What do you think of this story (rate 1 to 10) Why was love in the past more authentic?
An unknowm guy rescues a girl who was shot during war. He treats her wounds cause the doctor is busy with more serious injured, takes care of her, stays with her day and night as she has fever. The girl is orphan and the guy feels compassion and pity for her. When she wakes up, he is the first thing that she sees. They fall in love but never tell. The guy is afraid of being caught so he's always worried about them coming to take him, as he is a prisoner of war who ran away from his camp. He takes her with him to run away and on the train gives her his food, his coat and warms her up in his arms, but never kisses her. When they are sleeping in the wagon, he hears some steps and wakes her up. They hide but they caught, he is taken away while she desperately tries to save him getting between authorities and his beloved. She is desperate as he is taken away, cries and decides to suicide. A woman finds her and takes care of her. In her farm, the woman gives her the wooden ship he gave her, that she had in her pocket. She decides to save him. She goes looking for him everywhere but is not able to find him.
- Anonymous3 weeks agoFavorite Answer
Are you the person who posted the last plot with a similar theme to this? If so, it's much improved. I'd say the weakest point is the start- it seems a bit random to have a soldier act as a doctor/nurse. Does he have prior experience with medicine? Did he start medical training then drop out? Also, keep in mind, any gunshot wound is serious. You can die from being shot almost anywhere, even the arm. The shock can kill you. So unless it's just a graze, it would need to be seen by a proper doctor. And what is the soldier doing staying with her the whole time? Why isn't he fighting, or doing something useful elsewhere?
Some other points: the girl comes off as very passive and, in other words, useless. People got bored of the whole 'damsel in distress' thing many, many years ago. Give her some agency. Maybe she was injured fighting with a civilian rebel force. Maybe sometimes, she rescues him instead of it being all one-sided. There's nothing romantic about one-sided romance.
And what purpose does this whole suicide thing serve? Not the plot, certainly. If she's so in love with him, she doesn't need a reminder (the wooden ship) to decide to try to save him. Moreover, what is she going to do to save him? One woman in a warzone is hardly going to find and rescue a man who could be in a prison camp/prison anywhere in the country by herself. Again, the idea of her being in a sort of civilian fighting/rebel group makes sense, as she could be being active and moving the plot forward while still looking for the soldier.
Another thing to think about- why does this story have an unhappy ending? Does it make some sort of political/social point? I'm not saying unhappy endings are necessarily bad, but if you intend on getting this published, keep in mind that due to the rest of the book's plot being almost exclusively romance-driven, the editor might want the ending changed to give a happy ending. This is because, without a happy ending, your book cannot be shelved as romance (the happily ever after is a requirement). Romance, as you might know, is also one of the most profitable genres. But with your unhappy ending, you cut out the majority of the potential readers of your book.
You may also want to consider subplots, complicating the plot with other elements than the romance, etc. Remember to give a credible reason the characters can't immediately be together- why don't they kiss?
On a separate point, I'm not sure what you mean about love in the past. There is often a more romantic element in period dramas, etc, than to contemporary ones- I think perhaps it has to do with it being more formal then- there's usually no one night stands, it's more classic, 'may I have your hand in marriage' romance. Actual history, however, was certainly not more romantic and we certainly have much healthier ideas about what romance should be now than we did back then.
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
TL;DR nobody cares. Write the actual book and then I might read it.
- TinaLv 73 weeks ago
Will you please stop doing this.
The plot still doesn't make sense wherever it's set. If he's a POW surely he's also an enemy alien, so why don't people notice him? and how does she come to get shot? is it a civil war?
Sort this out and then write the book. But stop asking questions about it?
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
Poor them,why dont they have a happy ending
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MarliLv 73 weeks ago
Love in the past was no more or less "authentic" than love is now. You confuse "love" with "romance" and medieval ideals of the chivalrous knight serving his unattainable lady. I am reading "Courtiers" by Lucy Worsley. It's about the English court in the 1700s. King George I locked up his wife and killed her lover. George II loved his wife but severely criticized her every action, and he had mistresses. One maid of honour secretly married her beloved. He rejected her soon afterward and he fell in love with a man. She loved him still but he scorned her the rest of his life. One bedchamber woman had been in love with the man she married. Once he had spent her fortune, he emotionally and physically beat her. When she separated from him (with the queen's assistance), he took away their small son.
The old romance stories were just that -stories. Their female readers and listeners wanted the man to devote himself to his "fair lady" and true love, who was seldom his wife. The Wife of Bath in "The Canterbury Tales" said a man's complete devotion and commitment to her was what women most desired. Many men then and now loved their wives, but they argued with them about provisions, bills, children, expecting more affection than a busy spouse could give them. Grown up women know romance novels are hearts and flowers and ideal but not wash the dishes and clean up the kids real.
As for you current story: They must've clambered into a freight train's boxcar because they could not afford to buy tickets, or they were afraid the secret police were in the station or on the passenger trains. Of course the police would inspect the freight trains too, unless they were well bribed. Even then, no bribe could stop the police or train personnel betraying them.
Why didn't the police arrest the girl? She had aided their prisoner. He was an enemy of the nation, so she must be an enemy too. She might also know his secrets, and if she was frail, she would be easier to break by torture.
How did the woman make the connection between the ship that the arrested man passed to her and the sorrowing girl? Why did the man choose her from all who observed the arrest? Did she know the couple?
I think you have twisted your story parts into every background except the Orient and Africa. I doubt you can increase their misery unless you give them a time-space machine or re-incarnate them.
Please don't try that, or don't tell us until you have finished writing a complete and final draft of the manuscript. If you want to hug their doomed romance to your breast, do it in private or write One version of your story to at least get it out of your system so you can think of other things and make some use of yourself.
I thought that perhaps you could write a plausible love story; but you keep moaning and sighing over a few scenes and won't get your pair moving from their meeting to the end, whatever it is to be. You keep asking for approval of the same action, whether it's in Edwardian England or Ireland or modern somewhere, wherever the characters are. If they are in Syria now, in Russia in 1917 or in Berlin in 1943 or Belfast in the early 1900s, medical and other conditions are different and though I keep insisting you research your backgrounds you just keep writing the same stuff each time.
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
That's not half bad Anon, here's my humble contribution add it on to yours if it fits. ;-)
U.S. culture has significant regional inflections. Yeah! Americans are aware of these differences despite the fact these regions have experienced economic transformations over time. And remember that Americans are a mobile people who often leave their regions of origin.
The Northeast, densely populated with its extensive corridors of urbanization, they have been called the national megalopolis. It was a leader once in technology and industry, sadley its been overtaken in those areas by California's Silicon Valley.
What about the Midwest? it's both rural and industrial. It's the home of the family farm, its the home of the graffters, its the corn belt, the breadbasket that feeds a nation of hungry mouths year in year out. Then there's the automobile and steel industries always central to a community and its economy. Again sadly today those industries are in decline. I have heard the expression used in some places, THE RUST BELT.
The South, what nice things can we say about the south? It was shaped by its secession from the Union before the Civil War and, it will forever be associated with slavery and, the subsequent battles over civil rights for African-Americans.
Argh! Have I saved the best till last. The West, the last national frontier where men were men and dreams disolved before your very eyes. It will always and forever until the end of time be associated with true grit, dreams and myths of unlimited opportunity and individualism.