|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 6, 2020 13:32:30 GMT
"Just a note. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. There is such a thing as an informed opinion. For instance, I would hope that you would consider your doctor's opinion about your blood test before you would consider that of your auto mechanic's." I don't get your point. It was you who side-referenced cars as being able to trust well-known brands, and I said you cannot, which is not only my opinion. I can think of another trusted brand in the UK that one year it was discovered that the beef in their products was 20% horse meat. (it's not actually illegal to sell horse meat here, but it has to be labelled as such.) Oh, and shall I point out that many deaths are caused by medical negligence? Okay. All opinions are equal and experience and training means nothing. Then the next time you get sick, tell your symptoms to your plumber and have him prescribe for you. You asked me what eluded me about many of your arguments. Much of that is because you will pick isolated examples and apply them generally. "Many deaths are caused by medical negligence," your argument goes, "so a degree in medicine, years of training and experience, and reputation mean nothing." "A trusted brand once put horse meat into its products, therefore I may as well get my sausage from that guy who just knocked at my door, selling meat out of the trunk of his car." In the US, nearly ten percent of deaths can be attributed to medical error. Getting medical advice from your grocer about that lump has pretty much a 100% risk of mortality. |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 6, 2020 20:20:18 GMT
One can always ferret out the odd example, but that would be an anomaly More in fact. For a start they did not have the printing technology we have today. That doesn't effect the design of a cover. It certainly effects the tools and print technology available to the designer, and the cost of it. Many early books simply had hand goldblocked titles on them. Look at covers today. Even stock ones.
Here are a couple of examples of the covers Jules Verne's publisher typically put on his books in the middle of the 19th century... Well as I said, print technology evolves as does its cost. In that period no publisher is going to go to the expense of creating book covers like your examples unless they can already guarantee top sales. His certainly were not all like that. 2.bp.blogspot.com/-nTmkEoJFVtY/UYwG1done6I/AAAAAAAACBM/ECBblv1Tccw/s1600/tserver.php.jpeg Most around then were indeed gold blocked, sometimes embossed. I own some.The real turning point in book cover design was the introduction of the dust jacket, the use of which didn't really become widespread until the latter half of the 19th century. This freed publishers from having to stamp and emboss art directly onto the cover boards of a book, giving them much more freedom in the use of art and printing techniques (and it was also less expensive). What you might want to do is a little background research into the evolution of book cover designing. This is a good start www.grapheine.com/en/history-of-graphic-design/history-of-book-covers-1Erm, but you are simply agreeing with me.One of the driving forces in making book covers more attractive was the increased availability of books to the general public, meaning that point of purchase became gradually more important. This didn't really occur on a large scale until the 19th century. And the ability to make them more economically ... |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 6, 2020 20:43:51 GMT
"Okay. All opinions are equal and experience and training means nothing. Then the next time you get sick, tell your symptoms to your plumber and have him prescribe for you."
It's hard to discuss things with you if you cannot understand the counter arguments to your own examples. It was you who brought up the example of a major car manufacturer as an example that you can trust brands, whereas I think it was the cars of that actual company that brought about the USA Lemon Law, because their cars were dangerous.
"You asked me what eluded me about many of your arguments. Much of that is because you will pick isolated examples and apply them generally."
They are not in the least isolated, and even so, it's peculiar that you don't understand such basic points. Or do you?
"Many deaths are caused by medical negligence," your argument goes, "so a degree in medicine, years of training and experience, and reputation mean nothing."
Apparently not. And it was actually one of your own retired Surgeon Generals, who after much research of US statistics came to that conclusion. Later he did the same research in the UK and came to the same conclusion. Is it my fault you do not know these things? It was widely publicised in the UK. You have too much faith in 'experts'. I have employed, then sacked people who's expertise looked good on paper. Let me give you another car example to do with apparently highly trained, and expensive, people. I had an old car that had early computers in it. One day it would not start. A breakdown bloke said it had forgotten the code built in to the key. I took it to a major dealer of that well known brand of car. Even though I told them what the problem may be, they actually had it for 6 months because they no longer had the software to read the chips in it, so could not diagnose it. I eventually complained to the owner of the franchise and he got an older 'old school' chap in to look at it, and he fixed it in a day.
"A trusted brand once put horse meat into its products, therefore I may as well get my sausage from that guy who just knocked at my door, selling meat out of the trunk of his car." In the US, nearly ten percent of deaths can be attributed to medical error. Getting medical advice from your grocer about that lump has pretty much a 100% risk of mortality.
Huh? Findus don't sell door to door, and only any idiot would ask his grocer for medical advice? What's your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 6, 2020 21:05:58 GMT
So, anyway.
We both agree that once a publisher takes on a book, often after advice from their accounts and marketing people, they have teams of people who can put together a book that looks and reads like a 'proper' book.
But it is getting them to take it on in the first place, is it not? That a book is worth publishing or not can be a matter of opinion.
So some people self-publish, some at pointless great expense not even including an ISBN, prior to the likes of Lulu.
The likes of Lulu do not claim to be publishers, even though due to their ISBNs they become 'registered' as such.
They do not examine the books or even the covers to see if they are worthy of the publishing world (unless you pay them for their many services, as per old-school self-publishing.)
Amazon and Ingram Spark is/was the same.
Self-publishing is a great advantage, therefore, because it does not have to run through those opinions, account and marketing managers ("Can we make a profit if we publish this?") Anyone is able to publish a book.
SP is also a great disadvantage, because anyone can publish a book. And even get it on to the market for free.
So, a lot of what is published is rubbish.
What Ingram Spark and Amazon seem to want to do is to use a publisher's eye to see, in their opinion, which self-published books they will allow through their portals.
Even though they are not actually the publishers, they appear to want to behave as such.
It makes a sort of mockery of SP.
Instead, perhaps all they need to do is to remove the Published By tags from the sites the books appear on.
If you look at books that have gone through Lulu listed on Amazon and it says Published by Lulu, because they have a Lulu ISBN on them, and yet Lulu have had little actual input on to them.
Will Amazon etc., state why they reject a book or delete an existing book off-hand? or will they advise on it? Which is surely going to cost them money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 6, 2020 21:41:36 GMT
Perhaps if more Indie Authors joined associations it might make a difference. I can't afford the annual fee to join an association at this point, but when I can I believe I will. selfpublishingrelief.com/4-writers-associations-for-indie-authors/The keyboard pounders who are just trying to make a quick buck make it harder for those individuals who make a credible effort and succeed at producing a book worth reading. This is why it's so difficult to get even a well-written book Traditionally Published as well as the reason for Self-Published works to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Creative new treatments that don't need a ton of revision get lost amidst all the dreck and detritus. To be honest, I would just like to reach a bigger audience. Yes, my kids can learn a lot about life when they're old enough to read my work, but that's a far piece down the trail. Makes me wish there was a frustrated author discount at the liquor store. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 6, 2020 22:51:06 GMT
"Okay. All opinions are equal and experience and training means nothing. Then the next time you get sick, tell your symptoms to your plumber and have him prescribe for you." It's hard to discuss things with you if you cannot understand the counter arguments to your own examples. It was you who brought up the example of a major car manufacturer as an example that you can trust brands, whereas I think it was the cars of that actual company that brought about the USA Lemon Law, because their cars were dangerous. "You asked me what eluded me about many of your arguments. Much of that is because you will pick isolated examples and apply them generally." They are not in the least isolated, and even so, it's peculiar that you don't understand such basic points. Or do you? "Many deaths are caused by medical negligence," your argument goes, "so a degree in medicine, years of training and experience, and reputation mean nothing." Apparently not. And it was actually one of your own retired Surgeon Generals, who after much research of US statistics came to that conclusion. Later he did the same research in the UK and came to the same conclusion. Is it my fault you do not know these things? It was widely publicised in the UK. You have too much faith in 'experts'. I have employed, then sacked people who's expertise looked good on paper. Let me give you another car example to do with apparently highly trained, and expensive, people. I had an old car that had early computers in it. One day it would not start. A breakdown bloke said it had forgotten the code built in to the key. I took it to a major dealer of that well known brand of car. Even though I told them what the problem may be, they actually had it for 6 months because they no longer had the software to read the chips in it, so could not diagnose it. I eventually complained to the owner of the franchise and he got an older 'old school' chap in to look at it, and he fixed it in a day. "A trusted brand once put horse meat into its products, therefore I may as well get my sausage from that guy who just knocked at my door, selling meat out of the trunk of his car." In the US, nearly ten percent of deaths can be attributed to medical error. Getting medical advice from your grocer about that lump has pretty much a 100% risk of mortality. Huh? Findus don't sell door to door, and only any idiot would ask his grocer for medical advice? What's your point? You wrote: "so a degree in medicine, years of training and experience, and reputation mean nothing."
Apparently not.
---only any idiot would ask his grocer for medical advice? What difference would it make, asking your grocer or plumber to diagnose that strange lump, if years of medical training and experience are "apparently not" important? An isolated example is exactly what it sounds like: Taking a single example...as in the car manufacturer you mentioned---and applying it generally. My bottom line is that while anyone is welcome to their opinion, the opinions that really matter to me come from people with education, training and experience in the subject. For instance, anyone can tell me that they don't like one of my paintings, but for that to make any real difference to me they have to be able to explain exactly why they don't like it, otherwise their opinion is absolutely useless to me. Just saying, "I don't care for those colors" or "I don't care for that subject" is pointless so far as any value they have. They may as well have kept their mouths shut. (And what the hell is a Findus?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 7:20:09 GMT
"Findus, known for its Crispy Pancakes, is set to vanish from UK's supermarkets after 50 years in the aisles, according to reports. Young's Seafood, which owns the Findus brand in the UK, will cease using the name from this spring, according to trade magazine The Grocer.1 Feb 2016" Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 7, 2020 16:17:40 GMT
They are not isolated Ron, they are simply common examples of many things you seem unaware of. As to Findus. You are on line. Just look them up. I think Birdseye own them now. I expect you have heard of them?  |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 7, 2020 16:53:49 GMT
The opossum [Didelphus virginiana] is immune to the venom of all the venomous snakes it might encounter in Texas with the exception of the coral snake [Micrurus tener]. As well the opossum and the domestic cat [Felis catus] usually get along without any problems as they don't tend to compete for the same food sources.
Rattlesnakes [genera, Crotalus and Sistrurus; 36 species and roughly 65 to 70 subspecies] are ovoviviparous [giving birth to live young after internal gestation] and quite often serve as meals for the opossum.
Many people are unaware of those facts, and why should they be aware unless they have a reason for said interest?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 7, 2020 16:54:49 GMT
The keyboard pounders who are just trying to make a quick buck make it harder for those individuals who make a credible effort and succeed at producing a book worth reading. This is why it's so difficult to get even a well-written book Traditionally Published as well as the reason for Self-Published works to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Creative new treatments that don't need a ton of revision get lost amidst all the dreck and detritus. The reasons it is so hard to get a book published traditionally are not simple and the quality of the writing is only one of several factors. It is by far not the only one. Actually, new, first-time authors get published all the time. Several years ago, when a similar topic came up in the Lulu forums, I took the time to scrutinize the latest catalogs of a dozen major publishers as well as talk to several of their editors. The result of the first effort revealed that a significant percentage of the new titles were in fact by first-time authors. More than fifty percent for at least one major publisher and no less than ten to twenty percent for others. I was told a couple of interesting things by two of the editors. One is that no editor in their right mind is going to turn down a potentially successful book just because the author is a new one. (As I have pointed out many times, every best-selling author today had to have had a first book at some time). The other editor was even more pragmatic: new authors are simply cheaper to publish. Sure, every publishing company has their Stephen King or Rowling...but no publishing company can exist publishing the work of a small stable of writers. They are perpetually on the lookout for the next Stephen King or the next Harry Potter. Sure, editors can make bad judgement calls---as every self-published author is quick to point out---but they are, after all, only human. Besides, they may pass on a book that turns out to be best-seller but the next day take a chance on one that does hit the charts. The real problem is that publishing companies can only issue a limited number of books a year, so they have to be extremely selective. More than one editor has had to turn down a book they really liked for no other reason than that the company couldn't take on another title at the time. I think that one of the biggest hurdles a new author often faces is originality. I know that editors are swamped with countless iterations of whatever happens to be popular at the time. Goodness knows how many urban vampire or zombie apocalypse novels wind up on their desks. Books that "don't need a ton of revision" aren't, I think, a real issue. Besides, that is pretty subjective: pretty much every author thinks that their book is ready for press. If a book needs so much revision that it needs to be rewritten from page one, then there was something seriously wrong with it in the first place. It is not the job of an editor to teach an author how to write. But, barring that extreme, every book will need some revision, overseen by an independent, objective editor. If a book is genuinely creative, genuinely new and even halfway competently written, then it probably has as good a chance as any other. That is, a book cannot get by on just being creative and new. It needs to be competently crafted and well-told, too. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 7, 2020 17:00:46 GMT
They are not isolated Ron, they are simply common examples of many things you seem unaware of. As to Findus. You are on line. Just look them up. I think Birdseye own them now. I expect you have heard of them? I wrote: "A trusted brand once put horse meat into its products, therefore I may as well get my sausage from that guy who just knocked at my door, selling meat out of the trunk of his car." In the US, nearly ten percent of deaths can be attributed to medical error. Getting medical advice from your grocer about that lump has pretty much a 100% risk of mortality. You replied: "Huh? Findus don't sell door to door..." Who in the world was talking about Findus and whether or not they deliver? I was talking about some stranger pulling up to your house and wanting to sell you sausage out of the trunk of their car. What I was doing, just to make myself as clear as possible, was equating your dismissal of name brands with buying products from utterly unknown sources since, apparently, you believe there is no difference. To emphasize this point, I also equated it with getting medical advice from your grocer. "Gee, Mr. Smith, is this a wart or a melanoma?" "Aw, it's just a wart, son. I'd recommend taking a small piece of raw meat, rubbing the wart with it and then burying the meat under a full moon. As the meat decays, the wart will slowly disappear." "Thanks, Mr. Smith! I really feel relieved!" |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 7, 2020 22:26:55 GMT
The keyboard pounders who are just trying to make a quick buck make it harder for those individuals who make a credible effort and succeed at producing a book worth reading. This is why it's so difficult to get even a well-written book Traditionally Published as well as the reason for Self-Published works to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Creative new treatments that don't need a ton of revision get lost amidst all the dreck and detritus. The reasons it is so hard to get a book published traditionally are not simple and the quality of the writing is only one of several factors. It is by far not the only one. Actually, new, first-time authors get published all the time. Several years ago, when a similar topic came up in the Lulu forums, I took the time to scrutinize the latest catalogs of a dozen major publishers as well as talk to several of their editors. The result of the first effort revealed that a significant percentage of the new titles were in fact by first-time authors. More than fifty percent for at least one major publisher and no less than ten to twenty percent for others. I was told a couple of interesting things by two of the editors. One is that no editor in their right mind is going to turn down a potentially successful book just because the author is a new one. (As I have pointed out many times, every best-selling author today had to have had a first book at some time). The other editor was even more pragmatic: new authors are simply cheaper to publish. Sure, every publishing company has their Stephen King or Rowling...but no publishing company can exist publishing the work of a small stable of writers. They are perpetually on the lookout for the next Stephen King or the next Harry Potter. Sure, editors can make bad judgement calls---as every self-published author is quick to point out---but they are, after all, only human. Besides, they may pass on a book that turns out to be best-seller but the next day take a chance on one that does hit the charts. The real problem is that publishing companies can only issue a limited number of books a year, so they have to be extremely selective. More than one editor has had to turn down a book they really liked for no other reason than that the company couldn't take on another title at the time. I think that one of the biggest hurdles a new author often faces is originality. I know that editors are swamped with countless iterations of whatever happens to be popular at the time. Goodness knows how many urban vampire or zombie apocalypse novels wind up on their desks. Books that "don't need a ton of revision" aren't, I think, a real issue. Besides, that is pretty subjective: pretty much every author thinks that their book is ready for press. If a book needs so much revision that it needs to be rewritten from page one, then there was something seriously wrong with it in the first place. It is not the job of an editor to teach an author how to write. But, barring that extreme, every book will need some revision, overseen by an independent, objective editor. If a book is genuinely creative, genuinely new and even halfway competently written, then it probably has as good a chance as any other. That is, a book cannot get by on just being creative and new. It needs to be competently crafted and well-told, too. Ron,
I have the originality, pretty much kind of have the well-written part down as a rule, and I realize my work isn't perfect first time out. I just really suck at the summary / synopsis part because I tend to focus on the details that translate what I can 'see' into what others can visualize.
When a publishing house or agent judges an author's work first by the query letter and second by the manuscript, someone like me will wind up getting a rejection letter every time.
The alternative is that as a writer I am incompetent, which is not a probability on the negative side of zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 7, 2020 23:05:55 GMT
The reasons it is so hard to get a book published traditionally are not simple and the quality of the writing is only one of several factors. It is by far not the only one. Actually, new, first-time authors get published all the time. Several years ago, when a similar topic came up in the Lulu forums, I took the time to scrutinize the latest catalogs of a dozen major publishers as well as talk to several of their editors. The result of the first effort revealed that a significant percentage of the new titles were in fact by first-time authors. More than fifty percent for at least one major publisher and no less than ten to twenty percent for others. I was told a couple of interesting things by two of the editors. One is that no editor in their right mind is going to turn down a potentially successful book just because the author is a new one. (As I have pointed out many times, every best-selling author today had to have had a first book at some time). The other editor was even more pragmatic: new authors are simply cheaper to publish. Sure, every publishing company has their Stephen King or Rowling...but no publishing company can exist publishing the work of a small stable of writers. They are perpetually on the lookout for the next Stephen King or the next Harry Potter. Sure, editors can make bad judgement calls---as every self-published author is quick to point out---but they are, after all, only human. Besides, they may pass on a book that turns out to be best-seller but the next day take a chance on one that does hit the charts. The real problem is that publishing companies can only issue a limited number of books a year, so they have to be extremely selective. More than one editor has had to turn down a book they really liked for no other reason than that the company couldn't take on another title at the time. I think that one of the biggest hurdles a new author often faces is originality. I know that editors are swamped with countless iterations of whatever happens to be popular at the time. Goodness knows how many urban vampire or zombie apocalypse novels wind up on their desks. Books that "don't need a ton of revision" aren't, I think, a real issue. Besides, that is pretty subjective: pretty much every author thinks that their book is ready for press. If a book needs so much revision that it needs to be rewritten from page one, then there was something seriously wrong with it in the first place. It is not the job of an editor to teach an author how to write. But, barring that extreme, every book will need some revision, overseen by an independent, objective editor. If a book is genuinely creative, genuinely new and even halfway competently written, then it probably has as good a chance as any other. That is, a book cannot get by on just being creative and new. It needs to be competently crafted and well-told, too. Ron,
I have the originality, pretty much kind of have the well-written part down as a rule, and I realize my work isn't perfect first time out. I just really suck at the summary / synopsis part because I tend to focus on the details that translate what I can 'see' into what others can visualize.
When a publishing house or agent judges an author's work first by the query letter and second by the manuscript, someone like me will wind up getting a rejection letter every time.
The alternative is that as a writer I am incompetent, which is not a probability on the negative side of zero.
The query letter really is an art form, but the need for doing one is perfectly understandable when you realize that editors see thousands of MSS every year...it would be impossible to read them all. By the bye, no one is judging your work by the query letter: think of it more along the lines of the blurb that would be on the back of your book. Both serve exactly the same purpose: to convey an idea of what your book is about and to make that sound intriguing enough for a reader to want to look further. So perhaps if you think of the description in your book as being the blurb, that might help. The query letter than would be something like: Dear Editor: I am a published author with N books to my credit. I have a new novel that I think may be of interest to you. It is a about [insert blurb here] I think this story would appeal to .
To the best of my knowledge, there is no other book like this currently on the market.
I can provide either the opening chapters or the entire MS, whichever you prefer.
yadda yadda,
Signature
I will try to find the query letter for a book I recently sold to a YA publisher and post it here. |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 8, 2020 16:26:12 GMT
Ron,
I have the originality, pretty much kind of have the well-written part down as a rule, and I realize my work isn't perfect first time out. I just really suck at the summary / synopsis part because I tend to focus on the details that translate what I can 'see' into what others can visualize.
When a publishing house or agent judges an author's work first by the query letter and second by the manuscript, someone like me will wind up getting a rejection letter every time.
The alternative is that as a writer I am incompetent, which is not a probability on the negative side of zero.
The query letter really is an art form, but the need for doing one is perfectly understandable when you realize that editors see thousands of MSS every year...it would be impossible to read them all. By the bye, no one is judging your work by the query letter: think of it more along the lines of the blurb that would be on the back of your book. Both serve exactly the same purpose: to convey an idea of what your book is about and to make that sound intriguing enough for a reader to want to look further. So perhaps if you think of the description in your book as being the blurb, that might help. The query letter than would be something like: Dear Editor: I am a published author with N books to my credit. I have a new novel that I think may be of interest to you. It is a about [insert blurb here] I think this story would appeal to The query letter being an art form in and of itself I get, just not the type writing I'm good at. For me, crafting a fictional world is a lot easier than a succinct but engaging pitch that will get someone on the slush pile duty interested.
For that matter writing up a case for why someone should be indicted or how a psychiatrist misdiagnosed a patient is easier than that query letter. Too bad there was no query letter writing class back when I was in high school.
When I finish what I'm working on I'll check for errors, and we can see if it's good enough to pitch. At the moment I have a character getting ready to explain the virus that killed off a few billion people and the bombs that likely killed off the rest of humanity on her version of Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 8, 2020 18:01:31 GMT
The query letter really is an art form, but the need for doing one is perfectly understandable when you realize that editors see thousands of MSS every year...it would be impossible to read them all. By the bye, no one is judging your work by the query letter: think of it more along the lines of the blurb that would be on the back of your book. Both serve exactly the same purpose: to convey an idea of what your book is about and to make that sound intriguing enough for a reader to want to look further. So perhaps if you think of the description in your book as being the blurb, that might help. The query letter than would be something like: Dear Editor: I am a published author with N books to my credit. I have a new novel that I think may be of interest to you. It is a about [insert blurb here] I think this story would appeal to The query letter being an art form in and of itself I get, just not the type writing I'm good at. For me, crafting a fictional world is a lot easier than a succinct but engaging pitch that will get someone on the slush pile duty interested.
It's just one of those things that one has to swallow hard and learn how to do. But if you can write a blurb for the back of your book or for a description for Lulu or Amazon, you are 3/4 of the way there.
Think of it this way: you have to get people interested in reading your book whether they be an editor or a casual buyer in a bookstore. There is a lot of overlap in how this is done. A nice cover might get someone to stop and pick up your book...but then they will most likely turn to the back cover (or to a description if they are on line) and there you have to make a sales pitch encouraging enough to get them to want to go further.
That's what you are trying to do with the query letter: get an editor to want to see the entire book. It doesn't have to outline every plot twist and turn or describe every character...just what it is about in the most general terms and why it is different from other books on the market.
For instance, this was the description of "200 Moons and Counting" that I pitched to Lerner Publishing at the beginning of this year:
200 Moons and Counting will be a book about the solar system’s natural satellites.
There is nothing on the market like this, for either YA or adult readers. These miniature worlds include some of the strangest places in the solar system. They may hold clues to the origins of the solar system...and they may be the most likely places to search for life beyond the earth. Some of the solar system’s moons are larger than planets. There is one that has more volcanoes erupting at any one time than the earth does---it is a moon that is literally turning itself inside-out. There is a giant moon with an atmosphere denser than the earth’s, where there are lakes and rivers...and where it rains rocket fuel. There are the tiny moons that shape and sculpt the rings of Saturn. There is a “Frankenstein” moon that was shattered into pieces and reassembled at random. And there are moons, such as Europa and Enceladus, that have vast underground oceans of warm water where life may have evolved.The book would focus entirely on these oft-overlooked subsidiary worlds: where they came from, how they are alike and how they can be so very different. What do they tell us about the origins of the solar system? How did our own moon affect the evolution of life on earth? What might their role be in the future exploration of space? Can they be explored and colonized? Are they natural space stations—stepping-stones for humankind's advance into the solar system? Are some of the moons better places to look for life than Mars?
Other than briefly mentioning my experience there was not much else to the query letter (which, as you can see, was not much different that the blurb that might go on the back cover).
In return, they asked for a table of contents. Then they bought the book.
|
|
