Talk:It Only Meant Love in 1350/@comment-26193563-20150427220847/@comment-26323407-20150428021541

I'd like to know where you think my phrasing was awkward, if you don't mind, because if that's a problem that noticeably detracts from the pasta then I need to work on it (especially if I hope to keep writing these).

As for the vagueness. . . it's partly intentional? Jessie is by no means an unbiased narrator (I actually don't like her much as a person--she strikes me as both weak and a little passive-aggressively manipulative), so portions of her narrative that might show her in a negative light are just glossed over. (And to an extent, I was afraid of boring the reader by adding in those, as you note, typical high-school-romance sections to too great a degree.) But if it leaves the reader floundering, then it's too much. Where is it specifically that you feel more detail is needed to bolster it up?

Finally: the title. This is what happens when you try to be clever at 1am and just straight-up fail. White roses in medieval times meant "true love," only to be later replaced by the red rose we're familiar with today. "1350" would have been meant to suggest a year in the Middle Ages. There's no improving that, I'm afraid.

T