In a love story, which is more tragic and why?

Question

I'm working on a small love story with the general concept of people who, for all intents and purposes, should end up together. But they met at the wrong time and get to be at different points in their lives and make the wrong choices and ultimately can't.

(Yes, it's been done a million times. A prompt for practice and fun.)

But while plotting I was just wondering which is more tragic: if the lovers have already gotten together and then it's ripped apart OR if they're always a hair from being together only for it never to come to pass?

And if the former, is it more tragic for them to have...consummated or never have before it's wrenched away?

Like I said, this is just a little story for practice. My characters aren't fully fleshed out yet so really it can go either way.

I just want to make my friend who always edits and looks over my stuff cry tbh.

And I'm wondering what the people of the internet think.

So.

What do ya'll think?

Nero · Answer

The first part is more tragic. Whenever I read about some couple who are so desperate to be together despite never actually having dated; I can't help but scoff at how ridiculous their obsession is. Yes, "forbidden romance" is extremely cliché (I can't stand the drama behind it as well), and I don't think that is the only alternative option.

Gosick managed to do the prior without any sort of real forbidden romance plot. World War is what split them apart. He got deported to Japan for his safety, ended up joining the military (his father was an officer). Meanwhile, she got involved this huge government conspiracy (her father being a corrupt politician who wanted the country (made up country) to join the axis powers), and ended up a wanted criminal herself.

She flees, makes her way across battle torn Europe and Asia all the way to Japan and seeks refuge with his family. Five years later he gets discharged from the military and they are reunited.

Henderson · Answer

I think it's more tragic for the lovers to be together and then be ripped apart because they loved each other and were with each other for a long period of time.  Contrary, the lovers who were never with each other and were always a hair away never knew what it was like to be together, so the pain wasn't as bad.  In my opinion, a breakup or being separated from your lover after being with that person feels worse than never being able to be with your lover.

Anonymous · Answer

Definitely "they're always a hair from being together only for it never to come to pass" because then that way they were actually never together and are desperate to be with eachother. If they were ripped apart from eachother then they would have already been with eachother and it's forbidden love which is less interesting then the other. In the other it's not forbidden and they'll try to be together but never end up succeeding.

Trending News

In a love story, which is more tragic and why?

3 Answers