Skip to main content

Murderous Grammar

Murdered Minister's Wife Confesses to the Crime

... was the headline that caught my eye and had me clicking through to shortnews.com.

I really wanted to know how the deceased wife of a minister managed to confess to murdering herself. It sounded like some kind of delicious time-travel scenario, or perhaps a ghostly confession from the spirit world. I mean, are we talking about a cryptic suicide? Did she have multiple personalities and go through a sudden and awful Jekyll-Hide struggle while chopping carrots for the evening meal?

No.

The wife is safe and well. And headed for jail. You guessed it: she was the one doing the murdering and her minister husband was the one doing the expiring. But that's not what the title says.

The title is horribly ambiguous. Both readings are valid: that the victim was the minister or that the victim was his wife.

Now, ambiguity is a wonderful tool for writing comedies. Audiences love to be fooled by clever use of language (so long as you don't make them feel foolish). But apart from that, you should strive to remove all ambiguity from your writing.

If the author of the quoted news article had stopped to think about what he/she had written, perhaps we would have read this title instead:

Wife of Murdered Minister Confesses to the Crime

I'll leave it to you to determine which of the three basic attributes of good writing the original title violates. Those attributes are variously summed up as the ABCs of writing:
  • accurate
  • brief
  • clear
or the three Cs of writing:
  • correct
  • concise
  • clear

[end]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andrew Stanton (PIXAR) - transcript - Keynote, Screenwriting Expo 5 (2006), Understanding Story: or My Journey of Pain

UPDATE, March 2012: New TED 2012 Talk by Andrew Stanton, covering much of the same material recorded here. READABILITY TIP:  For easier reading and to prevent eye strain, narrow the width of your browser tab to reflow the text into shorter lines. I recommend a words-per-line count of 12 to 15. As soon as I found it on Google Video, I knew I would have to transcribe it. Here is all of Andrew Stanton's keynote from Screenwriting Expo 5 (2006). He named it: "Understanding Story: or My Journey of Pain." I have not transcribed the Q&A that followed the keynote. Perhaps I will tackle it one day. Not for a while -- this transcription consumed quite a few of my nights, and I'm happy to be done with it. And now that I can look at it from head to toe, I can see it was worth every coffee-fueled keystroke. With Stanton's experiences and lessons to guide us, we cannot fail to become better storytellers. Note: Andrew talks FAST, so this transcript

The 4-Act Story Diamond

Update: new version of the 4-Act Story Diamond graphic here . Update 2  (2023): Even more 4-act structure , courtesy of Stan Williams. I don't believe in the three-act screenplay story structure. It's four acts, plain and simple. I said so ten years ago on Jack Stanley's Scrnwrit list, and nothing has changed since. Four acts, no more, no less. I'm sorry those screenwriting gurus sold you on three acts and then five acts and then seven acts or -- what are we up to now? Nine? Twelve? Look, we're all grasping for the magic template that will reign in the chaos and tame our wild stories, so I don't blame you for listening to those guys. The four acts were there all along and the screenwriting gurus knew it, or at least sensed it. Certainly Syd Field knew it, although he failed to make a clean break from the dogmatic Aristotle three-act structure . I swear, if I hear once more that line about "Get your hero up a tree, throw rocks at him, then get him

4-Act Story Diamond v2

This model represents the Hero's Journey in four acts. It supplements my old story diamond. Click the image for a larger view. Discussion about the eight plot points is here .