Just give me five minutes to work out how to do it.

Old Hack · Feb 18, 2012

J. Tanner said:
Some of those generalities are obvious. Spelling, grammar, and such.

You'd think they'd be obvious, but they're not. At least, not to the people who are responsible for many of the self-published books I've been sent for review.

Going from obtuse to okay is probably reasonably simple for the DIY crowd.

Based purely on the books I've been sent for review, you're once again overestimating the skill level out there.

The trick is going from okay to good, and that's where I think generalities are hard to apply and real nuts and bolts examples work better. So, unfortunately, not available from you but I'll keep looking.

Assuming that appropriate grammar, spelling and punctuation is within a self-published author's capablities, there is one really basic point which, if considered, would straight away improve the quality and effectiveness of their books' back cover copy, product information, blurb, or whatever you want to call it.

This copy is a sales tool. Its function is to catch the readers' attention enough to make them lay out some hard cash and buy the book. To do this, it has to be clear; interesting-exciting-fascinating-enticing or what ever word is appropriate for the book concerned; and for a novel (here's the biggie), it has to tell the reader about the story.

Most of the blurbs I've seen on self-published books don't do that. They tell me little or nothing about the story. Instead they might tell me about the author, which is nice but unless the author is famous, notorious, hugely successful in some pertinent way, or has written an autobiography, this isn't the right place for me to hear about the author. I don't want to know what their career path has been, what their aspirations are, what religion they are, what their family life is, or what the author's moral or political convictions, aspirations or dreams are. I want to find out about the story.

Nor should the back cover copy tell me about how the book was written; why the book was written; or how it came to be written. It should tell me about the story.

The back cover copy certainly shouldn't lecture me on how capitalism is failing, or how readers need to be educated (yes, I've seen that one a couple of times); it shouldn't tell me that I need to read the book. It should grab my attention by being fascinating, intriguing, and so on, and it should tell me about the story.

The back cover copy certainly shouldn't consist of lots of quotes from people I've never heard of which tell me how great the story is. It should tell me about the story.

Not only should the blurb tell me about the story, it should do so in a clear, comprehensible way, it should be concise and attention-grabbing and it should all be properly spelled, punctuated and so on.

If you think this is too obvious go to my review blog and take a look at all the books I review. I quote the back cover copy in full in each review. How many of them focus on telling me about the story in a tight, exciting, intriguing way, and don't contain any distractions? I've mentioned a few of them above, but there are plenty of others.

Compare those blurbs to those of trade-published books. See the difference. It's huge.

J. Tanner · Feb 21, 2012

Yeah. When you remove barriers there will inevitiably be people who can't help but cross the line too soon, or without taking appropirate care. Most of them can be easily sorted from those who are aware of the pitfalls and making a real effort to avoid them in their self-published efforts.

So here we go. I think my blurb writing skills are likely subpar just based on never having to write them before. I should be terrible. But assuming that I am, it's not easy to see where I'm going wrong.

For example... this morning I pulled a big six legal thriller off the shelf--one I'd read recently enough that the plot was still fresh. I wrote what I would expect of a blurb. Then I turned the book over and transscribed the actual blurb. I cannot see a major difference. So am I blind to the flaws of my version, or am I just naturally good at blurb writing or is the big six blurb unusually substandard somehow making mine not looks so bad in comparison. I have no clue. Here's both... maybe you can tell me.

Blurb #1

Longtime defense attorney John Smith never thought he would cross the aisle and work for the prosecution--until imprisoned child killer Bob Johnson is granted a retrial based on new DNA evidence. Convinced Johnson is guilty, Smith takes the case on the condition he gets to choose his investigator, LAPD Detective Sam Jones.
But there's a serious political taint on the case, and Smith must face down a celebrity defense attorney who has already started trying it in the media. While Jones searches the cold trail for the eyewitness who was the key to Johnson's original conviction, the convict is released on bail. Now Smith and Jones fear the worst: This killer may have just gotten started--and the trial is a matter of life-and-death for everyone.

Blurb #2

Defense attorney John Smith recieves an astonishing offer from the district attorney to retry a twenty-year-old murder case overturned by DNA evidence. The DA says they need an outsider but Smith suspects what they may really be after is a fall-guy for a doomed case. Still, he cannot pass up the chance, just once, to put the bad guy away rather than get him off. Now teamed up with his ex-wife prosecutor who wishes she were in charge and an investigator who hates defense attorneys on principle, John must deal with his domineering new bosses at the district attorney's office, outwit the defense counsel determined to try the case in the media, and most importantly put a murderer back behind bars before he can kill again.

Old Hack · Feb 21, 2012

Mr Tanner, this thread is meant to be about how writers who plan to self-publish can improve their back cover copy and therefore improve their chances of selling lots of books: it's not about testing me. Your post reminds me of this.

I'm happy to discuss what back cover copy is meant to achieve, and the things that one should and should not include: but I'm not going to play your game.

pfinucan · Feb 21, 2012

I think you wrote #1 because it uses this "John Smith never thought he would." It is a construction that pops up in the Query letter hell SYW all the time with first drafts. There are a number of phases like that which show up way to often. Like "in a world where". I think there is a whole list of them in the SYW sub-forum.

Was the guys name really John Smith or did you change that?

J. Tanner · Feb 21, 2012

Old Hack said:
Mr Tanner, this thread is meant to be about how writers who plan to self-publish can improve their back cover copy and therefore improve their chances of selling lots of books: it's not about testing me. Your post reminds me of this.

I'm happy to discuss what back cover copy is meant to achieve, and the things that one should and should not include: but I'm not going to play your game.

Fair enough. It wasn't really intended to test you, it was intended to test me. Anonymity seemed to be the best way to acheive that without bias, but would you be willing to discuss the specific examples if I revealed which was which? I honestly cannot see a significant difference between the two and I really would like to know if there isn't one, or if I'm blind to my own flaws. And I'm honestly interested in your specific input because you have a lot of experience in the field. I really, REALLY wasn't trying to go for a "gotcha!" trap but reconsidering, maybe I approached it poorly. (The Jane Austen clone results seemed predictable to me. Of course it would be rejected, either by being obvious plagiarism, undesirable stylistic mimicry, or just being a product of another era--I think its results say nothing at all negative about the agencies who rejected it. And I don't think any answer you could give in discussing the two blurbs would cast you in a negative light in my eyes, but of course respect your right to feel otherwise.)

J. Tanner · Feb 21, 2012

pfinucan said:
Was the guys name really John Smith or did you change that?

Sorry, should have clarified I genericized the character names that appear to avoid it becoming about a specific book vs blurb writing. It's entirely possible my version even misremembers certain plot elements.

Anyway, I'm more interested in knowing whether you think both basically do the intended job or if you feel one or both fall short?

Al Stevens · Feb 21, 2012

This is a subject near and dear. I would like to see a treatise on the elements of a good blurb. We have lots of guidance about queries, but the art of the blurbster evades many of us.

Perhaps a new subforum for self-pubbers to share and critique blurbs?

In the meantime, I am off to Old Hack's blog to see what I can learn.

J. Tanner · Feb 21, 2012

Al Stevens said:
This is a subject near and dear. I would like to see a treatise on the elements of a good blurb. We have lots of guidance about queries, but the art of the blurbster evades many of us.

Perhaps a new subforum for self-pubbers to share and critique blurbs?

Not sure why it can't be discussed effectively in the existing forums.

I think Jane has covered a lot of the basics above. Paraphrasing her major points...

1) Lack of clarity (confusing, nonsensical, badly written)
2) Extensive grammatical errors
3) Content is not about the book (covers author, other books, or preaches instead)

I think it's not too tough to follow those basics. (Could be wrong!) But once that's done I think there are probably still a lot of little lessons to learn that likely require more hands-on crafting. It appears my first attempt at trying to extract some of that info was a miserable failure, but I'll keep trying.

Al Stevens · Feb 21, 2012

J. Tanner said:
Not sure why it can't be discussed effectively in the existing forums.

Because unless a thread is effectively titled, these discussions are not easy to find. I went on such a search over the last couple of days and found nothing. (Could be me, could be the search engine, could be the titles, could be there are no such discussions.) So I posted my blurb in QLH, a mistake in hindsight because I said it might become a query, and so, that's how it was critiqued.

I found lots of threads with the word "blurb" in the posts themselves, but none that I saw are specifically about blurbs, and there are too many to wade through.

Today, this thread popped up in New Posts.

Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack, but this is in responce to your comment. Don't you hate it when that happens?

Al Stevens · Feb 21, 2012

J. Tanner said:
I think Jane has covered a lot of the basics above.

Those are the basics, and we have forests and trees. I'd like to have a place where experts and pundits can apply those basics and other criteria to the blurbs that self-pubbers post.

The problem with writing one's own blurb is that we are too familiar with our own stories. We don't see what's missing and what's superfluous. We need them looked at by those who don't know the stories.

Obviously, a professional blurbist reads the story. But they are trained in the art. If I could learn their craft, I could teach myself the art. Or not.

J. Tanner · Feb 21, 2012

I think we're on the same wavelength.

Feel free to use this thread for general questions or requesting advice on a specific blurb--none of that seems like hijacking to me. If Jane would prefer we move the latter to the SYW forum or something I'm sure she'll chime in.

(I still feel like a novice in this area, but if you're interested in a novice opinion on something you've already posted elsewhere feel free to point it out--I've always got an opinion.

)

merrihiatt · Feb 21, 2012

Blurb #1 has a lot of catch words (child killer, cold case, life-and-death). Does the name of the LA investigator matter? I get a sense of urgency from this blurb.

Blurb #2 seemed to focus on the ex-wife and domineering bosses and how hard it was going to be for John Smith to solve the case.

Of the two, and not having seen the cover, of course, I'd be more apt to read the book described in blurb #1.

Carmine · Feb 21, 2012

I, too, prefer blurb #1. There were certain phrases in blurb #2 that sounded "off" to me. I'm not sure why. They are not exactly cliches, but they are more expected. The phrasing is not as original as in blurb #1. Some of these phrases were, "Still", "just once", "the bad guy". The book doesn't sound as original and exciting as it does in blurb #1. I agree with merrihiatt about the catch words in blub #1 lending a sense of urgency.

The differences are subtle, and hard for me to articulate.

I spoke to a publisher's marketing director once. She told me it was important to distinguish between catalog copy (to sell the book to the bookseller) and jacket copy (to sell the book to the reader). I wonder if some of the problem is blurb writers trying to write for both audiences.

Edward M. Grant · Feb 21, 2012

merrihiatt said:
Blurb #1 has a lot of catch words (child killer, cold case, life-and-death). Does the name of the LA investigator matter? I get a sense of urgency from this blurb.

That's odd, because I felt the opposite; the first blurb seemed slow and convoluted while the second felt more immediate and full of conflict. That's why I assumed it was the real book blurb.

J. Tanner · Feb 21, 2012

Thanks to everyone who's taken a moment to share their opinion. I will of course share which is which in near future but I want to let it go a bit longer before introducing any potential bias. If your curiousity is getting the best of you feel free to PM me and I'll answer immediately.

merrihiatt said:
Of the two, and not having seen the cover, of course, I'd be more apt to read the book described in blurb #1.

Would you characterize your opinion of the weaker of the two as acceptable or subpar if you'd never have seen the better of the two?

(Reading between the lines of the other responders the difference seems minimal whichever way they're leaning, but I'm not quite sure it's as close for you.)

Terie · Feb 22, 2012

J. Tanner said:
I will of course share which is which in near future but I want to let it go a bit longer before introducing any potential bias.

Erm. All it took was a quick google check to figure out which was which. The real one appears on many sites.

merrihiatt · Feb 22, 2012

J. Tanner said:
Thanks to everyone who's taken a moment to share their opinion. I will of course share which is which in near future but I want to let it go a bit longer before introducing any potential bias. If your curiousity is getting the best of you feel free to PM me and I'll answer immediately.

Would you characterize your opinion of the weaker of the two as acceptable or subpar if you'd never have seen the better of the two?

(Reading between the lines of the other responders the difference seems minimal whichever way they're leaning, but I'm not quite sure it's as close for you.)

I wouldn't call it subpar, although I suppose since I preferred it, you could call it subpar. It was more about the feeling I received after reading it. Blurb #1 hit me in a stronger way than blurb #2. I believe it was because of the ex-wife issue being brought to the forefront and the word domineering sort of stopped me for a second. Also, the word astonishing didn't seem like the right word to use. "Put the bad guy away" was another set of words that lessened the impact for me.

If I had never read blurb #1, I probably would have thought blurb #2 was okay. I don't know if I would read the book from the description, though, and I think that might be the bigger question. Does the blurb make the reader want to read the book, or at least check out the "look inside" feature?

J. Tanner · Feb 22, 2012

Terie said:
Erm. All it took was a quick google check to figure out which was which. The real one appears on many sites.

Shh. Don't you know that magic tricks work through misdirection?

iRock · Feb 22, 2012

#1 is the real one. It's sharp and focused.

#2 is sloppy and flabby.

Old Hack · Feb 22, 2012

J. Tanner said:
Thanks to everyone who's taken a moment to share their opinion. I will of course share which is which in near future but I want to let it go a bit longer before introducing any potential bias.

No. We're not playing your game here. We're just not. I gave you a chance to explain and move back on-topic but not only have you ignored me, you've pushed things even further.

The blurb you used was for Michael Connelly's The Reversal. This is the version shown on Amazon, but it's different elsewhere:

Longtime defense attorney Mickey Haller is recruited to change stripes and prosecute the high-profile retrial of a brutal child murder. After 24 years in prison, convicted killer Jason Jessup has been exonerated by new DNA evidence. Haller is convinced Jessup is guilty, and he takes the case on the condition that he gets to choose his investigator, LAPD Detective Harry Bosch.

Together, Bosch and Haller set off on a case fraught with political and personal danger. Opposing them is Jessup, now out on bail, a defense attorney who excels at manipulating the media, and a runaway eyewitness reluctant to testify after so many years.

With the odds and the evidence against them, Bosch and Haller must nail a sadistic killer once and for all. If Bosch is sure of anything, it is that Jason Jessup plans to kill again.

ETA: I've edited this post because when I first found The Reversal on Amazon it seemed that Mr Tanner had rewritten the blurb he quoted here; I've since discovered that there are a couple of different versions of it online, so I owe him an apology. However, I'm not going to reopen this thread because my feelings about this "game" of Mr Tanner's still stands: it's manipulative and isn't designed to achieve anything positive for us; and it risks making us look sneery and negative, which is not a good thing.

Back Cover Copy and/or Blurbs

J. Tanner

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

J. Tanner

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

J. Tanner

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

pfinucan

Are we done yet?

J. Tanner

J. Tanner

Al Stevens

J. Tanner

Al Stevens

Al Stevens

J. Tanner

merrihiatt

Writing! Writing! Writing!

Carmine

Edward M. Grant

J. Tanner

Terie

Writer is as Writer does

merrihiatt

Writing! Writing! Writing!

J. Tanner

iRock

That's how I roll

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman