This from a news site:
Prejean’s reluctance to open up to Larry King comes as a surprise, after a week spent speaking candidly to the media about a video, rumored to be involved in her sudden settlement with the pageant organization, that Prejean claims she made for an ex-boyfriend. On Tuesday, she told the “Today” show that the video was “the biggest mistake of my life.”
Who on earth makes a sex video for an ex?
Or is the writing a bit vague…
Did she perhaps make it for a now former boyfriend?
Hmmm.
Confusing.
If the writing is NOT confusing, and she did make it for an ex, that guy is the best salesman on earth.
Tags: agony, Miss California, rewriting
November 13, 2009 at 10:17
Whatever the story, I wish she’d just go away. LOL
November 13, 2009 at 10:18
Man, you are totally correct. Yeeesh.
November 13, 2009 at 11:40
Oh, see, that totally, to me, means that she made it for a boy she was once dating and is no longer dating right now.
November 13, 2009 at 18:56
Yeah, but was she dating him when she made it, or was she already broken up with him when she made it..? Which TOTALLY changes the meaning of the situation.
This grammar / writing stuff really matters!
November 14, 2009 at 10:14
Most people will figure it out pretty quickly. But what matters is that there is a POSSIBILITY of misinterpreting it.
Now imagine theres 2 things in your script that can be interpreted in 2 different ways. The reader gets the first one right and the second one wrong. Now the script is coming off as completely different than what you expected it to be.
November 14, 2009 at 11:36
You ain’t lyin’.
That’s the problem, it COULD be misinterpreted. Why give a reader the chance to think that what you meant to say is not what you actually meant…? (was that confusing?!)