I think those of you who wanted to use the name Syova in both back cover descriptions were right, especially if there’s any chance of suggesting to prospective readers that the main character of the first book might die. I don’t even want to imply the possibility that the protagonist changes. I want to make it really clear that it’s the same protagonist throughout. On the other hand, in this version, I use both “Syova” and “Sevastien” in the last paragraph. To me, this seems fine. The intrinsic pov changes in that paragraph, and then changes back. I think this is clear. If you think I’m wrong, please say so. That is almost all that is changing in the description for the first book.
I really do not want to spoil anything about the first book via the second book’s description. Maigan was absolutely right when she pointed out that this is a terrible thing to do to readers. That means not being very specific about the exact crisis. Ila takes a larger pov role in the second half of the story, which Craig knows because he’s read it, and that being so, he’s right to suggest that she should get mentioned in the back cover description of the second book.
It’s great that everyone thinks short is good for the second book, but what do you think about this?
***
INVICTUS: CAPTIVE
Every soldier knows there are endless ways to die.
Every Ubezhishche soldier knows there are far worse fates than death.
Syova — Sevastien one zero two four, S line third modification — has survived the destruction of his own ship and an enemy station. But he was rescued by the wrong side — by Nalyn Ila, captain of the Elysian destroyer Invictus. Now Syova faces a difficult problem: How to persuade Captain Ila and her people that he is not an enemy combatant. That if there was an act of war, it was committed by her people, not his own.
Syova is almost certain he was an innocent bystander of disaster … unless his own people set him up, aiming to get him aboard Invictus for reasons he can’t yet understand. Maybe they did. It’s just the kind of thing Ubezhishche Command might do.
Nalyn Ila is almost certain Sevastien is an enemy agent, placed aboard her ship by Ubezhishche Command. But no one — not her own people nor the enemy nor Svova himself — can possibly guess what plans she might have for an Ubez soldier. Even if he actually is an innocent bystander, she may be able to use him to accomplish her private goals. And if he’s actually an enemy agent … that might be even better.
***
INVICTUS: CRISIS
No plan ever survives contact with the enemy.
Especially when you can’t be certain which side is your enemy.
Nalyn Ila did her best to lay plans for every imaginable contingency. But some contingencies were not imaginable. Now Ila has no choice but to change her plans as fast as she can, trying to stay one step ahead of disaster. Without Syova’s help, everything she has tried to achieve will certainly fail.
Now that everyone’s secret plans have been revealed, Syova has no choice but to reassess everything he knows about his enemies … and his friends. The Ubezhishche people haven’t yet gone to war with Elysium … not quite. Now devastating war may be unavoidable. Unless Captain Ila is telling him the truth.
With the survival of both his own people and hers at stake, Syova had better make all the right choices.
***
What I’m largely trying to do is reveal that we’re trying to avoid a very serious war. I think that’s enough information about the crisis? Not too much information?
Comments, please! Do you like the second book’s description? If something seems seriously off about it, please point.
Please Feel Free to Share:
I like both of them! I did notice one typo though: “not her own people nor the enemy nor Svova himself” – you have “Svova” rather than “Syova.” :-)
I like them too!
The use of ellipses in two successive sentences in the description of the second book is a bit startling – better to change one of them? They are then followed by two very short sentences, which creates an odd rhythm, I think.
Thumbs up from me for both of them!
I like both of these.