Word-choice is, of course, an important part of writing. Do you include profanity in your stories? When do you think this is/isn't acceptable? What about highly crass expressions/descriptions that aren't profanity?
It turned out to be the pre-digitally enhanced Star Wars Trilogy.
Sorry to get sidetracked. We had a discussion about this at our last writer's workshop, where someone was trying to represent the effect of getting chewed out by a pupil's father during her first year teaching. Just saying it had happened and the effect on her was about as much as she could manage.
Sometimes showing the effect of something is greater than showing the actual details. But it's a free country. I think profanity/ vulgarity is just like exclamation points and multiple layers of adverbs. Sometimes they are warranted, but if you have one every paragraph I personally would probably not read your story.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited October 24, 2005).]
I wish I could find a copy that didn't have the "enhancements".As for the topic at hand:
Profanity and swearing were not things that I was overtly exposed to much while I was growing up (except what is heard at school which seemed a lot tamer 15 years ago than these days). While I use more colourful language as a grown-up than I did as a kid, I tend to keep most of my writing (and reading) pretty clean. Force of habit perhaps.
That said, if someone can justify having profanity or "off-colour" comments in their writing (i.e. for characterization, milieu, or some sort of plat forwarding reason), then I probably won't have a problem with it.
I think it's funny that some people will be offended more by modern swear words than by made up ones that have the same meaning.
Personaly, I think a word is a series of sounds and the only importance it has is what power the individual gives it.
In science fiction, it makes it more gritty, giving it a down to earth feeling. If that's what the author wants, all is good.
In Fantasy, it seems out of place.
Some of the most immersive SCI_FI and or FANTASY will create its own profane terms and their use will make it clear to us what they are meaning.
In erotica, you can steer clear of profanity or you can embrace it. Some of the most crass words in the profane lexicon really don't seem so crass when used properly. Of course, the whole piece is probably already so blazen that they just don't stand out.
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/000782.html
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/001189.html
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/002109.html
My position: Profanity is rarely necessary. Very few people will miss it if it's not included, and none will be offended by its absence. Meanwhile, many people will notice if it's included, and some will be offended by its presence. So why include it unless it is absolutely necessary (which it almost never is)?
Your brave. I've learned never to bring the subject up here, lest I be lambasted.
I would actually lambaste Miriel for bringing this up (again), but I think Survivor pretty much took the words out of my mouth.
Now when it comes to writing, ONLY if I have a valid reason to use profanity I will. Using colorful language will have certain effects on the reader.
"Does this writer use this all the time or is this just the way his/her character talks?" That sort of reaction is what I usually have when I read someone I haven't before. The usual answer is it's just the characterization.
But in closing, my stance is this: It has it's usefullness. If done right, the character can be great, if not handled right, it makes the author seem less credible. (IMO)
Just my opinions.
Thanks for letting me sorta rant around here.
-Monolith-
quote:
Personaly, I think a word is a series of sounds and the only importance it has is what power the individual gives it.
I don't like really vulgar writing. I mean, if you're writing a fantasy I guess using the "D" word or the "B" word would fit the time period. Maybe making up a curse word for a science fiction would be fine. "Frell" and "frack" come to mind.
Would you add profanity to a piece to make it appear "more gritty" to try and add "credability" among certain readers?
Consider a work such as "Full Metal Jacket" (I can only reference the movie because I haven't read the book), it is supposed to give a realistic look into wartime and the military and it is quite vulgar (apparently the book is worse and far more graphic).
Can you have a realistic look at things that are vulgar and profane (such as war, the mafia, violent street life) without using vulgar and profane words? Are works about such things less credible if they glaze over the language?
If you write something involving a naval petty officer and don't make me cringe with your obscenity, you didn't do it right. And, as a sometimes writer of hard core fantasy erotica, it takes a lot to make me cringe.
But when I was in the USAF at a joint command in europe during the kosovo war, man, those navy folks....its like a whole other language that they speak completely naturally.
Of course one way to get around the cursing that is natural to some people/characters, is to present the scene from the POV of someone who doesn't use that language. They wouldn't dare repeat those words even in their own heads. :-)
I'm going to use "Swimming Bird" from now on.
I have to say I'm rather puzzled by the Firefly usage "Gorram". I mean, if there were any other instances of d->r in their speech, that would be one thing. "Rutting" sort of makes sense. Reminds me of this family values review of Serenity that took issue with the phrases "I'm a leaf in the wind" and "She's starting to damage my calm" but failed to remark on the phrase "my swinging cod." I mean, they apparentlly thought it really was the fish. Or maybe they didn't mind since it was somewhat Shakespearean.
I have no problem reading actual profanity, but it should make sense in context.
quote:
What about putting it in to try and court readers?Would you add profanity to a piece to make it appear "more gritty" to try and add "credability" among certain readers?
Not for the benefit of 'certain readers', whoever they may be 
, no. To achieve a level of realism that I'm comfortable with, yes.
First and foremost I have to try to ensure that my characters are true to who they are meant to be.
Hmmm...that looks a little cynnical. I've been feeling cynnical lately, though, so I'm just going to go with it.
I don't object to it in dialogue, but in regular body text I soon get tired of it. Funnily enough the people who don't object to profanity in writing tend to be less at ease with racial slurs, yet they fall into the same general category, 'meretricious but popular'.
Is that a point, or am I drawing a long bow?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 24, 2005).]
I know there are people who object if you put a "damn" in a book but odds are they're not my target audience anyway.
(edited: my exactly was to Buffy.)
[This message has been edited by Beth (edited October 24, 2005).]
quote:
Sure, but whose books? Yours, or censored versions written to appease a consensus of the various prejudices you've run across on this board (and/or others)?
Is 'censored' a synonym for 'edited'?
How would you feel about an editor saying, 'Yeah that's great but the dialogue isn't gritty enough to appeal to OUR intended market. Perhaps you could fine-tune it by adding a few well-placed profanities.'
Would you see their point?
Would you hesitate?
In other words, I can see how profanity could be considered appropriate if it is intended to portray SYMPTOMS of an off-kilter world. To give a sense that 'something's not quite right here.' That sort of thing.
However, I don't think it is appropriate if it is only there because it is the first and most obvious way the writer can think of doing it. More or less: it is not appropriate when it is used to cover up for impotent writing.
Similarly I have no objection to describing in detail someone covered in boils that are symptomatic of an underlying imbalance or illness, but the description should be done with finesse.
That's what I mean by: does it have legs enough to propel the story? If so, then I would not recommend anyone (read: my kids) to read the story until I felt they were mature enough to comprehend AND successfully understand the underlying imbalance or theme running through the story.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 24, 2005).]
Yes, he was loosely associated with the Navy in his day. But I honestly have no idea where he learned to blaspheme. I can only imagine that it was an advanced course for diabolical corruption, he certainly didn't learn to use language like that from any human agency.
So that does constitute a small problem. Whenever I hear humans swearing, it only sounds amusingly pathetic. You just don't know how to do it right.
It's okay for a joke, I suppose. But only if you really understand what about your attempts at profanity I'm laughing at. Otherwise I feel a tiny bit guilty about it.
See people, that's what i mean about good writing that doesn't have to state 'straight up what he means:
quote:
Yes, he was loosely associated with the Navy in his day
(joke)
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 24, 2005).]
quote:
Is 'censored' a synonym for 'edited'?
quote:
How would you feel about an editor saying, 'Yeah that's great but the dialogue isn't gritty enough to appeal to OUR intended market. Perahps you could fine-tune it by adding a few f***s and other profanities.'Would you see their point?
Would you hesitate?
I would definitely hesitate if I thought the proposed changes would render the characters untrue to themselves as I envisaged them. If I thought the changes were in character, then I would consider incorporating them. Editing should be a two-way process, an interaction between author and editor, with the aim of making a story better, for which don't necessarily read "more marketable" (if the publisher or editor didn't think the story was already marketable, why would they buy it in the first place?).
What do you mean by:
quote:
as I envisaged them
Also what do you mean by:
quote:
making a story better
Better for who?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 24, 2005).]
To take a less extreme example, my protag is a nobleman who was largely raised by a mother with very strict ideas about how he should speak. He very rarely swears. When he does, it's noticed by those around him as being unusual. If he started swearing all the time, he wouldn't be true to his background, nor would his swearing have the impact I wanted.
Missed the second part of the question. By "better" I mean, in the opinion of the author, primarily, achieving its aims more effectively.
[This message has been edited by BuffySquirrel (edited October 24, 2005).]
What about a character who WAS raised by sailors?
One who was raised in circumstance where swearing was normal. Could you be true to them as envisaged and not incorporate profanity into every thought and word?
Would that help the author achieve their aims? Or should the author only go so far? Should they simulate authenticity?
Point is: everyone draws the line somewhere.
PS: SB was not censored, SB was censured.
Similar but different.
To be censured, in this context, means to receive an official correction from those in authority in regards to the infringement of a rule. It appears that SB interpreted that as censorship, assuming that the correction was motivated by a desire to remove or suppress something considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
It is a distinction that Survivor made in that thread and which I think is true.
If it is true, then SB was incorrect in their assumption and became combative as a result of a false premise and others reacted poorly to that.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 25, 2005).]
Then I read George Martin.
At first I was a little surprised at his use of words, but after I got over the shock, I really enjoyed it. I find (note the "I") that it makes his writing much more believable, and his world is more accurate than a world where the words people say is "shucks."
Ever watch those old shows from the 50s? THey are horrible! "Dang it! I lopped off my hand in the thresher! Fiddle dee dee!"
C'mon.
Ronnie
quote:
Sure, but whose books? Yours, or censored versions written to appease a consensus of the various prejudices you've run across on this board (and/or others)?
That's strange...I didn't think there was a consensus on this topic on this board or any other, so it would be damn hard to appease it.
Truthfully, though, I don't tend to have cussing in books because I don't tend to be able to relate to the types of characters who do cuss...making it difficult to write them.
Should I ADD profanity to appeal to people?
Will it sell books?
Yes, if you are writing gritty detective fiction.
Otherwise, its a little harder to say for sure one way or the other. I think that Christine hit it closest when she mentioned her ability to relate to the type of character that would freely throw about profanity. It would hamper your ability to sell books to force profanity. On the same note it would hamper your ability to omit it where it would be naturally.
1) The story
2) The procedure for posting the story to the forum
Everyone got hung up on the "f" word, as if the use of profanity within the STORY was the problem. I haven't seen ANYONE state that the "F" word, in the context of the story, was inappropriate for the characters or the scene.
The PROBLEM was the flippant "I can do what I like, so screw you and your rules" attitude when being asked (politely) to use asterisks to imply the vulgarity when posting to the F&F public forum. No one was asking the author to censor his story. They were asking him to please respect the fact that the "f" word is inappropriate in this forum.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that writers should use profanity within their story if they feel the characters and context demand it, but they should refrain from posting that profanity on this board. You can always email your manuscript, "f" word intact, to the folks who offer to critique.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited October 25, 2005).]
quote:
PS: SB was not censored, SB was censured.
Similar but different.
SB's story was changed on the board to appease other people's sensitivities. That is censorship. The reason given wasn't an infringement of the rules, but the "ugliness" of the word. Meanwhile, a word with similar aggressive and violent connotations and an identical meaning was allowed to remain in the same thread, unremarked. It's in this thread, too.
If the rules as quoted by Survivor were being enforced even-handedly, no fragments of fiction could be posted, as they would infringe the "knowingly false" rule. Discrimination in the application of rules is another clue that what we have here is censorship.
quote:
I didn't think there was a consensus on this topic on this board or any other, so it would be damn hard to appease it.
I should have been clearer . A consensus that the writer develops from the prejudices expressed on the board (and/or other boards).
I think I've already answered the question about adding profanity in some detail.
I know some guys at work---and I'm sure most of us all know somebody like them---who'll use a certain word beginning with "f" as every other word. It loses all force after a few minutes of exposure...and my mind winds up editing it out...
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited October 25, 2005).]
quote:
SB's story was changed on the board to appease other people's sensitivities. That is censorship. The reason given wasn't an infringement of the rules, but the "ugliness" of the word.
In fact, the reason given WAS that it is an infringement of the rules. Survivor kindly posted the rules in the F&F section, from the registration document we ALL agreed to when we signed up to be members of this board. The rules read:
quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
Now, come on, people! This is a stupid argument. We've been asked, politely, by the administrator to please not use the "f" word spelled out on this board. You may or may not agree with her reasons, but to turn this molehille into a mountain is immature. If you were in someone's home and they asked you not to swear, would you launch into a diatribe against censorship? I hope not! You would, in theory, say, "Gee, sorry I offended you. Didn't mean to. Of course I'll comply with your request."
We should all offer OSC, as our host, and Kathleen, as the administrator, the sheer courtesy of complying with this request without argument. We are, after all, guests here in this "virtual home."
If you want a website where you can post the "f" word to your heart's content, then make your own.
Concerning swearing in fiction, my advice to writers is always to do what works best for them. However, that always comes with the warning to be aware of your readers interests. Writing an entire story of nothing but swear words may work for your, but if you plan to be pubished, you should examine how that will affect your plans.
To me, the problem comes when people become too attached to a rule or technique. Writing is always about finding out what works and what will get published. If you don't want to be published, then it's just about what works.
As far as the board goes, read the rules and either accept them or expect difficulties. Personally, I think the, "This forums is for writers age 18 and older" needs to be changed because, apparently, it is misleading people into thinking swearing is allowed here.
Really, to get this back on topic, one of my father's favorite blasphemies to use when he wasn't feeling particularly inventive was "God is in His Holy Temple." He'd say it just once, or repeat it over and over. But the classic mode was to say it twice.
Okay, how do I write that to have the impact it had when he would say it? Anybody? Who here even understands what a complete profanity that is? He invented worse profanities that used the F-word and um, other words that are (quite appropriately) restricted here. But this is something he said a lot. One thing I notice about various family histories, very few of my family members have seen fit to record this particular phrase for posterity. So maybe the answer is that I shouldn't ever write it. After all, I'm not planning to write about my own childhood here.
But if I was, or if I wanted to have a character be that profane...do I really have any options? If the story is compelling enough and you've built up the milieu, does an uncommon profanity work? When Fiver says "Embleer Frith!", was it less impactful because he's using made up words (or, for that matter, happens to be a small rabbit)?
I use profane words where they're appropriate to the character. My POV characters don't use them much, I find profanity works best to stereotype a non-POV character as uncouth and stupid (though it can be fun to use them as a disguise). Many of the soldiers I knew didn't use the F-word or other charged language lightly (though we were mostly high-techs). I think that stereo-typing all soldiers as being utter louts is a bit unfair. Why do you think that terms like "Fubar", "Snafu", and "Charlie Foxtrot" (along with the less evocative "Foxtrot Uniform") exist if not to demonstrate that soldiers actually prefer not to say the F-word?
By the way, "Fubar" and "Snafu" have nearly opposite meanings...at least in one important sense. Just for future reference. If you aren't sure which you're talking about, just use "Charlie Foxtrot".
I think that one is actually pretty clever. It works on so many levels. Soldiers are smart, y'all. Let's not piss on the guy who volunteers to stand in front, eh?
I say this because swearing by itself can’t really be used to make a character look unintelligent or a “lout.”
If a scene takes place with two buddies in a bar having a few drinks, there very well may be some swearing there. I don’t think this makes the person come off in a bad light. Or if a character stubs there toe, or is watching football and the opposing team scores a touchdown, and a swear word pops out. I don’t think that automatically makes them appear dumb or immoral.
Now, if a character is in McDonald’s while a children’s birthday party is going on, talking to his buddy dropping the f-bomb every other word, now that would work. He comes off like a tool.
A lot of the posters I’ve noticed don’t swear, and don’t like to hear or read swear words. And that’s fine, but what also needs to be realized is a great deal of the world doesn’t share that view.
But honestly, you don’t need it, but it can be used effectively if you decide to use it.
JOHN!
I for one can tolerate a degree of profanity and vulgarity, but I have never had the stomach for blaspheme. Offending humans is one thing, offending deities...that's another. At least for me.
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited October 25, 2005).]
** does not necessarily indicate lack of seriousness, only recognition of humor or irony.
...now I'm trying not to laugh at my own ignorance.Where's HSO when you need him? He's supposed to be the resident offender...
I do not know to which 'other word' you refer in your post.
It is a mistake to categorise someone as 'biased' and 'prejudiced' simply because, in a certain situation, you think they are arguing in favour of the majority.
If that is what you thought of my posts please take another look and note: I was among the first and was, in my opinion, the most constructive responder to SBs post in question. My comments on the piece were clear and helpful.
Occasionally there are people who turn up on these boards and clearly think 'There's way too many Mormons here. What a bunch of wowsers. Let's take them to task and give them a look at the real world."
This attitude stems from assumption, bias and prejudice too, and I agree with you, that sort of thing is both disappointing and frustrating. I am not saying you have done this, I certainly hope not, I think you can see how it would be the pot calling the kettle black.
You are right that in the narrow context of a single thread and because of the reasons given for the correction of SBs piece, as you pointed out, the action appears as censorship.
Expressed in another way, however dubious, it may not have been seen like that. Is that true or am I mistaken?
Certainly I saw it as a censure, at the time, but that was because I am familiar with the rules we all agreed to in order to use these borads and to the subsequent ongoing clarifications. So I saw KDWs comments in a wider context.
Therefore, the most salient remark in my last post, is that SB became combative and was easily offended. Whether SB was justified or not, people reacted poorly to that and will continue to react poorly to similar posts whatever motivates the reaction.
Edit:
I just found that word you mentioned.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 25, 2005).]
I try not to use swearing in my writing. Aside from moral issues, I find that (for me at least) if I'm having a character swear, it's because I'm trying to inflate a scene with importance. What I have going on isn't strong enough, so I cut the corners and have someone swear. That'll get an emotional response, right? Make the scene powerful and vivid? If someone's swearing, it's usually a clue to me that I need to do something to that scene to make it emotionally powerful without just throwing in words that are powerful by themselves.
It's just like badly characterizing a villian. The words "murder" and "rape" are strong words, and one can always hope that attacking them to a villian's name will make the reader loath them with passion. But...it doesn't. It takes more work than that to make a vivid villian that readers will detest. I don't know anyone who passionately loathes Akar(?) Kessel from R.A. Salvatore's Icewind Dale trilogy, but if you mention Rita Skeeter or Dolores Umbridge to Harry Pottery fans, they grind their teeth -- even though Kessel has more Bad Deeds attached to his name. So, if I find swearing in my writing, it's usually a clue (to me, at least), that I haven't written the scene correctly and I'm trying to take short cuts. It may jolt the reader, it may offend the reader, but it won't necessarily make the scene emotional or memorable. Other people may write differently...but that's how I look at profanity in my own writing.
One has to understand, my father always believed right to the core of his child-like being that God really did exist and disapproved of certain things my father did habitually, including the blasphemy. Robyn has a point, that belief is what makes blasphemy possible.
I occasionally say bad things to Mr. Smarty-pants of the Universe, even though I know I should be trying to cultivate a better understanding of why He does things rather than getting heated over what He does (as my irreverent nick for Him might indicate, it also really steams me when He turns out to be right about things...again).
I think that God is happy when I deflect myself from feeling angry about certain things and instead learn to take it with a grain of salt and a bit of perspective. I'm sure He wants me to develope a better perspective, and I work on it, but I don't actually worry that God will be offended, as if His dignity were at stake. We're really only talking about my dignity.
In other words, the very core of true blasphemy, really disrespecting God and His position, is to believe that you can insult a being so immeasurably greater than yourself. Usually we only concern ourselves with how our outward blasphemies hurt those around us.
And not only did Robyn express exactly that belief (whether intentionally or not), she also casually lumped God into a group of deities, presumably all of whom are easily offended. It was that artlessly sincere statement of something so blasphemous which I found really remarkable. It was...amazing, in a way.
I'm sure that nobody here can fathom what I'm saying by now, which is just to point out the other aspect of my little jibe. See, blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder. Any statement about Deity is likely to disagree with something that someone holds to be an essential or self-evident truth. We can't judge what offends God, only what offends man. That's a simpler point, and probably easier to understand.
Anyway, I apologize for taking the shot, it probably was a bad thing to do. I have to say "probably", because after all, so many of the things I think are good ideas are so clearly evil. This post is probably one of them
Your explaination is interesting and not the interpretation I expected.
I meant to use offend to mean "to transgress or violate", not "to cause wounded feelings". If you are one who believes the Ten Commandments to be the first of the laws handed down by God to Moses for mankind, then taking the Lord's name in vain, would be breaking, transgressing and violating His law.
When people are offended (using whatever definition you like) the response is often anger. I can live with angering a fellow human. When God is offended (meaning more specifically that you have violated His law), anger is probably what you are incurring, and I don't particularly want to incur the wrath of the Creator.
Perhaps "anger" or "slander" would have been the better term to use, but I chose "offend" without considering its varied meanings.
quote:
In other words, the very core of true blasphemy, really disrespecting God and His position, is to believe that you can insult a being so immeasurably greater than yourself.
And I almost didn't put deities for exactly the reason you point out, but as not everyone believes the same thing I didn't want to be overly specific or exclusive and indicate that only the one I believe in can be blasphemed.
quote:
Anyway, I apologize for taking the shot, it probably was a bad thing to do. I have to say "probably", because after all, so many of the things I think are good ideas are so clearly evil.
).Besides, a good evil idea is great fodder for a story.
JOHN!
(and damnmit, I need to start posting more again! I thought I was the resident offender!)
Everyone has their issues; it's useful to know how different groups of readers react, so that you can consider how much you are willing to do to accommodate them. It is less useful to assume that everyone thinks the way you do, or the way any one group of people thinks.
Offending their intelligence will.
Goes back to: use profanity where it would be naturally appropriate.
Honestly, though, there's no right or wrong here. It's YOUR story, and YOUhave decide what's best for YOUR work.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited October 26, 2005).]
I could write a detailed and graphic rape scene and never use profanity, same with gay sex.
However, sex and violence should be treated the same way, use them where they fit naturally into the story.
EDIT: I just realize that the more graphic a sex scene is, the less profane it is likely to be. Really, the F word is more of a tell word. The show words are all a little less profane.
[This message has been edited by pantros (edited October 26, 2005).]
Of course, I don't mind that sex be fictional (although it's not as much fun), but I don't want to watch them Do It in every detail, just as I wouldn't want to spy on real people's bedroom activities. Tell me how they felt about it, and I'll know enough about the details.
But this was about profanity. I don't find it interesting, so I try not to put it in dialogue, just as I cut out deadwood and other irrelevant detail. But some characters just won't sound right without saying it, so I let them.
-------
Miriel made a good point, sometimes profanity is a signal that something is missing from the scene -- a cop-out or short cut so to speak. Not always, but sometimes (the same way gratuitous sex and violence can be used to add three chapters and cover up a plot hole ).
Things that shock people (ie vulgarity and profanity, etc.) should be to writing as salt and seasonings are to cooking: used properly seasonings liven up food and add taste, use too much and it ruins the food completely.
It's also absolutely filthy in parts--well actually, in a good bit of it.
Is it a bit over the top? Perhaps, but I don't think it takes away from the story being told.
A story can have all sorts of stuff in it, but still be something completely different.
There’s also something to be said for separating the art from the artist. Maybe you don’t swear, but do your characters? Sure, you may think this is sophistry, but I’m sure there’s a lot of things your characters do that you would never do.
I also don’t think swearing should be used in the same way as a black hat is in old Westerns. If you have a secular audience, swearing isn’t going to make the bad guys badder in a lot of their eyes.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 02, 2005).]
quote:
Most "curse" words we know and love today come from Germanic roots. They are not, in and of themselves, bad. In fact, they were merely the common terms for what they describe in the Saxon-ruled England. However, after 1066, the nobility spoke French due to William the Conqueror's roots in France's Normandy coast. The old words became low-class, common, or in Latin, vulgar. The only actual curses in the English language involve the words "hell" and "damn" and are generally considered pretty mild. So consider that [if] you criticize someone's work for using vulgar language, you are only telling them the truth -- that they are using the language of the common people. Because, let's face it, most people use some of those words now and then.
JOHN!
We seem to be so mixed up on what the point of this argument is.
Is it about censorship? Or following rules? Or is it about the worth of a story?
Anyway, I just wanted to say a couple of things, and if I'm lucky I'll start a whole new round of bickering (just kidding, KDW ):
1. Asking people in a public place (kinda like this forum) to follow certain rules of decorum, is no more censorship than arresting someone for sunbathing naked at the local city park. If I had demanded that SB change the content of his story (the first thirteen lines posted on this forum NOT being the actual story) or if a publisher had changed the content without his consent AND contrary to a contractual agreement, THAT would be censorship.
2. Just because a story--despite its vulgarity, profanity, sexual content, swearing, etc, etc, etc--has greatness in it, does not mean that all readers will be be able to enjoy it for the greatness of the story. The fact is that there are readers who would be hard pressed to find the value in such a story for the offensiveness (relatively speaking, of course) of the content. Are these types of readers any less valuable than others? Does it make the story less meaningful? I don't think so. No book that I know of, however, ever sold less because it lacked offensive content. I mean, really. Do you think ANYONE bought American Gods BECAUSE Gaiman used the f-word a couple of hundred times in the first two chapters? Probably not. But do you suppose he lost sales that he might have made otherwise? Yup. Me included. Sad. I so absolutely LOVED Stardust.
2b. Were my comments of SB's story inappropriate? Absolutely not. They have served to clarify a few things around here, I think. To remind us of a few rules and principles that have made Hatrack the kind of site that writers such as myself have found a safe haven, valuable, polite. Something different than so many writer's sites, from which many here at Hatrack have fled.
3. Rules are rules. Just because you choose not to read them doesn't mean you're not responsible for keeping them. Try telling a cop you just didn't KNOW that it's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. I guarantee you'll get the ticket anyway.
"When do you think this is/isn't acceptable?" It is acceptable when it doesn't lead to utter boredom on the part of the reader. The problem with profanity is that it is extrordinarliy limiting in its descriptive potential. Having served time in the military I can understand the meaning when a person says. "F the f'ing f'er. It's all f'd up the f'ing b'ard f'er! F this S, SOB." But this is usually accompanied by finger pointing and gesturing in a rather simian and emotional manner, all of which isn't translatable to print.
Interesting, but the worst of Hustler Magazine just doesn't come close to capturing the real words people say during really pithy life situations. Once you've heard a schizophrenic man speak after he's been shot in the belly by the police or talked to a hundred pound woman while she's giving birth to a ten pound baby you realize that much profane writing is just pretension. So literary pretensions of obscenity leave me with an overweening boredom.
"What about highly crass expressions/descriptions that aren't profanity?" Well, they need to be culturally acceptable both on the part of the reader and the character who is speaking.
I don't think profanity in novels is ever good, but that's because I don't think that it is needed and because I've seen successful novels that don't use one profane word and are just as effective at conveying the personality traits of the different characters as those books that do use profanities. However, if one wishes to use profanities, then so be it. I'm not going to stop them. I'm just not going to use any.
The same rule applies to highly crass expressions/descriptions. I can generally avoid those by saying something like "...and then he muttered something unintellegible.
"Gabriel cringed at hearing such crass words coming from his friend."
I think this way, it leaves it up to the reader's imagination to figure out what it is that my character was saying.
I know, it's utterly off topic and not properly a part of this thread at all, but when a character resorts to behavior that I feel is immoral, even if it's just kicking an obnoxious student out of a class which that student needs in order to graduate (and yes, that does refer to a specific case), I don't overlook it.
I can sometimes forgive it, if the character repents sincerely, though.
Anyway, back to the topic. Matt is full of s***
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited October 27, 2005).]
And for the point of being OT -
Fight Club, the book, would have had badly developed and unbelievable characters had the author not included their cursing and swearing.
Do you think someone who urinates in soup and conducts violence on a regular basis would way, "Make love", or "sex", or even "fornication"?
Blue Velvet, the movie, again has a character who is largely defined by his choice of language. I'm sure there are people who would argue that the movie could have been done without it, but the language choices served to point out the class differences, the slide in to 'bad' of one character and the aggresive mentally ill behaviors of another character. It also gave us a lot of great lines, like "F you, you Fing F." which has made it's way onto a T-shirt, with full spelling.
So, sometimes it is needed.
Either * all swear words which appear in posted fragments
"Wanna f***?"
or change the wording
"Wanna get it on?"
and then, when and if any members ask to read the whole story, the text can be left intact, as it is being send privately by email. Provided, of course, that the author has prewarned readers that there is cursing in the story, thus avoiding misleading anyone as to what they're about to read.
As to cursing is general?
Joe R. Lansdale has his characters cursing so beautifully and colorfully that the text really would be the poorer for it. So is all depends on the book and ultimately how good a writer you are. (Lansdale's so mouth-wateringly good I hate him!)
[This message has been edited by Paul-girtbooks (edited October 27, 2005).]
On the taking the Lord's name in vain issue. I've heard it said that what that truly means is doing evil in God's name. Surely God hates that much more than a mention of his name in anger, however bad that may also be.
Shane
My personal rule-of-thumb is never to write anything that I'd be embarassed for my grandmother to read.
But it really is a pointless argument. Some people really don't get it at all.
I'm just trying to be consistent and impartial, even though I'm only human like most of the rest of the people around here.
*goes off to find the aliens and mythical creatures.*
If I could write dialogue well, I might include cussing if the character was that kind of person. I cuss all the time (except in front of my mom) so seeing it doesn't bother me. But I don't want to see in my own writing what I hate most, dialogue that seems wrong, stilted, or just useless padding, used to characterize a person because the author is lazy or ineffectual. Slang and foul language seems to be easy to mess up in writing.
Cussing alone doesn't paint a character in my mind, it's just another layer. It's effective to me if we already have a clear picture of the person and we would be shocked if the character didn't speak a certain way in a situation.
quote:
I'm in the wrong forum if everyone here is human...
Please look at my post again. I didn't say everyone here is human.
quote:
human like most of the rest of the people around here
) [This message has been edited by dreadlord (edited November 01, 2005).]
quote:
profanity is just a way for a bad writer to make his/her point.
I thinks thats a cop out. I see a lot of people say that. Swearing isnt usually meant to be creative. Swearing is a lot of times used as an exclamation, out of anger, excitement, or some other emotion. Its a knee jerk reaction a lot of times. If I stub my toe or get cut off on the highway, Im not trying to be creative. Im trying to vent my anger. Sheesh!
For a lot of people swearing is just habit. Again, not trying to be creative.
This whole profanity is just a way for a bad writer to make his/her point or thats how weak and/or uncreative people express themselves is just horse sh!t.
I wont out of respect, but I could post a rather creative string of swears that would make your eyes bleed for the number curses and the sheer vulgarity of it. But it is very, very creative.
Yes, you have to know when swearing is appropriate in the confines of the story. For example I have a story that changes POVs with each chapter break, rotating the characters throughout. One character is a born-again Christian, and devoted family man. There is no swearing in those chapters. None whatsoever. Its really not that hard of a thing to do.
Then I have another character who grew up in the boonies living in a trailer, her mom and little brother died in a car accident and her father became an abusive alcoholic. She ran away from home and has been a stripper every since she was sixteen. Shes a hard drinking, coarse, loose woman of twenty-one now.
I dont see her drinking with her pinky in the air saying, Please pass the tea and crumpets.
You also have to be aware of your audience. If youre writing childrens books or Christian literature probably isnt a place for swearing or vulgarity.
And no, you dont need those words to make a good story. Though, I would rather read a book with a few f-bombs then characters saying fudge or frack or other nonsensical euphemisms or made up swears. Its silly and takes me out of the story and makes the author look prudish. I think its better to avoid it all together or use vague tags instead. (i.e. ,he swore under his breath.)
It sounds as if a lot of the poster here just disregard any literature with anything more vulgar than an occasional hell or damn. Thats the kind of attitude that gets great works such as Cater in the Rye banned. Its asinine.
If you dont enjoy reading or writing books that have that sort of language in them, then dont read or write them, but dont dismiss them as irrelevant or criticize the authors ability.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 02, 2005).]
You think that the same thing can't be true of strippers? Well, maybe you know more about that subject than I do, but please question your assumptions.
Using profanity is generally a very lazy thing to do. I don't have a problem stereotyping some characters a bit by putting those words in their mouths, but you do need to be aware that it's a stereotyping device. Think of it as showing a character straining to dump a load in the toilet. True to life? You betcha...
Okay, the thing is, I actually have written that kind of scene Like I said, I also write profanity into my characters' mouths when I feel it's necessary. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. But writers need to be aware that using profanity doesn't make the character "cool", it just makes the reader regard both character and author as having filthy mouths. When that's exactly the effect you want, use it, just like when you want to show your characters in the most embarrassing way possible, you put them on the toilet.
On the other hand, I've read stories in these settings with curse words. I know for sure I've read those because I remember the cussing. It sticks out, especially the f-word when it is overused. Actually, if you want to talk about lack of creativity, have you ever read an author who only seems to know about one cuss word?
I'm not sure what the first authors are doing right. Maybe...just maybe...they did have cussing in there and the reason I don't remember it being there is that it was handled with extreme competence and naturalness. Or maybe they simply didn't use the words, but the emotions and attitudes were handled so well I filled in the details.
When I do remember cussing I can tell you for sure it's handled badly. In fact, most people who use profanity in their stories don't know how to use it, it sounds clunky and/or unnatural, and this shows in their writing.
If you're going to do something, at least be able to do it well!
quote:
You think that the same thing can't be true of strippers? Well, maybe you know more about that subject than I do, but please question your assumptions.
I dont think she swears because shes a stripper, I think she swears because thats what she was raised around and thats what shes surrounded by now, both in her personal and professional life. This is a woman who, try as she might, often picks up guys in bars and sleeps with them when she gets drunk. Again, not because shes a stripper, but because she a sad, lonely person, with a effed up childhood. Bourbon and marijuana are two of her closet friends. Shes looking for something to fill a hole in her life. I dont think swearing is going to be something shes adverse to.
Theres also certain tone Im going for. Maybe if I give you few lines it will make it clearer.
quote:
F***ing Stephanie, she muttered rubbing her sore, tired feet. Molly shouldve been off an hour ago, but the new girl, Stephanie, decided not to show up--hadnt even bothered to call in--leaving Molly to cover her shift. Now in hour seven of a twelve hour day, Molly couldnt have been happier to be on break between sets. Usually, thats when she would walk the showroom floor and try to drum up some private dances, but f***k that. She needed a break, and since she was filling in, no one would give her any s**t.
In contrast, the main character whos also a stripper, doesnt swear as much and rarely drops the f-bomb. Another character whos Irish swears fairly regularly, but also says things like, sodding and bugger which can be considered swears or not at least not so nice in the UK.
Again, I dont want it to seem that Im a proponent of swearing in literature, but it doesnt bother me as long as its not nonsensical.
I do think swearing can show many things like, the persons just vulgar, theyre young, theyre uneducated, they dont care, how they were brought up or any number different things. I dont think you can so easily say swearing = bad person. Like I said before, if youre person swears in front of children and doesnt tone it down or care, yes, that shows theyre bad. If the same character is out with some buddies at a bar and their dialogue is peppered with swears, doesnt show them in a bad light.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 02, 2005).]
"He cursed."
It's simple. It allows the reader to insert the appropriate level of #$@!% they imagine. And it is concise. I far prefer it to any string of blue words I could concoct. Although I do have a fondness for the oath Katherine Kerr's characters use in her Deverry series: "By the black hairy balls of the devil himself..."
A writer that goes to extremes to avoid foul language, when it would be the most natural and appropriate thing for a character to use, is as bad as if not worse than one who uses vulgar language for the heck of it.
"He cursed" is telling, not showing If the rest of the scene were detailed descriptions and dialogue, a simple "he cursed" would stand out, which might work in some scenes but mostly it would break the rhythm of the story and cause the reader to stumble. But a "He cursed such a string of obscenties that Mary felt a need to check to see if her ears were bleeding," might fit fine.
Still, in the appropriate genre written for an appropriate audience, using the actual vulgar words is usually the better way to go. In both science fiction and fantasy a good author will create their own swearing, But in contemporary fiction, creative swearing may not maintain the feel of contemporariness.
quote:
In both science fiction and fantasy a good author will create their own swearing...
This usually annoys the hell out of me. It seems forced and fake.
Most fantasy settings are very reminiscent to medieval times. There were real swear words back then. Ass/arse, shit/shite, damn, hell, bastard, bitch, etc. These were all around, and are fine to use if you so chose. If you dont, then fine, but theres no need to make up swear words.
Now, given that the above words were around for all that time, dont you think theyll still be around in the future? More than likely, yes. Again, no reason to make up swears.
Someone earlier mentioned Firefly, which I thought did a really good job with it. Most of their swears were in Chinese (and were real Chinese swears) and that was explained in the story as apparently 500 years in the future we move away from a Latin based language. That was cool.
JOHN!
I'm not going to say that using profanity is necessarily bad writing (in fiction, at least), just that most people who use it are entirely mistaken about the effect it will have on the audience. In other words, if you are under the impression that profanity will give your scenes more impact or realism, then you are entirely mistaken and it will be a crutch whenever you use it.
Coarse profanities (the only kind that are generally regarded as "realistic") shove the reader out of the story in several ways. Not all apply to everyone, but the overall tendancy of recognized profanity to disengage the reader's imaginative faculty and arouse the reader's critical faculty is very nearly universal. When you shove your reader out of the story, the story seems less real.
Basically, you're appealling only to those readers who have been carefully trained to regard any use of profanity in fiction as proof of the author's "gritty realism" or whatever. But if they had already been engaged in your writing, you're only losing out by making them think about how gritty and realistic you are. Whether or not they even believe what they've been trained to think.
Sometimes a character or scene really does call for profanity (or a toilet scene)...and it is a challenge to incorporate it without ruining the story.
For me, most profanity is like people using "literally" for mere emphasis of a figurative expression* Of course, I'm not most people. But the simple fact remains, it is wise to avoid that kind of thing in your writing.
*"Literally" is often used when there is some danger that a phrase could be taken as figurative, for instance, if you became so irate that you actually began pulling your hair out, you would say "I literally tore my hair out." It is also used to indicate the more prosaic meaning "to the letter".
you make me sound too stupid.Hmmm, but all too often, it's still a crutch.
at least someone agrees whith me
"Moongazer!" she shouted.
either you would have to add some exposition, or you have to be able to really build worlds and characters so real that people understand without any hints that she spat a truly foul curse. It just doesn't sound threatening in English. I have seen cases where made up curses are effective, especially when the scene has already been built well. The cases I find ineffective and annoying are those using made up words to replace specific words in English, or when they create what is obviously a curse, and then explain it in language that completely kills the mood. (Excuse me while I glare at Mercedes Lackey.)
quote:
The cases I find ineffective and annoying are those using made up words to replace specific words in English, or when they create what is obviously a curse, and then explain it in language that completely kills the mood.
There you go. Thats pretty much what I was getting out. There was a comic book called Spider-Man 2099 (obviously a future interpation of the character we all know and love set in the year 2099). The writer, Peter David, is uber-talented, but he would use the word shock to replace f**k. A lot of times this was used humorously, but it did get annoying after a while.
quote:
For example, if gazing at the moon were a mortal sin that only the lowest of the low would even contemplate, calling someone a "moongazer" could be as bad as us using words like a**hole to describe someone. But if you wrote that in a fantasy novel...
"Moongazer!" she shouted.
Thats really good actually. I think it would be more analogous to something like bastard, though. Which in and of itself wasnt a swear word, it was just what it was, someone born illegitimately. Now, that society has moved past caring about such things, its used exclusively as a swear. Back in the day, though it wasnt a swear, just a really, really, bad thing to call someone, especially a gentleman. Which why John Adams was found of using it towards Alexander Hamilton, though technically the term was accurate.
JOHN!
Adam's personal dislike for Hamilton and his "unscrupulous" notions of how to get things done ended up in several important disasters for our new nation and not a few stains on our national honor. But such things happen. It is interesting to note that Washington was never affected by consideration of Hamilton's origin, only ability and loyalty mattered to him. Not necessarily in that order, but Hamilton had both in spades.
quote:
What Is a Christian Movie?
Many godly people think that the goal is for movies to be "non-offensive" in terms of sex, language, and violence. But the problem with that standard is it only describes a void. It doesn't give any creative guidance. A lot of Christians lauded the 2002 release A Walk to Remember mainly on this basis: "It didn't have any bad language, and the two teenagers didn't sleep together." Yes, but it was a banal, predictable story with underdeveloped characters, pedestrian acting, and saccharine dialogue.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17841_1.html#cont
Another, somewhat hackneyed point, I wanted to bring up as well.
If I wrote the following in a story, many people would be truly, truly offended. (I hesitated to even copy it here)
quote:
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
That would be really raunchy and racy, and many people would actually be mad at me.
Guess what? The above quote--Ezekiel 23:20.
Just something to think about.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 11, 2005).]
Using profanity is a choice. As with all our other writing decisions, ie: POV, tense, action vs dialogue, characterization... there is a price to pay.
Writers who choose to use profanity pay the price. It will engage some readers, by giving the story a more gritty feeling. It will put off some readers who feel like profanity-laced dialog is rather like sorting through used toilet paper. Unfortunately, some of those readers who are put off by profanity will be editors.
The question has nothing to do with "Should there BE a price for using profanity?" There IS a price. Get used to it. Griping does not change reality.
The question is: are you, as a writer, PREPARED to pay the price? It's a matter of being true to your genre, and your demographic. If a story isn't true to genre without the profanity, then most likely the reader who turns up their nose at it (editors included) wasn't your demographic to begin with.
quote:
You can never overstate the importance of context.
True enough. This is taken from a happy little tale entitled The Two Adulterous Sisters. The one sister is beaten, raped, and killed at the end.
JOHN!
But, in the better translations, it is never necessary to resort to crudities in order to tell those stories with all their grim details intact.
Which is merely to say that that particular argument is a total non sequiteur. Sometimes profanity is necessary to the story. Just like a toilet scene.
But if it is necessary to you, as a writer, then you aren't a very good writer.
quote:
...it is never necessary to resort to crudities in order to tell those stories with all their grim details intact.
From the article I posted a link to above:
quote:
A Christian dramatist needs to portray sin with the same intensity as does a purely secular dramatist because, as Flannery O'Connor noted, "Redemption is meaningless unless there is a cause for it in the actual life we live."
By the rationale of the article, my stripper story could very well be considered a Christian story There is a message of hope, and an exploration of good and evil and right and wrong.
Like the one character I was describing before who bar hops and finds a different bed to sleep in every night. No, she doesnt learn her lesson, but the reader can see shes lonely and her life is unsatisfying.
quote:
Sometimes profanity is necessary to the story. Just like a toilet scene.But if it is necessary to you, as a writer, then you aren't a very good writer.
That I can agree with. (though, I find necessary in a great many stories I write).
JOHN!
Here is my point-of-view on the matter.
I would never presume to tell others how to write, or what to include in their writing. In my mind, that would defeat their purpose of expression and effect the self satisfaction for writing in the first place.
As one who prefers NOT to have profanity in the books I write and read, mine is based on my personal beliefs and that will never change. Does that mean I will never use a colorful metaphor as it was called in one of the Star Trek movies? Not necessarily, but if I do, it will be in extreme moderation and from a shortened list of the lesser crude.
Here is an example of the effect too much foul language can have from different points of view:
Recently I finished reading a novel that started with metaphors in four letter profusion dripping off the pages. I was so busy being disturbed by the quantity that I just about tossed the book in the circular-file.
The book had, right from the beginning, soured my taste both for the novel I was reading as well as what I think of the Author (which really should not be done on a single work). I dragged myself through it and it ended up getting a little better, but not much. Bottom line, I wouldnt recommend the book to anyone I know, with the exception of a few construction works who have the same profanity on enabled in their OS (operating system) as the Books author did. In summary, I hated it.
Now I will tell you it was on the New York Times best seller list and won the Hugo and Nebula for Novel in 2002, American Gods by Neil Gaiman. I may have been in a minority of readers who didnt like the book almost completely due to the language, but that didnt change the fact that I found it generally deplorable.
I compare that book to Uncle Cards Enders Game, having little to no foul language what so ever. In my mind, there is no contest. Enders Game was superior for me in every regard.
Feelings between reader and writer can vary like the grains of sand on a beach. If I dont like your use of language in expression, I simply wont read your writing. But I encourage you to continue to write in what ever manner suits you best just the same. If its something you enjoy, there are probably others that will enjoy it too, unlike the smell of pig farms which only my nephew in the world enjoys.
D. James Larkin
"Tom! ... was that you?... WHEW!" Jim says waving his hands in a distressed manner trying to get fresh air.
Tom, laughing uncontrollably says "Sorry... sorry... kinda smells like..."
Assimilation of Mikes thesis into the project proceeded at an abysmal pace....
Anyway, if you didnt get it thats ok, youre not missing much.
The most common usage in America is ass, and the sound of the "a" is "ahhh", which is different from "arse".
In America, the word "arse" never implies a donkey... a donkey is an ass and nothing more. However, a drunk can be an ass as well.
As for gaol, that variation of "jail" is only used in America for historical and fantasy novels. It's never used for the buildings that incarcerate criminals.
Colour, labour, armour: these spellings are British in nature. In America, the "u" is always dropped out.
Did that answer your question?
Arse is your bum. But properly speaking, it refers to an animal's bum (usually a cow or horse).
So when someone says kiss my ass, they are implying their bum is like the rear-end of a cow.
However in Australia, where I am, the 'R' is never pronounced the word sounds more like 'uss'.
An 'ass' is a donkey, it is pronounced with a hard 'A' just like in the US. Don't be tempted, when affecting a British accent for whatever reason, to ask someone to 'take a ride on your arse', it won't mean what you hope it means.
There are plenty of words that aren't rude in Australia that are in the US, hell, damn, bastard. In fact bastard is a term of endearment:
'How's it going you old bastard?'
"Had a shocker, mate. I burnt the snags on the barbie and now the missus is snaky. You?'
"Can't complain. Where's the esky?'
Remember the 'bast' contains a long 'A'. Do Americans use a long 'A'? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
Whereas a 'bugger' is someone who pursues unnatural relations, usually with animals. It freaked me out the first time I heard an American refer to their kids as 'little buggers'. I must say though, that bugger has lost most of its potency. As is 'spunk' which used to be a rude word but now refers to someone good looking and rarely (almost never) a spirited person.
Anyway I live in a country where the F word is an everyday event on TV as is most others. The C* word turns up occassionally. No one complains so it just gets worse and worse.
The following was a recent viewer advisory I saw on TV:
Viewers are advised that the following programme contains:
Frequent Coarse Language
Drug Use
Drug References
Adult themes
Sex Scenes
Very Strong Sex Scenes
Violence
It was for a music video show on the ABC, our Government funded public broadcaster. 
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 21, 2005).]
Saying "You little f****r", on the other hand, is usually said with venomous undertones and rarely used jokingly. Even between friends, there is a tone of animosity in the word, and it can rapidly turn the mood in the room sour. Teens and early 20's are more likely to use it than the rest of the population.
The word bast*** is said with a short "a" as in "apple." (At least I think it's a short "a"... I was never much good at labeling the parts of speech. I understand how to USE them, just not how they are classified.)
I had never noticed the nuance that an "arse" is only the hindquarters of an animal. I occasionally say, "Well, I guess I'd better get my arse in gear." Guess I'd better rethink that phrase.
There are different insult words in different languages. If someone who is Native American calls a non-native an "Indian Princess", it's an insult. White people tend to glorify their heritage by claiming "Oh, my grandmother was a Cherokee princess," which Native Americans find insulting. There WAS no "royalty" in their culture and they see a claim to being a "princess" as another white "we're-better-than-you" affectation.
I have a friend who was raised in the Southwest, where the culture is strongly influenced by Mexicans. She called me a "gringa" one day... spanish for "stupid white person." Why? I told her mexican food was the same food, just built in a different order. Enchiladas, tortillas, tacos...all the same food. Tortilla shells, meat or beans, cheese, salsa, chili sauce, lettuce, tomatos... same food, just arranged differently. She seemed to think my tastebuds were deficient.
I remember, years ago, (I'm older than dirt if you recall), Howard Cosell the sports broadcaster was broadcasting a football game. He was calling a play by an African-American and yelled out, "Watch that little monkey go!!" Well, that caused a HUGE furor. African-Americans took that as an insult, like he was calling them apes. He apologized, and said, "I call my grandkids little monkeys!"
An inadvertant slip of the lip, and a different cultural view... that's all it takes to become profanity.
Bert, on the other hand, never quite got over it.
PS: The 'animal's rear' aspect of 'arse' is rapidly disappearing.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 22, 2005).]
If you want to know why you are asked to refrain from strong profanity on this board, re-read all three pages of this thread.
And how does a cuss take away from the intelligence of my argument? It doesn't. You think less of me for it, but my argument is no less valid than it would be without the cussing.
And in writing there's absolutely no reason not to use "obscene" words. Real people cuss. Why shouldn't characters cuss?
This has become a tiresome argument and one I don't care to continue.
For the last time, no one is telling you not to cuss in your manuscripts.
You are being asked to refrain from posting strong profanity here on this board.
They are two separate issues.
If you want to know the rationale, read this thread.
I'm done.
And I don't see how any word is inappropriate for the f&f forum. It's a freaking word (and no, I wouldn't have used the fu version there. Freaking has a different sound that I find fits that context better). It's not like it's going to taint anyone's virgin eyes here. It's a PLUS 18 FORUM. Anyone who's 18 and hasn't heard/read the F-word doesn't have internet access...
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited November 23, 2005).]
And even beyond that, why single out one offensive act? I find Mormonism offensive to my beliefs. But I don't rail on OSC for being a Mormon. Some people find my haircut offensive. Why? Because I'm male and my hair is long. Never mind that men have had long hair for millennia before the 20th century. I find Celine Dion's music offensive. I'm not going to try to get her banned from the radio.
Things like that don't actually hurt the offended. So why impede another's expressions or beliefs because it makes you uncomfortable? Who's really being the insensitive one?
Yes, curse words are just words. And images are just images. Should we allow people to post pornography on this site then, just because it's an 18+ forum? It's just the human body after all... The point is that the owner of this site who graciously allows us to use it for free has asked that material he finds questionable / crude not be present in these forums. And that includes curse words.
And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, curse words do make an argument less valid in the mind of many people. In a rational, intellectual discussion, curse words serve no purpose. Most of the time they are simply inserted for shock value and in place of solid reasoning.
As for using them in writing, sometimes the nature of a character may demand swearing, if that's the characterization you're looking for. Personally, I like to use made up curse words, since I write fantasy mostly, so even though the reader can get the idea of what the character means, those readers who would be put off by actual curse words aren't. Always better to try not to alienate anyone if you don't have to, I think.
If you are unable to contribute anything beyond this "debate" (such as feedback on other writer's work or offering your own work for comment), then perhaps this is not the best place for you.
And I'm not ranting and raving about freedom of speech. If you think these are rants and raves, you've already made cruel assumptions of my character, and I find that offensive.
quote:
The problem is that when I post my stuff, the thread fizzles out and I don't get too much useful feedback, and when I contribute feedback to others, it doesn't seem to get anywhere.
Then maybe this website forum is not working for you.
keeping that in mind, I can see why OSC has refrained from allowing us to use profanity. 'nuff said
You are hung up on the fact that PARTICIPATION on this forum is for people 18+ years of age. There is no password lockout to keep kids UNDER 18 from reading these posts. As such, the administrators have established a rule about posting strong profanity on the site.
You are beating a dead horse. To continue to do so is futile and off-topic, which is probably the kindest thing I could say about it. Why don't you find some other topic to focus on and let this one drop?
Expend some energy in participating in a discussion about WRITING, not your indignation.
I'm not beating a dead horse. You are. I've stated my opinion on the rule, and you all keep arguing with my opinion. If you want me to stop defending my opinion just say, "That's your opinion, and we respect that. However, it's up to the person who pays for the web space."
And it's certainly not off-topic to discuss the use of profanity in a topic about the use of profanity. It may be off the original purpose of the thread, but it's still not unreasonable to discuss something like this.
And quit acting like you're better than me because I'm of a differing opinion. This IS a discussion about writing. The fact that I see the way this aspect of writing is treated on this board as unfair has nothing to do with value of me arguing it.
And don't act like I've just come to this board to start arguing about profanity. This just happens to be the topic I find to be the most valuable expendature of my energy and thought on in the schedual of this 19 year old part-time student, part time employee, and Civ IV addict.
quote:
If you want me to stop defending my opinion just say, "That's your opinion, and we respect that. However, it's up to the person who pays for the web space."
Elan said: "...no one is telling you not to cuss in your manuscripts....You are being asked to refrain from posting strong profanity here on this board."
AstroStewart said: "this forum is on OCS's site, and we have been asked to refrain from using curse words on this site."
Elan also said: "Keeping strong profanity off the site is the rule."
Elan also said: "the administrators have established a rule about posting strong profanity on the site."
So, please stop.
Respectfully, sojoyful
[This message has been edited by sojoyful (edited December 01, 2005).]
On a website that had established rules before you chose to join, you are best described by the words you use if you insist the rules are wrong. The reality is that the rules of the website are the rules of the website and if you do not like them, the American thing to do would be to go off and start your own website with the rules you like.
The people who stay here chose to stay because they agree with the rules. No one is forcing these rules on you, so you have no reason to play the revolutionary and fight them. It would cause you no hardship to chose another writer's forum where no one cares about ho a teenageer rants on language.
[This message has been edited by pixydust (edited December 01, 2005).]
quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
Please notice that by agreeing to the above, you have no right to complain that the profane and vulgar words in your post were censored, because you agreed not to post such words in order to be able to post on this website at all.
Pantros, are you saying that immigrants have no right to question the laws of the lands they move to?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 02, 2005).]
If the laws of the country they choose to move to forbid dissention, then they should not dissent or they should not move there in the first place.
However there is a HUGE difference between government and a small bulliten board forum. Everyone has to live under some form of government and a person should have a say as to which form they live under. But, you do not have to be here or on any other web based writers forum. Most writers before you were successful without the benefit of this place.
Only an immature mind does not grasp that some people will be offended and it is not your right to offend when you have been asked not to. (IE don't post vulgar language) Though most adults can deal with it, they may prefer not to. There are forums available for people who insist that vulgar language is necessary for adult communication. These are not those.
Maturity is never based on the level of vulgarity you choose to tolerate. I take no offense at bad language, personally. Heck, I write porn. But I don't force anyone to read it. I don't post it on boards where people can stumble across it when they are expecting otherwise. I do take offense to people who can't understand that the person most easily offended sets the standard for a community and insist on continuing offensive behavior.
Your level of respect for other peoples sensitivities will define you as a child or an adult.
Probably a good thing that I don't.
And my point is that vulgar language isn't the only offensive thing. Anyone can find just about anything offensive. And a lot of people who do.
For example, someone could find it offensive that a person writes about the Holocaust. They could either be Jews who find the author's interpretations of the events offensive, or it could be a German who is offended that someone would keep drudging up that part of their nation's history. But my whole point is you shouldn't get mad at someone for offending you if that wasn't their intention. The author just wanted to write a story that takes place during the Holocaust.
Taking offense is an easy thing to do. Regulating what is offensive is even harder. The struggle to not offend people is what causes things like a coke commercial saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" at the end of a commercial featuring FREAKING SANTA CLAUS!
It can just get ridiculous, and it would be much better for the entire world if people stopped getting all in a frenzy over something as unavoidable as being offended.
what you're bickering and dicking about here is the fact that you're not allowed in say something like "F*** you very much!" During the course of a 13 line post.
13 lines.
Hello?! Who gives a f***?!
Edit the 13 lines.
Then, if and when anyone requests the whole manuscript, you can reinsert the original wording when you send the story privately to that person's email address. Provided, of course, that the recipient has been made aware in advance that there is offensive language in the text.
Mike, Kathleen probably hasn't closed this topic because Archer would start bleeding his heart out about censorship and freedom of speech and blah blah blah ad nauseum.
[This message has been edited by luapc (edited December 02, 2005).]
I have never known anyone, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, 7th day adventist, whatever to boycott a store for posting "Merry Christmas" or for that matter "Happy Chunahkah." (pardon the mispell).
If someone finds a subject matter offensive, they can stop reading. Its not quite an instantaneous effect like vulgar words where once you read it, the offense is taken.
Marketting is an incredibly scary concept. I have a degree in marketting, (yes, yes I have done everything at one point or another), the detail of data and the relationships between that data and what it means to what you will buy if influenced in what way...the research is frightening.
The people coming up with these PC holidays are not the people who know marketing.
Genericizing one persons holiday to not offend anyone else, just offends one person and has no more or less offense to the other people. The better plan as a retailer is to embrace the holiday that you are selling for. Splash your store with signs that say "Merry Christmas." "Happy Hunnakah" (again sorry), "Happy Kwanza" "Happy Solstice" All the gift giving holidays.
Everyone in this country has a right to express their religion in a non-violent way. (five years ago that sentence ended four words earlier.) This includes retailers.
The only entities forbidden from expressing their religion are government agencies and agents.
Its not like american christmas is really a religious holiday anymore anyway. What comes to mind first when you hear "Christmas"? A baby in a manger or a guy in a red suit? If you said "Neither, I think of two circles on a platic card, well..."
These are my opinion and they are the right ones. If you don't agree, that's fine. I will allow you to be wrong. This time
KDW, there was a good thread here on a writerly topic. We should be free to continue that discussion, but we're not. Archer has been asked to take his political views elsewhere, and refuses. Can't you do anything?
Sometimes it helps to have a real life model when I create a small-minded character.
On the other hand, THIS explains a lot:
quote:
this 19 year old part-time student
And they wonder why we set the age limit at 18. Apparently it didn't sift all of the immature behavior out of the mix.
Getting back to arse, I was asking whether arse and ass are synonymous in Britain. I know they are not in America.
An Ass, the packanimal, is noted for its stubborness. Calling someone by that name is refering to their stubborn behavior.
Its a malapropism that people nowadays think that calling someone (another name for mule) actually is calling them a body part.
Calling someone that body part is vulgar, calling them stubborn as a mule is not. But how do you know what someone is thinking when they say it. Most likely they are thinking only that someone is being a jerk and using the word A-- to mean that without caring where the word came from.
I think its a zigzag of malapropism that anyone uses the Ar-- word to describe someone being a jerk at all.
The ar-- word is a relatively new word, created to find a way to distinguish between the two.
the as- word has been an insult for more than half a milennium, dating back at least as far as shakespeare.
"Foul language" used sparingly doesn't look like offensive content to me. But even if you simply said, "that you will not use this BB to post any material or language..." (adding or language), it would tell most people that it's unacceptable to talk like that around here.
Alternately, a post containing clarification of the rules under the "read first" section of the forum, or stuck at the top of every section, would make it easy to find and read at any time, and be an indication to lurkers and visitors about what they should expect. A Code of Conduct post would be useful anyway.
Archer, I can see where you're coming from. I like to stand up for freedom of speech and expression, just for the principle, but the only problem is that it doesn't apply here. When you willingly join a message board that restricts fould language (on the basis of setting up an environment that is friendly to those who might find it offensive) you waive the right to complain about that restriction. If we were following you around on the streets blowing a foghorn or electrocuting you or something anytime you cursed, or if we were a publisher who washes out all your swear words in your writings, then I would agree with your objections.
And please, everyone, let's not resort to name calling. Archer was just trying to describe how he felt, and now we have heard him. End of story - no one is the "bad guy." Maybe I'm just more understanding than the rest of you due to a forum battle I've been a part of in the past.
On that note, pantros, if you want a REALLY good example for a small-minded person, you should check out any/all posts by "my own person" on http://www.b2g3.com/boards/board.cgi?user=conspiracy (It's a message board for a favorite band of mine, Conspiracy of Thought. Somehow a religious debate got started, and the poster "my own person" is the best real life example of completely close minded person I have ever seen. It's fascinating, really.)
quote:
You've discovered hippocrisy
Where is she? My hippocrissy escaped last week and I've been looking for her everywhere!
quote:
I'm not complaining about the actions mods take, I'm complaining about the rule they are following when they take such actions.
But when you registered to post here, ArCHeR, you AGREED to abide by that rule. I am just trying to certify that you are totally clear on what you AGREED to do.
If you do not keep your AGREEMENT, you are not welcome to post here. It's that simple.
- now it's time to close this thread.
In a site devoted to a Mormon author, it could very easily have the more religious meaning.
My point was simply to say adding the word "language" will make it abundantly clear. I'm not trying to force us into a state of absurdity, where every single minute detail must be spelled out. "Language" is simply a clarification. If you said, "don't post offensive content or language", any reasonable person will understand what "language" refers to. It's just as simple, yet clearer than saying only "offensive content".
Those people who insist on claiming that they don't understand this after all the discussion here are being deliberately obtuse.
I don't think Archer intends to be a troll, but he's behaving as one. He knows the rules of this forum, and he should know that complaining (I considered being ironic and saying 'b****ing') about them won't change anything. So he has two choices, participate and obey the rules, or leave.
End of discussion, yeah?
EDIT: I browsed through some of the other pages and it seems there's also legitimate writing discussion going on. Locking the thread may be jumping the gun, but the business of this forum's rules is still silly to keep arguing about.
[This message has been edited by apeiron (edited December 03, 2005).]
Would you please lock this thread, Kathleen?
<Hands Kathleen a lock>
-Monolith-
Yes, I agreed to abide by the rules. And I did. In fact, the only "profane" word I posted in this workshop was in my 1st 13 for Remnants when my character says "F*** off." But I put a warning at the top, and asterixes in the middle.
My point is, I shouldn't have the right to intentionally offend someone, but I sure as hell want the right to offend someone without meaning to. Do you want me to point out one of the hundreds of examples of offensive material in these forums that weren't even noticed by the powers that be?
OSC criticises Calvanist thought in (I believe) the Speaker for the Dead. So why does he make it a rule in his forums to punish actions instead of intent in something so unregulatable as offensive material?
quote:
Yes, I agreed to abide by the rules. And I did. In fact, the only "profane" word I posted in this workshop was in my 1st 13 for Remnants when my character says "F*** off." But I put a warning at the top, and asterixes in the middle.
I take that as permission to delete the post that the workshop software censored then.
Thank you.