HELP ME CHOOSE!!!

[indianasmith]

OK, everybody - I need your help. I am trying to write a cover blurb for my new novel, LOVER OF GOD. I have three different versions. Imagine that you have never met me, and never read any of my books. Which one of these would be most likely to make you open your wallet and buy the book? I've labeled them A, B, and C. Choose one in your comments below, please!

VERSION A:

For two thousand years his name was unknown . . .
His story was untold . . .
Until now.

Marcus Quintus Publius was a talented Roman aristocrat, a brilliant lawyer, a confidant of Emperors, and a fearless soldier. He was many things to many people.

To his legal clients, he was a skilled advocate whose eloquence earned him the nickname "Young Cicero."
To the Emperor, Claudius Caesar, he was a skilled trouble shooter and diplomat.
To corrupt officials, he was "the Scourge of the Provinces," a bane to all those who abused their power over Rome's subjects.
To his soldiers, he was their beloved general, winner of Rome's highest decoration for valor, the Corona Granicus, the Grass Crown.
To a lovely young widow, he was the perfect husband, delivering her from loneliness and boredom.
To the young Imperial heir, Claudius Nero, he was a mentor, a rarely heeded voice of reason and moderation.
To one young orphaned slave, he became an adopted father.
But to the leaders of the brand-new Christian faith, he was their legal defender, their tireless advocate, and their sole voice in the Roman Senate.

They called him Theophilus - the Lover of God.

VERSION B:

For two thousand years his name was unknown . . .
His story was untold . . .
Until now.

When members of a despised religious minority are accused by Emperor Nero himself of starting the Great Fire of Rome, will any man have the courage to stand up for them?

One man would.

His name was Marcus Quintus Publius . . . a brilliant lawyer, a confidant of Emperors, a fearless soldier, and a man of integrity – a rare combination in the Roman Empire! Long before this moment, his journey had taken him from the windswept shores of Britain to the forests of Gaul to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and to the Parthian capitol of Ecbatana. He crossed paths with crooked governors, barbarian invaders, monstrous beasts, maniacal tyrants, and the apostles of the Empire's newest faith, Christianity.
Marcus led Rome's legions in battle, fought off assassins, conducted criminal trials, negotiated with powerful monarchs, and encountered genuine miracles. He would be hailed as imperator by his troops and be called "The Scourge of the Provinces" by corrupt politicians. But it was his defense of Christianity before the Emperor himself that earned him the name he bears in Scripture to this day: Theophilus – the Lover of God.

"This novel will grab you by the front of the shirt and pull you in face-first! No one does ancient Rome better than Lewis B. Smith."
– Dai-Keag-Ity, Amazon

VERSION C:

For two thousand years his name was unknown . . .
His story was untold . . .
Until now.

Marcus Quintus Publius . . . he was a brilliant lawyer, a confidant of Emperors, a fearless soldier, and a man of integrity – a rare combination in the Roman Empire ruled by Claudius Caesar. Empowered as the Emperor's special investigator of corruption, his journey would take him from the windswept shores of Britain to the forests of Gaul to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and to the Parthian capitol of Ecbatana. He would cross paths with crooked governors, barbarian invaders, monstrous beasts, maniacal tyrants, and the apostles of the Empire's newest faith, Christianity.
On his odyssey, he would lead Rome's legions in battle, fight off assassins, conduct criminal trials, negotiate with powerful monarchs, and encounter genuine miracles. He would be hailed as imperator by his troops and be called "The Scourge of the Provinces" by corrupt politicians. But the title he would treasure the most was the one given to him by a wandering religious teacher named Paul of Tarsus, who called him Theophilus – the Lover of God.

"This novel will grab you by the front of the shirt and pull you in face-first! No one does ancient Rome better than Lewis B. Smith."
– Dai-Keag-Ity, Amazon Reviewer

[dean]

Out of the three the first one because I'm picturing it in the film trailer announcer voice which appeals to me much more than the other two.

[Trevor]

Out of the three the first one because I'm picturing it in the film trailer announcer voice which appeals to me much more than the other two.

I agree with Dean: the first one is the best.

[ER]

Dai-keag-ity is my absolute favorite Amazon reviewer.

[frank]

Hard to say without knowing what the novel is really about. Generally, I wouldn't be too interested in someone who had done tons of awesome stuff (that probably isn't part of the story) and now does even more awesome stuff. I would miss some sort of conflict in or challenge to the hero here. That being said, I think B works best. Here's why:

A - That is just a list of over-the-top accomplishments. Will they be part of the story? What is the story arc? There is a "but" at the end, but it is quite unbalanced and I am a bit left alone in figuring out the relevant aspect.

B - I like that it starts right away with a problem: Who stands up for a minority? The second part gives the answer and establishes that it is a respected member of the same society that (presumably) put a hard time on the minority. The next part is doing the same, and to my taste that is too much - I know already he is awesome. The last sentence takes out the suspense. Everything works out fine, the minority is saved and it is just another trophy on the belt of the hero (or so I interpret it). But isn't the question how it works out? Will the hero fall in the eyes of his previous peers? Will society try to shame him? Is there any conflict at all? I think the focus should be on the life history of the hero and what he accomplished, the big point should not be that it is finally written down.

C - To me, that is too much specific information about that man without giving any reference to what the story will be. I would assume the lifetime of a hero, like a classic on Odysseus. For example, for him I prefer "he just wants to get home, but angered the wrong gods" over "he successfully fights witches, cyclops, and those pesky Trojans". Here, the religious part comes a bit surprisingly at the end - but is that not the focus?. While I like the phrasing, I wouldn't know if that is a main part of the story at all, a turning point for the hero, or just the first spot in a top 25 of accomplishments.


Anyway, just my thoughts, but I am a sucker for ambiguous characters and have not much interest in flawless superheros.