I prefer the actual huamity in choice A over just a blun that is choice B

I thought this description was more thorough about the plot.

I chose A over B because the passage in choice A seemed to flow better in a literary sense. It's more conversational. The other passage reads very stop-and-go and sounds almost robotic, makes it hard for the reader to get into the text.

I was pretty on the fence because A is a little long, but I think ultimately it had better imagery and I liked the comparison to other popular authors, as it demonstrated the target audience well.

I chose option A because the story is more clear. The concept is not hard to understand but it has been done before and something needs to set it apart.

The description here makes the book seem much more interesting and exciting.

It seems more intense and put together. Option b seems more randomly mushed together without making as much sense. A seems more realistic and thus would draw me in more.

A just piques my interest more. It would make me more likely to buy it.

The plot summary for Option A is more descriptive. You know more about what you are getting yourself into before you read.

I prefer A-it gave more info about the book overall, and just really intrigued me.

It sounds much more inspirational and uplifting.

This description feels a little less overly dramatic to me which is something I prefer.

It was easier to understand and a lot more descriptive. I like the part "Shadow knows she must reach deeply into her heart to find the strength she so badly needs"

Option A opens up more clarification on what the reader can expect. It makes it more relatable to whoever is reading the summary because it offers more details about the different paths of life that one can take.

It feels more descriptive and complete. It would engage my interest and make me want to find out more.

A lore subtly draws the reader in. I believe that B has too many rhetorical questions that border on being cliche. A asks the same questions as B, but in less "in your face" way. The important descriptions of Shadow and her struggles are there, the reader can divine that she will go through struggles themselves and decide if they're interested in reading about that.

Although option B is more to the point and has more directed questions, it does not have the thrill and emotion of option A. I chose this option because I was truly enveloped in the story, whereas in option B the story felt rushed and not thoroughly explained.

I like how this one does a good job of explaining the book, while also not telling you that much about it.

B is more concise and gives a cleared description of the book. A is a little too long and doesn't flow as well.

B sounds far more intriguing

Both are good, but I like the shorter version. It is more to the point and not redundant.

This description includes a lot of suspense in the writing which would make a reader want to pick up the book. The other description is kind of plain

I prefer option B because it is shorter and more to the point. The questions make it more engaging and make me curious about the plot. In Option A, it feels like it's trying too hard to be dramatic. Option B is more intriguing because it gives away less of the plot and doesn't include unnecessary exposition.

B says just as much as A with fewer words.

I liked the more concise description of option A. It felt more impactful and less wordy.

The part that stood out to me was the "Shadow must dig deep", and that is good imagery to fit the fact that Shadow is a wolf, and wolves can dig.

I think shorter intros are better. Especially if you don't have much time

Shorter is better.

I prefer this one the rising from turmoil part drew me in and makes me want to know what and how she is rising from it.

This is short and concise and easier to digest the first few sentences.

I like the shorter synopsis better. It gets straight to the point telling me what the story is about as well as the motivation of the main character. It does a good job in setting the scene without feeling like I am being overwhelmed by text.

I like B because it's shorter but makes sense

I chose B because I can relate to the questions asked in the second paragraph in when the Shadow character wonders if she can lead properly.

I like that this one is shorter and i feel it is also a little bit more punchy and interesting than the other description

this one is shorter and more to the point than the other one. I like some of the words it uses better too like the sentence "Can Shadow find the strength to persevere in the face of unimaginable loss, death, and pain"

Language easier to understand in places and not super ober the top or geared for younger audience overall both are very close in what it says.

The more concise description is better.

B is written in a way that really grabs your attention and sucks you in. I really feel like A is trying too hard with the description. It’s saying all the right things, but the delivery comes up short.

B - gives me a nice, succinct overview of the plot and the main character. I particularly like the sentence that introduces the main character, "Rising from the turmoil is Shadow..." A has basically an entire unnecessary paragraph shoved in the middle of it. Both reviews give me other authors to compare to, which is nice because that it is how I find a lot of new books.

This one is shorter and more concise but conveys the same ideas.

B is shorter and the blurb to grab people's attention can't be that long because it gives too much away and people won't read it. Even if A is well written, it is too long.

Oh my God, B is soooo much better than A. A lost me like a million times. It was like listening to William Shatner do improve night at a beatnik house. It has disjointed topics that bounced from idea to idea with no smooth transition. I got bored like two sentences in to the description of Shadow. Option B ties into the theme from the first paragraph, makes you invested in what Shadow has to do, and builds curiosity about what will happen.

I like that B is more condensed.

I think this sums everything up very nicely, and has the exact right authors recommended with it. It's enticing enough to pick up.

He seems to me to be a lot more well written and succinct. I like how Shadow is introduced in that one too, compared to the other.

B is more concise. The problem with A is that the more the wolf was personified, the cheesier and more childish the blurb felt. To keep it short lets me imagine things better than they may actually be and make me more likely to find out more.

They're basically the same synopsis, but B is more succinct. The words and the phrasing are a little more careful and compact, which helps it to communicate its point better. As Strunk & White say, omit needless words.