After a clumsy socialist teacher loses again against his smart conservative brother in the elections, he leaves regional politics frustrated only to learn from his students that he has to become more ruthless to win the next time.
savinh0Samurai
After a clumsy socialist teacher loses again against his smart conservative brother in the elections, he leaves regional politics frustrated only to learn from his students that he has to become more ruthless to win the next time.
Share
It seems to me that? “clumsy” versus?”become more ruthless” is an incongruent match up.??A more congruent value?contrast would be??”become more ruthless”?versus? “idealistic”.? Further, what?would be?galling is not only that he’s losing to a conservative brother, but one who gloats about it; ?iow:? amp up the sibling rivalry.
As in:
After repeated losing?elections to his arrogant conservative brother, an idealistic?socialist school teacher abandons his?ethical principles ?to win….
Well,? win what?? What is the office at stake?? I think that needs to be specified.
You have to be more economical with your words and don’t give detail which isn’t about the main story. ?For example clumsy has little to do with what I see the main story being. ?The other thing, is why does his students know more than he does? ?Does he learn by watching them? This is unclear. ?Here is how I would attack it.
After losing repeat elections to his conservative brother, a socialist school teacher abandons his morals and takes a ruthless road to victory.
from your first version I wasn’t sure if the story was about him winning or his education at the hands of his students. ?Plus the term “socialist teacher” for me hinted that he may be teaching socialism. ?That’s why I added “school” in the line.