Is it true that it's impossible to write a tragic war story?

Who said that? It sounds retarded.

>>8692265
>what is history

>>8692270
It might not be "tragic" I'm thinking of, but the reasoning goes: The audience will always root for at least one side to win in a war story

or something like that

Why do you think so? War is almost always tragic.
And without a hero? "Hero" in what sense? Noble men, who do feats or men of war in general? Without the former, it's very possible, without the latter it would be really bland and would read like documentary with statistics.

>>8692284
The audience should do whatever the competent writer instructs them to do - i don't see why it would be impossible to have a hero-less story
whether the audience like it or not is another question

>>8692331
Here's how I've heard it:

The audience will always want at least one side to win because there will probably be a sympathetic character that they want to succeed. If there are no sympathetic characters, and all the people involved are hateful, the audience will want both sides to kill each other.

Has /lit/ not heard of this?

War literature is a meme and should be ignored

is this what all quiet on the western front is?

>>8692337
I've heard it. I think it has some merit. It's basically impossible to write a 'story,' something with a character who has an arc, and not romanticize the character's journey to some extent. That's the problem with writing war stories. Or, rather, that's the problem with writing anti-war stories.

>>8692265


All Quiet On The Western Front?

>>8692265
>Is it true that it's impossible to write a tragic war story? Or a war story without a hero?+ 0 post omitted.
This sounds pretty easy to do.