Greetings, I am trying to write a story, taking place during the World War I. After a bloody battle our main hero is left alone in the trenches, he is out of ammo, all his soldiers are dead. His adversary, with some 5 soldiers, is out to get him. The hero has to show he is willing to self-sacrifice to kill the bad guy and to protect his country. In the last moment, not to upset the viewer, reinforcements would show up and save the day... Maybe you have some good ideas of how this attempted self-sacrifice might look like? The best I could come up with - the hero find a stick-handle grenade, somehow ties it behind his back. The bad guy tells him to surrender, raise his hand and get out of the trench. He does so. The bad guy comes closer laughing, but then noticed the hero holding the string from the grenade. Hero smiles, showing that he is willing to self-sacrifice, the bad guy is scared, showing his moral defeat. Reinforcements arrive, some of the bad guy's soldiers are show and he runs off. The hero will finish him off in a later scene. Hmm... not very realistic. Maybe you could suggest something better?
I think the reason so many people have viewed this but not commented is the sheer unrealistic nature of what you're proposing. It's the first world war, acts of self-sacrifice happened in every action by every person fighting and the idea that reinforcements could just turn up out of the blue isn't going to make the reader happy, they're going to feel offended that you've used a deus ex machina to make sure your hero lives. Realistically speaking, if someone was in the trenches when their entire squad was killed, chances are they died as well. What I would change this idea to is half the squad being blown up in a coordinated grenade assault on enemy trenches. The survivors include a soldier who cannot walk due to the blast damage on his leg and his commanding officer essentially carries him while he uses his rifle as a crutch, back to safety. That would be a more realistic setting but the chances of them getting to safety would be slim. I would recommend using the remaining soldiers deaths as a catalyst for a later scene in which the war is over but scars remain for the hero of the piece. Perhaps he isn't a hero after all and in fact sacrificed his comrade to save himself? Given I don't know your target audience, it's hard to know where to take it. Having said that, if you're writing this for an age group that requires a hero to prevail, I would suggest moving to a fictional setting with your own systems of war that allow for such last minute saves. The last thing you want to do as a writer is compromise a very important time in history with ideas that are not only impossible but insulting. Hope this helps, happy writing friend!
Thanks for the reply. I would want to keep the audience happy, so killing the main hero is out of the question. ) Also I already nailed a great final scene, where he meets his adversary on a ship and kills him in a hand to hand combat. Also his best friend ( a real historic person ) got killed by friendly fire before the main battle scene. Therefor the battle scene has to show that the hero is ready to sacrifice himself, but in the same time both he and the adversary have to survive...
I agree with big soft moose about the nick of time arrival of rescuers. And your grenade scene reminds me too much of the climactic scene in Die Hard. Besides, if he has the grenade, he has a chance to take out more than just the top man. Self-sacrifice for a soldier includes the commitment to pay the ultimate price in any case. An alternative might be that he surrenders as you suggest, and pulls the string as soon as he is close enough, but the grenade is a dud. He is captured and tortured, and later escapes or is rescued, and you can still have your final faceoff on the ship.
I'm not saying this to be nasty, but it sounds like you need to cultivate a little more respect for your subject. Forget the shit you read in Commando comics, trench warfare is nasty, gross, close and dehumanising on an industrial scale. Those grand gestures for queen and country were only ever really played out on propaganda posters. If you want to learn about WW1, get yourself to Yrpes and the surrounding battle fields, and a take a few tours. It will be hard not to come away with more knowledge, a better sense of what actually went on, as well as a deep respect which will bite and cling on long after you get home. It will show in your writing.
Yes, that's a good idea. I'd see how I can incorporate it into the story. I am sure it was very nasty and brutal in real life, but I want the viewer/reader to feel happy and inspired, not overwhelmed by the gore and bloody details...
Hi Roger! I would suggest you should read lots of research materials about WW1. Diaries of the fighting men, stories they told afterwards, etc. You will find out that truth is definitely stranger that fiction, and usually a lot more interesting as well. I'm sure you'll read stuff that will give you lots of ideas that you didn't have before, as well as a stronger grounding in what that war was really like for the people who fought in it. Good luck! Research is your friend, if you are writing a story set in the past. Definitely.
In this thread in Research, the replies to my query contain some recommendations for some really good books: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/french-ww1-vet-research-letters-diaries-documentary-recs.160356/
I’d agree with others that happy and inspired doesn’t go well with war. And a real historic war is going to be hard to clean up and make pretty.
Like I said, a conflict of your own creation might be more apt for such a story, rather than one that affected millions of real families across the world and was hell from start to finish. I know you want to set it during the first world war but trust me, don't.
Well, I do need some historical events that will rip the main character out of his everyday life and alowe his heroic side to unfold. We have to also take into account that people were much tougher back then. War would be "hell from start to finish" for a modern mochaccino-drinking non-binary hipster, but might be pretty much fun for someone like Adrian Carton de Wiart, who said, with a British accent, "Frankly, I had enjoyed the war!" Heros like that are the ones we enjoy seeing in movies, not modern weaklings.
So where and when have you served? That aside, what you're describing is a suicide. Perhaps an honour suicide like the Japanese actually do (tradition of falling on their own sword. Also the film Letters to Iwo Jima would be a good illustration). If it's a sacrifice you're going for, then his action must lead to some sort of influential result - his death must actually allow for his country's victory realistically. Otherwise, yes, it's an honour suicide, not self-sacrifice. You kill yourself in both cases, but the reason for it is quite different.
I obviously agree that the Great War was horrific, but some of the most uplifting and inspiring stories were borne in times such as this - so if this is your aim I don't see why you can't attempt it. Just perhaps lose the 'last-minute' save as others have said, that is pretty unrealistic and won't be satisfying for the readers. Good luck!
Yes, but I can't really come up with anything that would show the hero's moral character and in the same time save him for the final fight with the adversary.
I'm not familiar enough with WW1 to offer much I'm afraid, but can I ask what was the purpose of this particular mission? Was it to capture a front? To locate a position for an artillery strike? Or something else? Maybe he attempts to complete his mission, knowing it is suicide. Or tries to save a dying comrade? Its difficult as I can't avoid the 'last minute save' scenario....
Honestly, if you haven't shown his moral character in the course of the war while he was fighting, you've already failed to show his character at all. You've failed to tell the story. You said back-ups will come in just in time to save the day anyway, so what's the problem? He will survive regardless of what he does, even if that's exactly nothing. You could even offer him an escape. He had a final chance to actually escape and instead, he chooses to remain in the trenches to die, because his comrades had all died for the cause, so why should he alone survive? That's also a choice, also a sacrifice, but he doesn't have to do anything at all in a way.
I can't agree with this entirely, especially if the battle is early in the story. Certain facets of his character will certainly be shown during the battle but others may only be exposed when the chips are truly down, as in this case.
Well, his job was to meet the friendly German forces to fight the Russians together. But once he and his men arrived on the positions, the Germans were not there, yet the Russians were advancing. So he had to hold them off until the Germans finally arrived. Yes, exactly. The scuffles before this scene would be brief and victorious. The main battle scene is to show the severity of the situation.
I think it was Robert E Lee who said after Chancellorsville "it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it" The OP is partly right in that it is a great dichotomy of warfare that combat can be the most fun you've had with your clothes on, but also and sometimes nearly simultaneously the most horrific experience of your life. However in regard of the first world war the balance was very heavily tipped to the horror side - it is hard to experience the exhilaration that comes with surviving a fire fight when you are cold, wet, short on rations, sitting in a muddy hole with trench foot and being shelled and gassed on a regular basis
Ok, so it's not entirely a deus-ex machina with reinforcements arriving, as we are already told they were on the way.
I agree with that, to a point. If you enjoy a bit of Millennial bashing, then you'll probably like the MC in my book that I'm bringing out in the summer There were people who enjoyed their time (or some of it) in warfare. My Grandparents had horrific stories of WW2, and some stories of fun and adventure. But war has made whole generations of shell-shocked, irrevocably damaged men and women. It's possible that a brain-washed soldier would have done such an act in WW1, I guess. But the core issue you will face, I think, is your reader's reactions to it. For the vast majority of people, it just won't fly because the readers will feel cheated. If you want to write this book, write it, you clearly feel strongly about it, and I'd like to see you finish it. Just approach it with more sensitivity, and dive deep, deep into your research is the take away from this.
Huh? Fighting Russians, waiting for friendly German forces to show up? Whose side is he on? Certainly not British, french or American.
