When a witch who is also a medical doctor is left with three days to raise his daughter from the dead, he enlists the help of an ameteur witch who has three days to save her mother from a deadly disease.
LoratoLogliner
When a witch who is also a medical doctor is left with three days to raise his daughter from the dead, he enlists the help of an ameteur witch who has three days to save her mother from a deadly disease.
Share
I believe a woman would be a witch, a man would be a manwich… I mean warlock 🙂
On a different note. Who is giving the lead character three days to raise his daughter? Don’t get me wrong, a ticking clock is great for a story, I just am curious who or what sets the ticking clock into motion.
Why would the warlock call upon an?amateur? ? ? Why doesn’t he solicit the help of a pro?
And if the protagonist is the warlock, he seems to be completely helpless, utterly dependent on an amateur, who, in any event,?has a more immediate and personal problem than helping the warlock. ?Other than beg the witch to help him raise his daughter even if it kills her mother –but why would the witch want to risk the life of her mother by taking the time to help the warlock? ?What’s in it for the amateur witch?
Who is the real protagonist here, the warlock or the witch?
Whatever, the motivational math just doesn’t add up for me.
fwiw
If being a doctor is not relevant to the plot I would leave it out.
“After his daughter dies a desperate warlock has three days to recover a resurrection spell and the obscure ingredients or lose his daughter forever”
“When a witch who is also a medical doctor is left with three days to raise his daughter from the dead, he enlists the help of an amateur witch who has three days to save her mother from a deadly disease.”
Maybe you should try saying that the amateur is necromancer, and the only necromancer in the area. And specify that the witch does not know necromancy, at least not enough to bring someone back.
Example:?After his daughter dies a witch has three day to enlist the help of the state’s only necromancer to save his daughter before her soul is lost forever.?(28)
<Start of eschatological rant>
For what it’s worth, both characters seem to be acting out their own egocentric needs. ?There are plenty of other people who have lost or are about to lose loved ones, loved ones who deserve as much or more to live — but all the 2 characters care about is their own. ? What’s so special about the daughter and the mother that they should get an extended lease on life — and all the others get to die?
Well, that’s human nature. ?But in modern conventions of drama there is usually an implied subjective story line; that is, a character arc where the character overcomes a flaw to become a better person through the process of the struggling for the objective goal.
How will resurrecting his daughter make the doctor a better person? ?Or the witch saving her mother a better witch?
Also, what does “her soul is lost forever” ?mean, anyway? ?What are the real stakes? ?If she is going to her punishment, aka: hell, yeah, that’s a problem needing a solution. ?The deceased needs another chance to get her life right, redeem herself.
But if she’s going to her reward after she dies, aka: heaven, what’s the problem? ? Resurrecting ?the daughter would be like someone dragging me back to my house and holding me captive there just as I’m on my way to cash a winning lottery ticket that will end all my financial woes. Why should I want to be “saved” like that?
All I’m saying is: if one is going to use the idea of an after life, at least work out and be true to the logical consequences. ?Which means give the deceased a good reason why she needs to be resurrected. ?Give her unfinished business she must?deal with in this mortal coil.
< End of eschatological rant. ?fwiw>
This seems to be an interesting mix of genres; Drama and super-natural – I’m interested.
However, I don’t think the story elements are sitting well together, not yet anyhow. The daughter’s death is a good inciting incident, the goal is clear – bring her back. Here’s the big ‘but’, BUT what else is at stake? Yes, the death of a child is painful, but it does happen. However, if she was killed by a malicious force and resurrecting her will help find a way to stop said force, the stakes are greater and the motivation just.
There is also no need to mention the ally amateur witch in the logline, that can be delegated to the synopsis or step out line.
DPG, good point. I was just trying to keep with the original idea, that the witch has a certain amount of time to revive the daughter before she is lost or whatever. In most stories that I read necromancers can animate any spirit no matter how long they’ve been dead, but there are certain caveats and such.
I think something that no one has really?touched on is the differences set up between the two characters: the fact that one is medical living doctor, and the other is a ‘doctor’ of death. One heals the living and one is able to raise the dead. I’m guessing that the intent is to highlight the differences between the two characters during the story.
Dkpough1:
I noted the contrast between daughter and mother but didn’t know what to make of it terms of the story.
My primary issues is that I think there has to be a good reason why ?the daughter needs to be resurrected . (And the mother saved.) ?Unfinished business, a wrong to be rectified, an injustice remedied, a broken relationship mended — whatever. I don’t think that the grief of ?personal loss is sufficient for dramatic purposes.
And achieving the objective goal ?should have unintended consequences: be careful what you wish for. ?(In keeping with the genre assigned to the concept: thriller.)