The Gauntlet: Results and Reviews

Ten Years by FMM2310

Final Total: 6.5  (we're opening the book and starting to read. . . )

Reader 1:

Cover: 3/4

Ok, I like it. Simple. Modern. Goes fairly well with the blurb with the plane. For an American, however, planes heading toward sky scrapers can have some pretty gruesome connotations. Not that this has to cater only to Americans, but when I first looked at it, that's what came immediately to mind: this story is somehow about 9/11. Just FYI. You don't have to change it, necessarily, but it may spark that same reaction in a specific slice of your readers, and without anything else to go on in the title, they may pick it up expecting one thing only to find something else entirely – which may prompt them to put it back down.

For future reference, a screen name doesn't look anywhere near as serious or professional as a real name (or a nom-de-plume, if you prefer.) You don't really need 'a story by' either. If you go to your profile and click the edit profile button, you can add a name that is more believably real and keep your screenname the same. That's my two cents.

Title: 1.5/2

Meh – non-descript, but adequate and related to the story. You could maybe try adding a hint that this is NOT 9/11 in a subtitle or tagline? But again, you don't technically have to.

Blurb: 1/4

I enjoyed the unusual turns of phrase: fate middling one more time, for instance. If that was a typo, it sorta made me think of fate being the middle man. Meddling might be what you were after, though? 

Quote: What is the quote about? Yeah, I get the 'ten years' thing, but the relationship between the quote and the blurb is a bit abstract. Is it supposed to mean you can't organize ten years easily? It feels like something is missing since we only have the negative. What else did Patrick Bruel say? What CAN you do with ten years?

The Actual Blurb: MCs are named and setting is given. There is what might amount to an inciting incident in the meeting on the plane... I say might, and I'll explain it in a minute, but this is where the blurb starts sliding into Blahsville. The thing that seems to propel the story forward doesn't go anywhere all that interesting. There isn't any hint that they are drawn to each other romantically, so 'picking up where they left off' sounds like they're just going to start talking about themselves again. What joy. There isn't any mention of any real obstacle in their path, why they have to battle with sense/sensibility (alrighty then, Jane), or what-the-actual-heck reason they would have not to pursue their blossoming friendship. I mean, that's what this is, right? It can't be love yet, they've only really just met. Is there a spouse to worry about? Is there a job that will get in the way? It seems like the story is only just beginning when they meet the second time, and THAT is the real inciting incident, but then there's nothing about what they'll lose if they pursue each other. So there's no real tension to hook the reader with, and any interest inspired by the serendipitous meeting dribbles right down the drain. Also, if this is a story of 'parallel lives, etc. etc.,' is all of that happening in the ten years before they meet again? Or after? Please say after, otherwise reading this story would be the equivalent of eating the hole of a donut. 

Grammar: '... bringing people together*,* and as they sat next to each other...' 'never(,) in a million years(,) meet again.' (You don't technically need those last two commas since it's a colloquial phrase with a clear ending; ergo, you could get rid of them since you don't have to set the preposition apart for clarity.)

Should it not be 'left *off*'? Pick up where you left off... or left it... Meh. Not really that important, it just feels weird in my brain.

Total: 5.5 (I debated for a moment, then put this book back on the shelf.)