I have this adventure/romance novel planned, and I can't decide if there should be a baby or not. Would it be too unrealistic if the baby survived a plane crash?? I've heard about babies living through horrible car accidents. And if you think it is not too unrealistic do you think it would hurt/slow down an action/adventure story? It is not the main two character's baby. It is one of the other passengers who was killed. They get captured, then escape, and then walk through the Amazon. So, baby or no baby??
Please, this is important. I can do it either way, but I can't figure out which one is better. Be nice. Thanks!!!
2007-03-27 06:29:18 · 5 answers · asked by Hockey Girl 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Flip a coin. Seriously.
2007-03-27 06:57:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm, tough question. Well as you know in lost a baby survives (although she's pregnant when they crash) So we know its a viable subplot. I say that if the baby can be a main part of the plot then yes...keep it. But if it's just another element that doesn't really affect the story, then no baby. But its really up to you and how YOU want the story to develop.
2007-03-27 13:34:03 · answer #2 · answered by rivertam666 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason babies survive car crashes that kill the adults is that their car seats protect them better than seat belts do. If the baby was strapped in right, I can see it surviving a plane crash.
2007-03-27 13:40:07 · answer #3 · answered by Tapioca 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Baby. The baby survived by dint of being strapped into a protective carrier seat.
2007-03-27 13:53:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No baby. A baby can't talk. A baby can't comment. A baby can't twist vines together and swing through the trees. Sorry, baby.
2007-03-31 11:21:48 · answer #5 · answered by kathyw 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋