My Uncle, King Arthur

If you really want to write this novel, you might as well just throw away the setting of the time traveler, and then change the psychological description of the first entry into Camelot and delete it. A big change in the front will make it fit your character and plot later. Are you a brother without an outline? In other words, you just write whatever comes to mind, and you never read the entire article. I think the number of words you write now is not particularly large. Take some time, start reading from the first chapter, and finish it. You can't understand it yourself. Ask your friends not to say that you wrote it, but to let them read it and let them find faults. It's no problem to set up a time-travel setting in the front, everything is very reasonable. Later, you have to add a predecessor from the Vikings era, Govindo, who was awesome, and then his courage was taken away, and then he became like this. As a result, you were inexplicable when you time-traveled, and also became like this. Is this possible? You who traveled through time were originally pulled. Not to mention courage and physical fitness, how do you create a binding relationship? Let's just say that the courage of the predecessor is different from that of the travelers behind. And in this case, why did the protagonist have this psychological description when he first saw the Knights of the Round Table, "I don't know if I can fight in my previous life, but I definitely can't fight in this life." No, it's already strict, your physical fitness in this life is not as good as that of the legendary Gawain, but it is wrong. Later, it was said that Gawain in his previous life was so strong that he just had his courage taken away. When did you find out? You know, why would you say that again? If you know it through memory, is your memory still disconnected? Did you say it? Why do you have this memory when you first time travel, and why do you have that kind of psychological description? Are you not contradictory? Is there any conflict? I'm speechless

I don't understand. I've read Chapter 46 and I'm even more confused. Let me ask the author. First, the protagonist you set traveled through time after arriving in Camelot and lost all his memories. Then who was the person who talked to the Sword in the Stone when he pulled out the Sword in the Stone? If it is the protagonist, what is his memory? What's going on? If not, do you think it's reasonable? 2. The protagonist you wrote is a waste. He can't fight and doesn't dare to fight. His mother said that he was cursed because he set foot on Christian land. Later, he was cursed for refusing to kill during the ceremony. Which one is true 3. At first, it was said that the kingdom where the protagonist is located is just a small village, but later in the memory, it is indeed a very powerful and powerful tribe. Which one is it? 4. You said that Hogsmeade is an illegitimate child and therefore has no inheritance rights, but it has not been revealed for the sake of the reputation of King Arthur. Then why after the protagonist comes? Hogsmeade can be so arrogant and unpunished, even proposing to hang the protagonist in the Round Table Council, and most of the knights agree, even if they don't know that Hogsmeade is an illegitimate child and therefore take sides, is it really reasonable to directly hang another heir 5, Lord Horn's mother is also a witch, and Hogsmeade's mother is also a witch. Why does the protagonist's mother only appear once at the beginning and then disappear later? Is it really okay to just watch her son being targeted? 6. The bet between the protagonist and the Green Knight, why will he be beheaded in a year? It's just like a lie. Since Arthur can only let the protagonist be his heir, why is he not anxious at all? He even doesn't even comfort the protagonist after the bet is made. It's like everyone just left after watching a show and no one cares 7. When the protagonist is fighting the Green Knight, for Why is it that no knight is willing to lend a weapon to the protagonist, even if he thinks that the protagonist is not worthy of his name? Is it reasonable to just stand by and watch without knowing that King Arthur is willing to lend the weapon to the protagonist? 8. At first, it was said that Arthur did not understand the protagonist, but later it was written that the protagonist has not traveled through time. When Arthur heard Valrici telling the story of the protagonist, could it be that Arthur's disappointment with the protagonist that you mentioned at the beginning was because of Arthur's forgetfulness? It's too contradictory and outrageous. It seems that only a few people in Camelot support the protagonist and the rest are opponents. No matter how you say it, it's unreasonable.

So the protagonist's codename is Darabengba, Badebedibdobiluong😁

The protagonist feels a bit naive and childish.

What are you writing about? I said before that the main character is really rubbish. Later it was said that the male bloodline of the protagonist's family can become powerful warriors! With the power of their genes and bloodline, these are not inferior to the ordinary Knights of the Round Table. Their skills are not as strong as his, and they can defeat him ten times with just one strength!

To be honest, I think one of the reasons for writing about the literary world is that the popularity is low and no one reads it. The fundamental reason is that the author's writing is not very good. The style is vacillating, and the characters in the novel are hollow and unstable. Some behaviors seem inexplicable due to the narrative method, and the logic is not smooth. However, it has been written so far and it is even more undesirable to suddenly turn 180 degrees. The selected world should be as close as possible to the previous settings and foreshadowing. If you enter the second dimension, you may need to add additional settings.

It feels like it would be better to set the protagonist as an aborigine from the beginning, or the time the protagonist travels through does not fit. You yourself said that the protagonist only traveled through time when Gawain entered Britain. Let me not mention that you lost your courage and lost your physical fitness and so on. Then I was wondering if you, a person who traveled through time, brought in your personality and your own character so quickly? Do you have such strong feelings for King Lott and Morgan so soon? And why are you having your courage taken away? This is not the reason for your own failure. You know that you are not good enough, and then you brag about it. You know, after Arthur dies, King Lot will invade in the future, and you don't think about how to become stronger? There is no sense of crisis. I can understand this as you, a time-traveler, don't have feelings for these things, just run away by yourself when the time comes, but you do have feelings in the latest few pictures. And it was the predecessor who had his courage taken away. What does it have to do with you, the time traveler behind you? I don't want to kill babies or my own brothers. I think this is normal for modern people. If the protagonist is soul-piercing, he will definitely understand Gawain and will not lose his courage because of this. Therefore, it is the influence of the previous life that caused the soul-piercing protagonist to lack courage, which is impossible. But here comes the problem. There is only one possibility. The protagonist who traveled through time in modern times is a coward himself. I can understand this. Because you grew up in peacetime, you are out of place, and you are physically unable to fight. Facing these tough guys, you appear to be a coward. I don't think it's okay. If this is the case, you are confused if you blame the gods for taking away your courage. What the latest chapter taught you about not killing your brothers and your father is correct. Does this kind of thing have anything to do with you as a time traveler? Don't you know whether modern people's three views are correct or not? And that's from the predecessor, and it's not your experience, so you're so confused. You yourself don't want to write awesome novels. You think you are good at writing and can write long-form protagonists. Then just control the rhythm, okay? If you look at it from the beginning, it is at least logical, but suddenly it feels very frustrating and the protagonist is very timid. But you said it yourself, the protagonist has just traveled through time, and his physical fitness is not like that of Gawain in the legend. When a modern person does this, apart from the discomfort caused by bragging, it is such a performance, and it is also normal in my understanding. If you insist on writing the following part plus the previous one, it will be so damn nondescript and completely wrong. You could obviously do it in several ways, but you chose the most outrageous one. You have repeatedly emphasized the power of the bloodline relationship before, so you cannot write about the protagonist awakening to the bloodline, and then being educated and tested by King Arthur or the Knights to grow up. You said yourself how awesome your bloodline is, how powerful it can bring you, and how it can also improve your physical fitness, don't you think? In the end, what's behind the modern times you wrote about? Brother, don't you read the novels you wrote?

What is it about? What does the protagonist want to do? The protagonist just has a background, right?

The protagonist has no strength or wisdom, and the story is well written, but the protagonist's small peasant mentality is too serious, which makes people feel frustrated.

The writing is good, but this is a web novel. The main character is paralyzed and makes me feel uncomfortable reading it.