Blackwater hit car with kids to avoid traffic

This post title appeared on digg.com:

US official: Blackwater hit car with kids to avoid traffic

It hit a car with kids? Impressive. But why resort to hurling children at the enemy?

What we have here is another case of failure to communicate. More murderous grammar.

This is the story:

The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier.

Yes, that's an awful situation. One of many, many awful things going on over there.

Putting the content aside for a moment, let's consider the form. Is the sentence ambiguous? Yes it is. Is that a problem? Yes. Ambiguous is to writing what a Stop sign is to driving. No, it's more. It's a Go Back sign. Ambiguity forces the reader to backtrack, reread, and figure out what the heck the author meant to say.

So let's rephrase that Digg headline for clarity.

Blackwater SUV bulldozers Iraqi family's car
Iraqi kids no obstacle to Blackwater driver
Blackwater crushes car carrying kids, to avoid traffic
Blackwater avoids traffic by ramming kids in car

I wager that each of these replacements avoids the original's ambiguity, with some of them being more punchy and economical to boot.

Comments

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 .

Rage Against The Page

Search This Blog