TITLE: The Killing Cure
GENRE: thriller
Nanoparticles are all around us, in our clothes, our make-up and even our food. Researchers are using them in the fight against cancer – but what if something goes wrong?
Dr. Catherine Thomas, a spunky British scientist, is pulled from her groundbreaking research across the globe where she finds her soul mate and faces life-threatening dangers. She uses nanoparticles to fight cancer, but her work is stolen by the three most powerful men in the world, and soon people with twinkling eyes start dying from a new and frightening disease: Nanoplague.
You had me after the first paragraph. I would nix the second one and leave us with that provocative "but what if something goes wrong?"
ReplyDeleteThis was in last week's round so I am not critting it again. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteHolly
Sounds like science fiction thriller for genre. What are the life-threatening dangers? Twinkling eyes? Is that a symptom of Nanoplague? Maybe rename the disease - too much 'nano' ?
ReplyDeleteThe thing that bothered me about this one last week (I didn't have time to do critiques, but I did read them all) was the definition paragraph at the beginning. It reads more like the beginning of a query letter than a logline, as I've come to understand them here. Is there a way to nix the definition and work it in, in condensed form, to the second paragraph? The other thing I think would help is that although you set up the conflict (the nanoplague), you don't really tell us an "if/then" dynamic. In other words, how does it affect Catherine Thomas? What if you change the end so that it reads: "When people with twinkling eyes start dying from a new and frightening disease, _______________." That would be my take on bringing the immediacy into it.
ReplyDeleteYou can get rid of the first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteWhy is she pulled across the globe? Is it because her work was stolen? In that case: "When powerful men steal Dr. Catherine Thomas's groundbreaking research and use it to unleash a deadly plague, she must cross the globe - and risk her life - to stop them."
This may need to be fleshed out a bit, but I think it contains all the useful information that was in the original. Personally, I don't feel the need to know the technical terms, and the part about finding her soul mate felt a little cliched.
Best of luck!
Lots happening here - some needs to be tweaked. I agree the soulmate is a distracting bone thrown into the mix. After describing the researchers in the fight against cancer, you don't need to tell us DR Catherine is also a researcher - that's a given. "...across the globe where she finds her soulmate and faces life-threatening dangers" can all come out.
ReplyDeleteGood luck!
This may be sci fi, but you still have to get your science right.
ReplyDeleteNanoparticles, though helpful in many ways to keep your clothes from getting wrinkled, may cause cancer and other life threatening reactions, such as inability to breathe.
I'd drop the first paragraph, too.
What is Dr. T's groundbreaking research and who pulls her away from it? Would be spookier for me if she's kidnapped because she's about to blow the whistle on the corporations who know their products are harmful, but want her out of the way because she could blow the whistle on them. Sort of a take-off on the immensely popular true story, SILKWOOD, that stared Cher back in the l980s.
This logline is really long, so you need to par it down a bit.
ReplyDeleteStart by nixing the first paragraph, it's all back story, and you need to cut to the chase. The story is about the cancer researcher, not the nano particles.
Other items: this sounds like a Sci-Fi thriller in the vein of Michal Crichton, so I very much hope you have read Prey (and if not, get thee to a bookstore). In fact, I can't help but think I've read something just like this before. If I were you, I'd make certain to highlight how this novel is different from others because the SciFi market has seen it's fair share of technological-advances-turned-bad stories. Keep the focus on the original aspects of your novel.
I don't understand the "twinkling eyes" so I don't know if this line is meant to ratchet up the stakes or not. Try using clear adjectives so everyone can easily understand the stakes at hand (or better, just eliminate it all together).
I hope this helps.
Sounds interesting. I agree you can lose the first paragraph. When spunky British scientist Catherine Thomas discovers a way to cure cancer with nanoparticles, the three most powerful men in the world launch a war to steal her idea (are they a team or 3 separate forces?).
ReplyDeleteGood luck.
I'd drop the first paragraph mostly because people are now pretty aware of nanotechnology, especially those who would pick up a techno-thriller.
ReplyDeleteI think the first sentence of the second paragraph contains too much info and muddies what you're trying to get at...
I would also make the last sentence into something more active:
Three powerful businessmen twist her cancer-fighting research into a deadly nanoplauge...
or something of the sort.
Too much passive voice overall. What pulls Thomas away?
David's rewrite above really does it for me. This is a cool concept, but it feels too far buried to be a logline. Even if this were a query, I'd advise slicing and dicing it somewhat.
ReplyDeleteYeah, be careful on the passivity - go through and highlight every iteration of the verb "to be".
You've already gotten some great feedback, so I'll just say that I agree you could stand to shorten this and make those passive sentences active.
ReplyDeleteBest of luck with this. I really like the title; it fits the concept well.
Ditto Holly. It's a bit unfair to take up a place that was supposed to be for someone who hadn't had a crit yet.
ReplyDelete