Gar, backflung and damn, dude-- that was a rockin' first sentence.

I'll get back to you later, Gar. I swear. I'm not a morning person...you'll thank me for waiting.

Blurbs don't sound easy. Good luck!

I think maybe I'm close on another synopsis candidate. The author of some books my daughter likes looked over my last revision and gave me a lot of comments that I've been going through.

Erika. Don't worry: A) Not a morning person B) ~88,500 words, not expecting anything resembling next day response.

On edit: 88,500 not 84,500. Wish it were 84,500.

Barb, doesn't your agent do the marketing letter, aka blurb?

Also, it sounds dumb, but if you can figure out an X Meets Y pitch, they do work.

She does the pitch letter, itself, Amy, but she likes to work with the author in terms of figuring out the blurb for the book because she figures who knows the story better? Then the rest of the letter, AKA how fabulous I am and why the editor will love it, she does.

And I did use the X meets Y approach--I agree that it's an effective tool because of how it can provide immediate frames of reference.

Now revisiting title of my book. Here is my thought. If the title is so *er* unassuming that the not even the author and the author's mother can remember it, it probably is not the right title for the book.

I think the problem is that the editors are trying to be more specific in the title than is possible for this particular book. The problem is that at their level of specificity there are five or six ideas that would have to be conveyed by the title. Their solution pick two: but that combines a still too long title with incomplete and therefore not very interesting description of books theme. I think the answer is to move to a more general level. All the stuff cutting military spending to fund public invest in green infrastructure, regulation, more equality so on and so on are really about one thing: solving the climate crisis requires action that is not primarily market centered. I think I should have a three or four word title that conveys the book is about solving the climate crisis, and a subtitle that conveys "not through market means" which will also double as conveying that is on climate change policy rather than tech. So:

Curing Climate Fever: Beyond Market Tinkering
Curing a Fevered Climate: Beyond Market Tinkering
Cooling a Fevered Climate: Beyond Market Tinkering

I like the first best, but I'm afraid there may be a very small ambiguity. I'm afraid the term "Climate Fever" might be taken as a denier referring to belief in the Climate Crisis rather than crisis itself. Like I could imagine a wingnut accusing Al Gore of having "Climate Fever". Even if the subtitle helps people figure it out you need to stop decode it which would be irritating to those to take the trouble and some wouldn't.

So approach good? Am I worrying needlessly about the ambiguity in the first title? Overall reactions?

I like the second one the best. I think Fevered Climate coveys the idea better than Climate Fever.

me too.