Go trade it in for a book that suits you. At the very least, recycle it. C'mon, think here.I got two hundred pages into a three hundred page novel, bristling at the profanities about ever page or ever other page. Finally after a strong obscenity placed in the middle of a blasphemy, I threw the book away.
It’s not that I’m a prude, but I was raised with certain values. {Not the values of the pseudo-moralists in big business and politics who use the word to sell themselves or gain power and dominance. Otherwise what value is joblessness?} One of those values is to strive to excise profanity from my own mouth and minimize it in the entertainment I seek. My family and friends uphold these same views.
Of course, people have the right to choose whatever entertainment they like and either accept or reject it. But isn’t there a better way than to litter one’s writings? Sure, strive to keep it real. But after all, it’s entertainment. It doesn’t have to be that real. Surely if it’s a good, well-written story, nobody would notice that it lacks obscenities. And why alienate a portion of one’s audience by adding them?
Proponents of profanity seem to fear characters talking like Wally and the Beaver or saying ‘Oh me, oh my!’ But that’s just plain stupid. Nobody wants to hear that either.
quote:
Finally after a strong obscenity placed in the middle of a blasphemy, I threw the book away.
That's silly. Go trade it in for a book that suits you. At the very least, recycle it. C'mon, think here.
(teasing, but books sans covers can be easily recycled.)
Maybe you could lobby the book industry to start putting profanity warnings on their book spines. Just like movies and video games get ratings, so too can books.
In all seriousness, every choice you make for yourself has consequences -- good or bad. If you choose to dislike books with profanity, blasphemy, and othere vulgarities, then there is nothing wrong with that. It simply means you've made your choice over what you find suitable.
But, in a free society, you must be willing to accept those who dissent from your opinion. In my opinion, words (such as cusses) have no power unless you choose to give them power. Words are not inherently good or bad. They are only words, invented by humans, and determined by humans to be offensive or not.
Someday, we will find the word "sponge" to be offensive. It seems harmless, but someone will be offended by it eventually. It is inevitable.
Moreover, once you know the etymology (origin and history of a word) you have supreme power over it. Many of the words you might find offensive started off rather inoffensive and harmless, or were derived from another language. Some words may have held secret meanings, and once learned, the "upper crust" of a particularly society decided it was vulgar. Other times, it was a particular religious movement that chose to demonize a word -- for various reasons... Most often, words are subject to personal interpretation, regardless of belief.
They are, and always will be, only words. It is the "intent" of using words that should be questioned, not the actual words.
Clearly, many will disagree wtih me (and have in the past, on this very board) My defense is that the above is pure opinion. By all means, disagree... no one has yet swayed me from this view. I'm a bit stubborn that way.
But anyway, you're right. They're just words. The offense they generate is in our own minds, placed there by parents and society.
Moreover, our rights so express ourselves in this country include the right to use profane words in speech or in writing. (Sometimes I think politicians are trying to take some of these inalienable rights away but...well, that's a topic for another time and another forum. )
So, now that we've established that anyone is free and welcome to use profane words, as well as free and welcome to not take offense to them, let's talk about writing. Because my problem with excessive profanity in writing is not on moral or legal grounds, and I will fight cencorship tooth and nail.
So what's wrong with profanity? It's what Chris said. It's not the TRUTH but the PERCEPTION that matters. Whatever the words really mean or wherever they came from, that doesn't matter. Here and nwo when a person shouts "F*** you!" it sends certain creepy chills down our spines and makes us detest the speaker or at least like him a little less.
I can't help it. I was programmed that way. I do cuss a bit when I'm particularly angry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to learn to stop here pretty quickly because I want my first child to be able to fit into society and that requires a certain adherence to rules that don't always make sense.
What about writing? Story-telling is not always about reality or realism. The purpose of story-telling is to convey certain emotions, themes, morals, and ideas. But, you say, we want our stories to be realistic, don't we? Oh yes, realistic, but I've learned time and time again that's not the same thing as real. I've written scenes that were practically autobiographies and had people questioned their merit whereas some of the most far-fetched fantasy doesn't raise eyebrows at all. Real and realism are not the same. So I don't buy that argument.
Every word you write serves a purpose. Profanity serves a purpose, too. A well-placed explative in the middle of a story or novel that does not overuse them will catch a reader's eye and make them pay attention. They will understand that the scene has a deep emotional level and begin to feel some of that. I have used the well-placed explative to serve just this purpose.
But if you use an explative on every page the effect is lost. The only thing you could possibly be trying to do is to show some sort of realism. But let me ask you this? How often do you say "er?" or "um?" or stumble over your words and how often does that appear in story-telling?
And that's just for starters. I've found that people don't notice profanity NOT being there...they notice it there.
Basically, it's down to what effect you want to have on the reader, which is the heart of story-telling. Yeah, gang members cuss, but do you want to show us gang members cussing so we continue to despise them or do you want to show us that deep down underneath they're people just trying to fit in? What's more important?
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited June 13, 2005).]
Chris can make his own decisions about what to read. Shouldn't the burden be on him, not on me?
Exactly!
I started reading American Gods by Neil Gaiman. He uses the f word multiple times per page. It was annoying and totally lost any impact that it might have had, it made the characters totally unsympathetic. Even the antagonists.
"Huh?" you say. "Sympathy for the antagonists?"
Well, yeah. Even the antagonist has to engender some level of sympathy from the reader (and by sympathy I mean a connection, an understanding), or the reader will detest him so much he will a) no longer be believable and/or b) he'll be too over the top awful to maintain the reader's interest.
I think I only made it through a couple of chapters of American Gods. The story became ABOUT the f word, and how many times per page Mr. Guiman could type it.
I recently wrote a story in which I introduced the character as a man with a penchant for cursing and strong drink--both of which got him into trouble. Interestingly, not ONE of the people who read for me noticed that my character never actually swore in the story.
I'll provide the low-res link here (about 7 megs or so):
http://www.ripolot.com/video/happynowhere/hn_appleswitch.wmv
To make one final point before I disappear, I also don't enjoy stories that use excessive profanity. Not for any moral reasons, but because I feel the author is deliberately trying to be confrontational with me, the reader. I do agree that most profanity is unnecessary and can be reworded or skipped altogether. And there are times when I feel it's absolutely the best possible word to be used. Like the above video...
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited June 13, 2005).]
I'm not offended in the slightest, nor do I think the use of the F-word detracts from the prose. It conveys a clear sense of the narrator's laid-back style. And it does lend credibility due to realism. It is true there are other things that are neglected in the name of story-telling, but dialogue is a bit more iffy. Many authors do include notes when characters stammer or hesitate. They might not write "umm" but they indicate the same sentiment. I would be more distracted if not one of a group of college students ever swore.
And like Christine alluded to, it isn't inherently offensive to me. If someone is angry and says, "F--- you!" to me, I'd take offense. But the word itself possesses no power over me, only the intent of its wielder.
quote:
Gaiman's approach doesn't seem to have hurt his sales.
So does that constitute a blanket justification of using gratuitous profanity?
Or is it a sad tribute to our society that American Gods is considered a great novel?
Or is it a sad view of American culture that Gaiman, a Brit, seems to think of us as irredeemably vulgar?
I like you Beth, but it sounds like you're trying as hard to defend and promote the use of profanity in literature as Chris is trying to question its need.
My point really is that if your character requires a great deal of profanity in order to be characterized, what does that say about your characterization abilities?
However, I must agree with both Beth and Chris on one very important point--sales. A writer who uses a great deal of obscenity is going to alienate a portion of the audience. A writer who writes fantasy is going to alienate a portion of the audience. A writer who writes in first person is going to alienate a portion of the audience. A writer who writes with a typewriter is going to alienate a portion of his audience. A writer who are Catholic or German or female or ugly or popular or Madonna 
are going to alienate a portion of the potential audience.
Get the point?
Sales are not a measure of a story's value to all readers. And writers shouldn't, IMO, add obscenities (or any other perceived 'popular' device)to their prose in order to increase sales. Great way to rip the heart right out of your writing. Just be aware that no matter what choices you make about your writing, you are going to alienate/attract a certain audience. So put all the profanity you want in your prose, but don't expect me to read it.
I, and Chris apparently, have no desire to attract an audience based upon the baseness of my language. I'd much rather attract an audience based upon the beauty of it and the power of the story--and not make any choices that will detract from those.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited June 13, 2005).]
I mean, I'm not arguing for or against profanity right now, I'm just suggesting why this one point might not be the best argument. It seems to me that there is way too much that goes into selling a book, from name to reputation to marketing to subject matter, to suggest that one aspect of that book has effected sales either positively or negatively. How do you know that American Gods wouldn't have sole like Harry Potter without the cussing? I don't know. I can't talk about that book in particular, not having read it (I keep hearing people say it's awful, actually ).
You know, it's interesting, Beth. On the sex issue (which also often comes down to peple's idea of morality) you weren't interested in reading about sex. On the profanity issue, I'm not interested in reading profanity. But I must say, I appreciate other arguments that stay away from the vague catch-all phrase that politicians use to try to collect votes by claiming the other guy isn't. (Moral, that is.)
I agree you don't want to throw profanity into your story just to get a reaction, but if a character would normally cuss in a given situation - then let him.
Yes, it may limit your audience, but you limit your writing if you censor your characters. The world isn't full of people who inhabit the moral highground (whatever that means). It is full of different types and each type of person has there own unique speech patterns -- including profanity.
It is 100% fine for someone to not like profanity, and to not read books with swearing. Or whatever other thing gets under their skin - no problem. And I think it's useful for authors to realize that the choices they make in their writing will turn some readers away - and if an author wants to write for Chris's demographic (whatever that is!) that's fine.
I do not accept the responsibility of protecting Chris from swear words, any more than you should accept the responsibility of not boring me with sex scenes.
now you all think I am a pro-obscenity anti-sex android! that's ok.
My issue with cussing, and the one that keeps getting skirted around, is the fact that I think it weakens story-telling. Words have power. Every word you choose to write comes attached with a history and connotations.
Some people think it strengthens story-telling to have people who would cuss cuss. I respectfully disagree with them. I think it weakens characterization and clouds reader perceptions.
We aren't writing in a vacuum. We are writing to an audience and in a society that comes with baggage. Word baggage. Emotional baggage. Whatever.
Dakota's right on one thing. It is entirely possible to write about a character who cusses and not use a single cuss word in the story. It's like Card said at his boot camp a couple of years ago...people think his stories are violent but when asked they can't actually point to a violent scene.
What's the difference between having a character who cusses actually cuss in the story vs not? Perception.
The thing is, it doesn't really matter if people will read your story or not. I'll read your story if it cusses all the time. I'm not offended. But that doesn't mean I'll like it and it definitely doesn't mean I'll see your point through the cussing. Like everyone else in this society, despite not being offended by cussin. I have preconceptions and connotations related to those words.
I can't help it. I guess I'm a bit of an android too.
Anyway, I only caution against using profanity and suggest the likely reactions by the widest variety of readers, both those who are and aren't "morally offended" by it. Whether or not you use it is your choice. Whether or not I read it is mine.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited June 13, 2005).]
1) If you can write belivably about people without using profanity and that's what you want to do, then do it. For many readers, you do not have to have a military guy or blue collar worker or [insert stereotype like against-type grandmas] use profantiy to evoke him and have the reader believe it. You can do it a million other ways. There's no one way in art, especially not in drawing chracters. So the "you must use it for these people to be believable" line is absolutely false. No, you must use it for some audiences to believe it, but not for all or even most. This doesn't mean you have him say, "Gosh." It means you find other ways to evoke the nature of the character.
2) If you find that profanity dampens your interest. If you find it offensive, then you simply don't write it. There is a natural audience that will appreciate it. Except for the belief issue above, I don't think anyone would think a story wasn't interesting because it lacked profanity. We don't go looking for profanity. We look for story: supsense, curiosity, delightful characters, humor, etc.
3) On the other hand, other authors/people don't have issues with profanity. They write their stories and find a natural audience that doesn't mind it at all. So let them read.
The trick is, on the one hand, to find the books you like (a little flipping through the pages might help) and, on the other, to not foist your books on the wrong audience. And if an author does use some occasional profanity, well, I guess you have to draw your line somewhere, or, as has been suggested, simply skip it.
[This message has been edited by johnbrown (edited June 13, 2005).]
What I find fascinating is that somehow it has been interpreted that Chris is "demanding" editorial censorship, that authors should write according to his moral preferences. He never even said anything as assertive as "I think authors should..."
He just wants to know why some authors find it necessary. That's a valid question. As in every choice you make in your writing, you should have a valid answer to that question, and a valid answer is not "because it's what the audience demands," or some such, and often a valid answer is not "because people talk that way." But that's a subject for it's own thread, which Christine alluded to--realism vs. real.
Chris's topic also brings up the idea that maybe warning labels should be put on books. It would sure make it a heck of a lot easier for libraries to properly label Youth Fiction, and VERY helpful to me in steering my children (not to mention myself) toward acceptable books. My two reading-age children read far above their grade level and it can be a challenge finding things that are both interesting and age-appropriate.
You know, I wonder if such a system might actually INCREASE fiction sales. I wonder how many potential customers don't buy books because they're afraid to sink their money into something that might be morally offensive? I mean, look at a couple of things.
First, a couple of decades ago, the trend was to 'litter' fiction with as much sex and profanity as possible. Authors who submitted 'clean' manuscripts were told to heat them up in order to make them saleable. The reading public came to expect it in everything they picked up off the shelf. So how many people stopped picking books up off the shelf, in favor of rated films and CDs?
Second, there was a recent news article on the increase in sales of G rated movies, to the point that they now outstrip sales of R rated movies, despite the fact that R rated movies far outstrip G rated movies in numbers. That G rating is attracting customers. Could it not do the same for books?
So I'm wondering, how many people sink their limited funds into films instead of books because they can be fairly certain of what's in the package when they buy it?
To answer void's question, the latest I've read on the subject says that the 'trend' toward editors recommending or even demanding that authors include more sex/profanity seems to have passed. Don't know about violence, but then I'm not one to be all that bothered by violence.
So Beth is a pro-obscenity anti-sex android and I'm a sadistic serial killer wannabe. 
If they were in fact sincere questions, I retract 47% of my indignation and apologize for overreacting.
Beth, so when you meet a cute guy and he asks: "Why don't you spend the night at my place?" do you interpret that to mean that he is demanding sex?
I'm just totally failing to understand how you can interpret "But isn't there a better way than to litter one's writings?" and "And why alienate a portion of one's audience by adding them [profane words]?" as anything approaching demands.
Given the fact that we all come from varied backgrounds it's a wonder that we can communicate effectively at all, and no wonder that there are so many misunderstandings.
I consider Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to be the masterpiece of Gonzo journalism. Of course it's loaded with profanity! If you took all the profanity out of Fear and Loathing you'd have nothing left but some disturbing artwork and a paragraph about the tire pressure in a 1971 Coupe de Ville.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited June 13, 2005).]
Consider his questions as coming from a reader. Because he is one. He reads and buys books, too. How can we, as writers, address these concerns that a portion of our potential audience obviously has? Do you care? Is it an issue that effects you or your writing? One thing we CANNOT do is attack our potential customer base because they don't like our product. And if we should be polite to our customers with differing views, how much more polite should we be to our Comrades in Word Processing who hold differing views?
But, in relation to the guy asking you to spend the night at his place, your reaction was the difference between calling the police to attempt a reported rape and a simple, polite 'No, thank you.'
Now, IF it turns out that Chris's sole motivation was to stir the pot and piss everyone off, I, of course, retract all the potentially nice things I said about him and commit 47% of my indignation to berating him mercilessly.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited June 13, 2005).]
I remember right after I was diagnosed with OCD and was reading about Cognitive Behavioral techniques of exposing myself to the things that bother me. I mean, I thought there was a hidden sexual meaning behind the end of "Toy Story" when Rex says he wants to be the "dominant predator".
So I decided I would try watching R-rated movies again. My first pick was "An Officer and a Gentleman." I decided I would be able to recover from OCD without watching any more R-rated movies. Now I'm sure Eddie Murphy's "Raw" had more actual occurences of the F word. But the usages in O&aG were so much more colorful. Blue, to be precise.
Though what did that marching song really tell me about the Gossett character? I don't think he had really done what he was singing about. (picture 99 bottles of beer on the wall but for Navy pilots).
So did you buy this book from a mail order book club? Is there some reason you weren't able to ascertain the density of profanity prior to purchase?
quote:
I need to vent.the stronger profanities I find offensive.
One of [my] values is to strive to excise profanity from my own mouth and minimize it in the entertainment I seek.
people have the right to choose whatever entertainment they like
But isn’t there a better way [to keep it real] than to litter one’s writings?
It doesn’t have to be that real.
why alienate a portion of one’s audience?
I really can't find anything offensive in that.
--
My practice on profanity is to minimize it, to avoid alienating readers. Sometimes I can't, without damaging the story, so I keep it in. One of my Hatrack-group teammates recently suggested I scale this: if I'm going to say the F word on page 20, don't say "rear" for "ass" on page 5 -- let people know I'm going to be using some. This made sense to me.
--
quote:
{Not the values of the pseudo-moralists in big business and politics who use the word to sell themselves or gain power and dominance. Otherwise what value is joblessness?}
I didn't understand this, Chris, but I don't think you have to apologize!
I know this has probably been discussed in several writing forums, but I need to vent. I unfortunately have to put up with some Christianity in fiction, written or visual. And for most people, this is a realistic manner of speaking. But I have my limits and the stronger Christianity I find offensive.
I got two hundred pages into a three hundred page novel, bristling at the Christianity about every page or every other page. Finally after a strong baptism placed in the middle of a conversion scene, I threw the book away.
It's not that I'm a prude, but I was raised with certain values. Not the values of the pseudo-moralists in big buisiness and politics who use the word to sell themselves or gain power and dominance. Otherwise what value is joblessness? One of these values is to strive to excise organized religion from my own mouth and minimize it in the entertainment I seek. My family and friends uphold these same views.
Of course, people have the right to choose whatever entertainment they like and either accept or reject it. But isn’t there a better way than to litter one’s writings? Sure, strive to keep it real. But after all, it’s entertainment. It doesn’t have to be that real. Surely if it’s a good, well-written story, nobody would notice that it lacks Jesus. And why alienate a portion of one’s audience by adding them?
You've made your point, Beth, but may I make an observation? Usually, when people write posts like this they don't *mean* to be offensive or for it to come across as if they think everyone should think and believe as they do. Chris prefaced his post by saying he needed to vent and then poured out his feelings to us. Especially when I see a disclaimer like that, I go ahead and give the poster the benefit of the doubt. I think sanity and peace suggest that we all try to do that. It doesn't mean we can't disagree. In fact, I highly suggest that we do disagree so we learn the answers to our unvoiced questions. In Crhis' case, his unvoiced question was: Why use profanity?
I also suggest, again for the sake of peace, that for those who disagree with Beth's take on Chris' post it might be better to let the matter drop. Nothing can possibly be gained by this except an argument -- not a discussion. If Chris would like to clarify his remarks, that is one thing, but otherwise let's discuss the topic -- profanity.
However he phrased the question, that is the issue at hand.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited June 13, 2005).]
Let's assume, for the moment, that we are writing for an adult audience.
Cursing can be used affectively in a story to illustrate the folowing:
1. An extreme mood or temper.
2. An extremely bad situation.
3. A particularly vulgar character.
4. A realistic portrait of certain environments such as the military: I advise caution here. If cursing is the only thing you use to make it real then the cursing will serve no purpose except crassness. In fact, unless you have been in the military and understand the nuances of the culture, I wouldn't suggest trying to add just this one detail because you heard about sailors' mouths.
My apologies. Enjoy your conversation.
Curses used as adverbs are right out. With the exception of "ass". I find "ass" used as a postposed adverb to be one of the most interesting linguistic phenomena developing in the English language today.
P.S. I re-read Beth's post and realized she wanted a reply and not the opposite. If she checks the thread again. I'd say I disagree because the re-written analogy would not hold up for a minority religion. And the F word is not anyone's religion that I am aware of. Though to use the specific term "I'll pray for you" in place of curse/Christianity, that I could wholeheartedly agree with. Sorry about the dangling prepostion.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited June 13, 2005).]
Being an ex-sailor (enlisted - which makes a difference) I would say that if you write a scene with this kind of character and don't use profanity, then you don't know f***ing s**t about it (just an example). You see, it is a part of that culture. It took me years to unlearn it and I still revert back from time to time. I never cussed before I joined the military(or when I went home on leave for that matter), and I rarely cuss now, but nobody I knew in the military refrained from it (except maybe the officers). It wasn't offensive, it was a normal speech pattern. This is just one example of a culture whose speech patterns must have some profanity to be believeable. Yes, you can clean it up, but why would you want to lose the realism.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited June 13, 2005).]
Beth, I'll give a reply, not to convince, just to answer. I'd find the simulated anti-Christianity post offensive, but Christianity is dear to the hearts and identities of many. I never heard someone identify himself as a cusser! It's just a manner of speaking. I think a better analogy would be an anti-passive-voice post, or an anti-acronym post. We might find these posts strange, but offensive?
I don't even find Chris's post strange. One purpose of cussing is to shock. For some it works too well. I cuss like a sailor, but I recognize some people don't like it, so I don't do it around them. This also restrains me from mooning people. Most of the time.
In my own writing, I use profanity like a habenero (world's hottest) pepper.
First, I think Bill Cosby is one of the greatest commedians because he can crack me up until I'm rolling on the floor, and he's squeeky clean. It isn't normally necessary.
Second, if you use the words sparingly, they are very potent and extremely effective.
In my first novel, I had occasional gang encounters. If memory serves, I used one obscene word to set up the characters in the readers' minds. No more was necessary.
In a short story (the one I used to apply for boot camp, in fact) I have a much more liberal use of profanity (but I generally selected words with more than four letters). But then, that story was titled "Road Rage," and it was a very angry story. But then, in a story called "Road Rage," you wouldn't expect the main character to say:
"Golly-gee, that silly man just ran me off the road. Gosh. Whatever will I do?"
quote:
Being an ex-sailor (enlisted - which makes a difference) I would say that if you write a scene with this kind of character and don't use profanity, then you don't know f***ing s**t about it (just an example). You see, it is a part of that culture. It took me years to unlearn it and I still revert back from time to time. I never cussed before I joined the military(or when I went home on leave for that matter), and I rarely cuss now, but nobody I knew in the military refrained from it (except maybe the officers). It wasn't offensive, it was a normal speech pattern. This is just one example of a culture whose speech patterns must have some profanity to be believeable. Yes, you can clean it up, but why would you want to lose the realism.
I was hoping to come across an ex-sailor on this topic!
I have a few thoughts and bear with me, but I'd love to hear your reaction to it all given your unique perspective.
First, I suggest that anyone who doesn't know about sailors shouldn't write about them. It's easy to say that sailors cuss, that it's a part of their culture, but the nuances of culture are often difficult to put into words There's so much of it. I imagine there's much more to it than cussing, for that matter.
Second, given that there is so much more to it than cussing, if you wanted to write about it, would you like people to understand the fullness of that culture and the depth of individual characters or would you like them to come away with what everyone already knows, that sailors cuss? I ask this because if your characters use profanity the way real sailors do, few people are going to see the story for the cursing, and those are going to have to look for it.
Let me explain why before you get back to realism, which *is* a good point. I will grant you that much. But a sailor's cursing isn't even a matter of them being particularly angry people. It's just a thing they do. So let's take all the emotional baggage and connotations of cursing out of it and create a group of people who blarg as part of their culture:
"Hey, Bob, blarging fowl weather today."
"Blarging blarg."
"Blarging being cooped up all day. What the blarg am I supposed to do?"
"Get off your blarg and clean your blarging room."
"Don't see you doing any blarging housework."
Nothing offensive about blargs at all, but damn if it isn't getting in the way of that conversation.
You see, when I write a story set on another planet I translate their language into English.
I'm not a rock the boat type guy. I didn't think anyone out of sorts over what I said. Censorship is certainly not my intent and if is was, I might lack the power to enforce it.
Use of obscenity in fiction is a reality. So when I happen to go to a movie or read a book, it's not the occasional use that I find disturbing. But the overuse, ever page or so, becomes taxing. And when a writer takes a certain name, and sticks the F word in the middle, as if it were a middle name, well that leaped over a line.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited June 14, 2005).]
quote:
I think if you're reading a story about a prostitute, you may as well brace yourself
Well this is why I am wondering why Chris got so far into the book and then decided to toss it. Was there not any profanity/vulgarity/scatology in the first 13 lines? First 5 chapters?
In going through my first serious 13 lines process, it seems the people here are quite demanding about me giving them everything about the tone, story and characters without making it feel like some kind of data dump.
I think I have an additional hurdle in my story not being sci-fi. I guess I can raise that question elsewhere, since I'm really getting off topic.
Also, my husband was enlisted Air Force and didn't swear overly. But I know the Air Force is ridiculed/envied by other services since they have more women.
Bill Cosby did have the bit about thinking his name was a swear word when he was little. There is also the bit about Cocaine.
"Or is it a sad view of American culture that Gaiman, a Brit, seems to think of us as irredeemably vulgar?"
Actually, I think it's because Gaiman is a Brit that he includes profanity in "American Gods". Here in the UK, profanity in the media - TV in particular - is a good deal more common than in the US, where only HBO and such networks can use anything much stronger than "darn" or "heck". Even for Neil, who's pretty familiar with American culture, I think it's sometimes hard to remember just how much of "middle America" there is that really genuinely does get its proverbial "knickers in a twist" (if I may use such a phrase...) at the use of rude words.
"And writers shouldn't, IMO, add obscenities (or any other perceived 'popular' device)to their prose in order to increase sales."
I really can't imagine anyone of even moderate intelligence (and most writers, I would hazard, are of moderate intelligence or better) really thinking that simply adding profanities would in some way increase the sales of a book. I have not met anyone who would be more inclined to read a book if it had swearing in it than if it didn't. Swearing, however, is part of an "attitude package", if you will, so in that sense it could be that Gaiman's target audience is focussed at people who have a set of attitudes that include a tolerance of swearing. As you have rightly observed, every writer "limits" a potential audience with what they put in a book, but similarly they can try and appeal to particular target audiences - some deliberately and cynically ("hacks", one might call such people), but others simply because they are happy writing in a style for a particular audience and so quite honestly and genuinely want to write in the style that makes them most appealing to that audience. In that sense, swearing may be appropriate in "American Gods".
I have to admit that it's a while since I read it, but I certainly didn't register it as being full of gratuitous profanity. But then, as noted, I'm a Brit (though I like to think of myself as passably familiar with US culture) and thus it may simply not have registered to any great degree because I've been desensetized.
quote:
But then, as noted, I'm a Brit (though I like to think of myself as passably familiar with US culture) and thus it may simply not have registered to any great degree because I've been desensetized.
How sad! And to think that many Europeans view America as the land of the vile and crude!
Still, I can't imagine that ANYONE could read American God's without noticing the vulgarity. In the first few chapters (which is as far as I could stand to read) there is not a single character (OK. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but not much.) who can't speak without inserting the F word into every spoken sentence. Multiple times per page.
Writers are cautioned not to overuse ANY word in their prose. Someone posted something on Open Discussions recently that linked to a column warning, in part, about the tendency of writers to use 'favorite words' over and over. What does it say about a writer who's favorite word is f***!? What does it say about his attitude towards his audience? What does it say about the people who vote on the Hugo and Nebula awards that American Gods won both? IF that's what it takes to win, I hope I never do.
quote:
How sad! And to think that many Europeans view America as the land of the vile and crude!
I think most Europeans and Americans differ on their view of what is crude. They think, among other things, that we're loud. Which we are. Also that we're smugly superior. Which we are.
But cursing, to them, isn't as crude as it is here. So when they call us crude, they're using a different standard to judge.
Honestly, I sometimes find that American's moral values are warped. I don't know how else to put it, but we seem to value things more than people. It's more important if someone thinks the right way than if they're kind and decent. It's more important if they talk the right way. It's more important that they love the right people than that they love at all. I posited once that love was more important than anything else, and was told that morality just "wasn't that simple." Well, I suppose not, but dang it if it isn't a heck of a start. (Alternately...damn it if it isn't a hell of a start. )
Now, to tie this to the issue of profanity in fiction. I do find it sad that often people can't see the story through the words. I always prefer a great story to perfect wording (although admittedly there is wording that gets in the way). In fact, beautiful language can get in the way of a story as much as awful language!
That said, I've read books and watched movies in which the point seemed to be to see how many times they could say/write the "F" word. In fact, there was a highly amusing episode of South Park that did just that...but believe it or not in the end they were making fun of that kind of stupidity. (If you could get past the fourth graders cussing, at least. )
I make cautionary suggestions about how cuss words are likely to be perceived in US popular culture. Partially due to that, and partially due to 28 years of programming, I leave most cuss words out of my stories. But then again, I've never written about a prostitute or a sailor.
It is highly likely that you will turn off more people by putting in the cussing than by leaving it out.
So, who are you writing for?
You kinda over-blarged on that one. I have only met one person who couldn't complete a sentence without the F-word. That would be my wife's aunt who lives in Rhode Island, and she can't put two blarging words together without it (and yes, she is very annoying, even to a sailor). If I were to write a story based upon her as a character, then I would leave all the words in -- it would be easy to tell her apart from the other characters, and you wouldn't need any dialogue tags.
When I said you over-blarged, I meant you used the cursing to make both characters sound the same. Even in the Navy, some sailors cursed more than others and no one I knew cussed all the time.
I would write a scene something like this:
"Yo, Bob, what's up?"
"Nada."
"Hey, you seen Joe today?"
"Nope. Why?"
"He's a blarging idiot."
"No blarg, what did he do this time."
"He blarged-up the battery room and now I gotta fix it."
"Good luck."
"Blarg you very much."
"Hah, you wish."
It's casual cussing. No one has an extreme mood or is a particularly vulgar character. It is just how they speak.
It's easy to get around this problem in scifi or fantasy, just make up your own words that mean the same thing (Although I don't think I would recommend blarg). A good example of this on television is Battlestar Galactica where they used Frac and more recently on Farscape were they used Frell. Everyone knows what the words stand for, but for some reason it's not as offensive.
A good example in Scifi writing is David Weber and John Ringo's "March to the Sea" or "March Upcountry" (which you can download from Baen's free library). They have a character in these stories that is a habitual cusser, but they use the word "pock". He's always pocking complaining about his pocking job. It works, and they do a good job of showing how this pocking culture rubs off on the pocking officers and pocking locals.
Franc li,
Yeah, we always thought the guys in the Air Force were pansies. They got all the good duty stations, good housing, and easy jobs. (Yes, it was definitely envy) Also, most of the sailors I knew didn't cuss around the women sailors unless they knew them real well. You know how some women become "one of the guys" and some don't.
I did have a new thought, that profanity may be a cheap way of yanking someone's strings- like having a bus full of adopted kindergarteners getting blown up, or threatenened to be blown up by a madman.
Thanks for the info, though.
The exceptions that prove the rule.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited June 15, 2005).]
If you believe commonplace profanity is necessary in order to portray the dialogue of sailors and/or other characters, because that's the way they really speak, then you also need to include uh, er, um, y'know, like, etc., because that's the way people really speak, too.
If your penchant for realism in dialogue only extends to profanity, maybe realism isn't your real motivation.
When I was younger, my parents loved the Bourne Identity (or at least one of the books in the series), and I wanted to read it, so they got a black marker and crossed out all of the swear words. I picked up the book and couldn't believe that every page had multiple black marks on it. Those black marks tainted the book for me, and I stopped reading after a few chapters.
If redundancy in writing is frowned upon, why is it that swearing seems to be the exception?
One other note: I found it amusing that Chris started his post saying that he got offended by the overuse of swearing, then some people on this board got offended that Chris got offended by swearing and then some people got offended that those people got offended... etc.
Maybe “offended” is too strong of a word. However, it does go to show that the use of swearing (or the non-use of swearing) often offends people. I for one, have chosen not to include swearing in my writing. And in so doing, I've been forced to become creative with dialogue/action and adjust my stories to be for younger audiences (which, in reality, means that I’ve chosen to write my stories for all age groups).
Here are some examples of things I've done in place of swear words: gritting teeth, yelling, narrowing the eyes, clenching jaw shut, pursing lips, snapping fingers, slapping, etc. The way people say things can be effective as well: icily, acidly, curtly, with venom. Snide, sarcastic, or cruel remarks can bring out more emotion in the reader than the lazy swear word. I call it lazy, because it doesn't take much work to throw in a redundant swear word in place of a carefully crafted alternative.
quote:
so they got a black marker and crossed out all of the swear words.
That's possibly the funniest thing I've read all week. If I were a parent, I think I would have had my child wait a few more years. I'd never destroy a book with a marker like that. I do, sometimes, add a comma here and there. And I don't recall there being that much profanity in Bourne. Oh, well.
The Bourne Identity is approx. 184,000 words. Big novel. Right?
I converted my e-book into simple text, then did a search for five common cusswords. Here are the results:
S-word =7
F-word= 4
Damn = 80
B*tch = 15
***hole = 1
Total cusses: 107
Approx number of words that aren't cusses: 183893
Percentage, based on samples chosen and total word count: 0.06% (or 0.000581521739). Six-hundredths of a percentage point.
But we are not done yet.
I've left off using the Lord's name in vain, and similar grave offenses. Let's tally those up and recalculate:
God =178, of which 38 are used with "damn" above, printed as one word.
Jesus = 15
Christ = 43, of which 4 are used with "Jesus" above.
I come up with 296, adjusted for words strung together.
296 out of approx. 184,000 words.
The new percentage is: 0.2%* (rounded) or 0.001608695652
That's two-tenths of a percent. Miles away from 1%. *Note: Curses in foreign languages not applicable to the above statistics. There are probably a few...
And we're talking about a book that deals with spies, very bad and shady people, killers, killing, guns, knives, prostitutes, rape, love, amnesia, people posing as department store clerks (the nerve!), U.S. Gov't officials and diplomats, forgers, taxi drivers, priests, a British doctor, and a guy with a bum leg.
It's not so bad when you look at it that way, is it? But clearly, Robert Ludlum has a lot to repent for. 
quote:
How sad! And to think that many Europeans view America as the land of the vile and crude!Still, I can't imagine that ANYONE could read American God's without noticing the vulgarity. In the first few chapters (which is as far as I could stand to read) there is not a single character (OK. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but not much.) who can't speak without inserting the F word into every spoken sentence. Multiple times per page.
Writers are cautioned not to overuse ANY word in their prose. Someone posted something on Open Discussions recently that linked to a column warning, in part, about the tendency of writers to use 'favorite words' over and over. What does it say about a writer who's favorite word is f***!? What does it say about his attitude towards his audience? What does it say about the people who vote on the Hugo and Nebula awards that American Gods won both? IF that's what it takes to win, I hope I never do.
As I noted, it's been a long time since I read American Gods, and at some point I shall dig it out of the attic and give it another read. While I found it interesting, I didn't think it was close to Gaiman's best work. I was not aware that it had won both the Hugo and Nebula. I think, with respect, you are being a touch specious in saying "if that's what it takes to win..." - there is no reason whatsoever to consider that it won because any of the judges went "hey, wow, lots of swearing, great!".
I know nothing about your background, but I do wonder if you are aware just how prevalent swearing (and indeed profanity, which is not quite the same thing, though it's the original title of this thread) is amongst peoplpe the world over. I mentioned that we in the UK tend to be more "sensitized" to it because it is more "allowable" in our media than in US mainstream media - but my partner, who is American, swears significantly more than I do. And there really are people who cannot speak without every adjective and adverb being the f-word (it's become a spacer in their vocabulary - instead of saying "I was walking down the street the other day" they will, not quite literally, say "I was blarging walking down the blarging street the other blarging day" - thanks to Christine for the "blarg", by the way!).
IIRC, the start of American Gods is set in a prison. One might certainly expect prison inmates to have the social and cultural background to use a good deal of swearing. But anyway, I'll go back and read it again and see how it reads now you've highlighted it.
I also don't think it's entirely fair to reference the mention of "overusing favourite words". That's specifically with regard to words that should be comparatively rare but crop up too often because a writer really likes them (I'm prone to overuse "sere", for example, and probably others that I haven't spotted yet or can't remember offhand). To say that a swear word, because of overuse, is an "author's favourite" is more akin to saying that "he" or "said" or "was" are an author's favourite words. Certain words don't have alternatives, and if a writer wants to convey the down-to-earth nature of his or her characters, sometimes, swearing is a convenient way to do it.
Personally, I try to avoid using swearing in my work to a great extent, but when you are writing about down-to-earth characters - uneducated soldiers, for example - it's hard to portray them realistically without it. Using blarg can help, but from time to time, "real-world" swear words just feel right and appropriate to use.
After all, we're writers. For us, every word (in every language) is a potential tool. Should we really deny ourselves the use of some of those tools, when they are the most appropriate ones for the circumstances?
[This message has been edited by tchernabyelo (edited June 15, 2005).]
Anyway, back on topic...
Strange turn...overused words? Nah. I don't buy it. Especially since what we're esentially talking baout is dialogue. Are you going to get on my case for overusing "a", "and", or "the"? (Actually, someone did try to tell me I overused and once....)
Obviously, these words have more oomph than that or we wouldn't be talking about them. But it's the oomph, and not the frequency, that is important.
It's the oomph that make them valuable tools and it's the oomph that makes them so easy to abuse and overuse.
Recently, I recommended a book to my mother, and she stopped reading it because the profanity bothered her. Since it was an e-book, I did a little bit of search-and-replace editing, and she was then able to enjoy the book.
quote:
Since it was an e-book, I did a little bit of search-and-replace editing, and she was then able to enjoy the book.
That's a cool way of dealing with profanity for those who prefer to steer clear of that. Heh! And this is something a computer-savvy reader can do for themselves -- you could even set up a quick template with macros in word to do all the work for you. Of course, you'd have to make the macros first, but you could probably ask someone to help with that if you couldn't bear typing out those naughty words.
Good thinking, Eric.
It might sound strange that my parents did that with the black marker, but bear in mind that I was a pre-teenager who had just finished reading the Bible and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where language is very clean, yet I was still able to get the points the authors were trying to get across.
Redundant swearing annoys me almost more than the swearing itself. If I had an arsenal of 5 expletives/adjectives that I drew upon every page of my book, I'd be embarrassed as an author.
It was mentioned that the word "God" was used 178 times in the Bourne Identity. Replace that word with another word such as "Wow," "Cool", "Bodacious," "Excellent," "Groovy," etc. Now when a character in the book says that word for the 178th time, wouldn't you be ready to pull your hair out? Wouldn't you think that the author has overused that word? So why is it that swearing seems to be immune to the "don't be redundant in your dialogue" rule?
The public must be more forgiving than I am when it comes to this. My suggestion still stands: swear if you must, but don't let swearing be a crutch to lazy writing.
Are we walking on common ground on that point?
So, I'm really fighting the urge to comment any more at all. Suffice it to say that I will comment no further after this post. I feel the 'discussion' is going around in circles, with everyone really agreeing, but still opposing each other for no apparent purpose.
My last points:
Hmm. Comparing the overuse of swear words with the overuse of 'filler' words like 'the' 'and' 'it'.
I'm sorry. I really am not making the logical leap in making a fair comparison there. Because swear words are NOT invisible filler words. They stand out to a lot of readers. A LOT of readers. That's why many writers use them for their impact. It's when a writer uses them to such an extent that the words LOSE their impact that I become annoyed and distracted by the word. Like Christine said, it's the oomph, and not the frequency, that is important. Frequency kills oomph.
tchernabyelo, did you even read the article referred to before on 'favorite' words? Apparently not, as the words referred to in the article are NOT uncommon words. Quite to the contrary. The author of the article cites example after example of repetitious words like sad, quickly, abrasion, eager, weird. To quote the author:
quote:
Crutch words are usually unremarkable. That's why they slip under editorial radar - they're not even worth repeating, but there you have it, pop, pop, pop, up they come. Readers, however, notice them, get irked by them and are eventually distracted by them, and down goes your book, never to be opened again.
Apparently I'm oversensitive and have lived in a bubble all my life--otherwise I'd embrace the use of profanity with open arms as a welcome evolution of the language. Otherwise all my friends would 'swear like a sailor', as they say and it wouldn't bother me. Well, it does and I choose not to surround myself with friends who are unable, as you say, to use the language more intelligently and, IMO, reverently. So I guess I'm backward, oversensitive, sheltered.
Thank Heavens!
As I remember, there was less swearing in American Gods during the prison scenes than in the scenes following when the Protag meets up with whatever his name is who hires him. Huh.
It has been said in this discussion over and over again that it IS NOT necessary to actually use an abundance of swear words in your text to characterize a character as foul mouthed. And a clever writer will realize that and use it to its fullest potential.
And I have NEVER ONCE said that we should deny ourselves the use of ANY word as a tool in our writing, as you imply. I use the ocassional cuss word myself, always, as you say, appropriate for the circumstances; as Christine says, to give some oomph when needed. But if you're building a house, what's the use of having 75 hammers when 2 will get the job done?
Ciao!
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited June 15, 2005).]
quote:
I think everyone her actually agrees that overuse of profanity is pointless, and that to avoid it altogether is a) difficult and b) unrealistic.
I disagree about (a) and feel (b) is generally irrelevant.
Difficult to avoid using profanity? Maybe if one is habitually accustomed to using it. But I somehow managed to write 150,000 words of novel in which the closest anyone gets to profanity is using "Light!" as an exlamation. It wasn't difficult to leave out the swearing. In all the stories I've written, I've never had a character use so much as a "heck" or "darn" to swear with.* Maybe someday I'll run into a situation where it's necessary for me to use profanity in a character's dialogue, but I haven't found one yet.
*I do have a character think the words "Heck" and "Hell," but not in a swearing context:
quote:
"Demons." He bobbed his head a little. "As in evil creatures from . . . ?" He caught himself before he said "Heck," but couldn't bring himself to call it "Hell." The ingrained habits from his Mormon upbringing still had power.
Edit:
quote:
I think everyone her actually agrees that overuse of profanity is pointless, and that to avoid using profanity altogether is a) difficult and b) unrealistic.
quote:
I think everyone here actually agrees that overuse of profanity is pointless, and that there may be instances (situations/characters) that call for it, but never to excess.
There are some cultures where there is very little (almost none). And there are others where sensitive folks have to stop up their ears with candle wax or go to a monastery/nunnery. Why do you think so many priests come from Ireland?
But generally I feel I can get around it by saying, something to the effect of: "He let loose a string of curses."
I get bored with a lot of blarging this and blarging that. It seems so... uninspired. The problem is that the words are supposed to shock, and anymore they simply don't even register a raised eyebrow.
Good writing needs to create emotional involvement in the story. As OSC points out, everything has a price - and the price of an overdose of cursing might be detachment by the audience. THAT is not the effect I would like my story to create!
quote:
In the heat of battle, my father wove a tapestry of obscenity that--as far as we know--is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan.
One of my favorite lines from moviedom.
quote:
Apparently I'm oversensitive and have lived in a bubble all my life--otherwise I'd embrace the use of profanity with open arms as a welcome evolution of the language. Otherwise all my friends would 'swear like a sailor', as they say and it wouldn't bother me. Well, it does and I choose not to surround myself with friends who are unable, as you say, to use the language more intelligently and, IMO, reverently. So I guess I'm backward, oversensitive, sheltered.Thank Heavens!
Clearly I have offended, which was certainly not my intent. While I may perceive you as oversensetive or sheltered (though I don't really know enough about you or your background yet to make such a judgement), neither of those equates to "backward", and I very much hope I didn't give the impression that I thought of you that way. I never intended to suggest that you should enrich your life by surrounding yourself with friends who "swear like sailors", and I'm a little disappointed you seem to think I have. My point about the use of swearing/profanity was that as writers, we have a vast arsenal of words at our disposal to achieve our aims and that we should not deny ourselves the use of them. We should use the right tool for the right job; there are times when swear words are the right tool, and there are times when they are totally inappropriate. But that applies to all words. My current novel uses words like coruscant, unmollified, conflagration, and dozens more that I have probably never felt called upon to use in conversation. For good measure, it has very little swearing (people say "cursed" and that's about it as far as emotional emphasis goes).
I have dug American Gods out of the attic and will re-read. Certainly a glance through showed that the swearing does continue throughout the book, and is not restricted (or concentrated) in the prison scenes at the beginning. Perhaps they just slipped under my radar because I am used to swearing and profanity, and used to tuning it out to see what's actually being said and why. I'm not convinced it does add anything particlar to American Gods, which as I think I mentioned, I was not hugely impressed by - interesting, but flawed. Perhaps Gaiman had suppressed years of swear words while he was writing Sandman and other such works under the restrictions of his publishers, and then they all came tumbling out of the closet when he got to try his hand at a real novel.
I'm interested to know why you actually find swearing (or profanity - I still regard the two as something distinct, but you seem to consistently conflate them in this thread) so offensive (I can understand religious grounds for being offended by profanity, but not all swearing is profane - is it?). I find swear words occasionally useful as an emphatic, but overused, they become merely tedious, a reminder that the speaker's vocabulary is limited, rather than retain any real shock value. As I didn't really recollect the swearing in American Gods, I guess it does indeed show that I'm "immune" to it, in a way you clearly aren't, but whether that's a good thing or not is admittedly questionable - have I become desensitized by over-exposure, and would this apply to (say) the protrayal of violence (as we see in so many movies) or sex (which we don't see in many movies at all). This is an age-old debate which I probably shouldn't even think of kicking off, since it's one notorious for entrenched positions.
With regard to the article - I think there's a mix of common and uncommon words - the instance that stuck in my mind was about "abraded", and there are other mentions of the repetition of "once-per-book" words. We've clearly each taken different emphases from it.
Anyway, I am very sorry that I seem, as a complete newcomer, to have upset you in this manner; I assure you again that it was not my intent. Perhaps I should go back to lurking for a while.
After all, words just convey ideas and those words are conveying identical ideas.
So why shouldn't we all swear like crazy? The simple fact is, culture isn't logical. People will be offended by those words whether it makes sense or not. As a writer, you should be aware of that.
Something I've been hearing from young people lately, which I find very offensive, is to use the word "gay" to say that something is stupid or idiotic. The message is clear that they think homosexuality (and by inference people who are homosexuals) is stupid or contemptuous.
While the pairs of words you've listed may have identical denotative meanings, they are not conveying identical ideas -- they have different connotations.
quote:
While the pairs of words you've listed may have identical denotative meanings, they are not conveying identical ideas -- they have different connotations.
I'm sorry, but I think you will have to explain this to me.
I don't see any difference (idea-wise) in the sentences: "The dog pooped in the yard." and "The dog sh*t in the yard."
I'm not trying to be obtuse. I even looked up connotation to be sure I understood the definition.
quote:
1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes b : something suggested by a word or thing
gay=homosexual
gay=stupid
therefore homosexual=stupid
Now you could say by that logic that stupid=homosexual, but bigotry is anything but logical.
quote:
Now you could say by that logic that stupid=homosexual, but bigotry is anything but logical.
You're using "homosexual" as "homosexual person" in this case. If you define it as "homosexual act," you get
stupid act=homosexual act
which may be less bigoted, depending on your personal beliefs.
As far as bigotry being logical:
"The Not Us is inferior to the Us." is such an insidious idea that humanity will never escape it. And the logic is simply, "I care more about people like me than people not like me."
It's distasteful when someone says "The white man is inferior to the black man," but not so much when it's, "The Yankees' fan is inferior to the Mets' fan."
quote:
"The Not Us is inferior to the Us." is such an insidious idea that humanity will never escape it.
I believe that of humanity as a whole. It is my desire and my own personal goal to escape it.
If your characters swear, then they do and they will. But like all dialogue it should flow naturally. So, the sentence, “Freakity, freak, freak, you mother freaking mother freakers,” probably isn’t all that natural. (with or without the euphemisms, but I was referring to without.)
If your characters swear, be conscious who they’re around. I swear, but my parents don’t, so I don’t swear in front of them. I don’t take the Lord’s name in vain, but a lot of my friends do, but they don’t around me.
A.) “Damn,” John said under his breath, when he noticed the upcoming traffic jam.
B.) John swore under his breath when he noticed the upcoming traffic jam.
Which is right A or B?
Neither!!! It’s a personal choice and one that I don’t believe there’s any right answer to.
Do your best to be true to your characters and your moral sensibilities at the same time. I have some characters who swear a little, some a lot, and some none at all.
You’re the writer---it’s literally your world.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited June 16, 2005).]
quote:
I don't see any difference (idea-wise) in the sentences: "The dog pooped in the yard." and "The dog sh*t in the yard."I'm not trying to be obtuse. I even looked up connotation to be cusure I understood the definition.
You can't look up connotations.
quote:
1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes b : something suggested by a word or thing : IMPLICATION
Alternately, a denotation is:
quote:
2 : MEANING; especially : a direct specific meaning as distinct from an implied or associated idea
A definition or denotation, as Eric used, is what you find in the dictionary. A connotation is the baggage that comes along with the word when a person hears it. It is often subjective, sometimes has nothing whatsoever to do with a word's actual meaning, but can even go so far as to drive the evolution of the language.
So, when you talk about a dog pooping, I think of nothing so much as a dog performing a natural function, albeit one I'd prefer not to think about.
When you talk about a dog shitting, I think of two things: First, the dog performing the natural function that I don't want to think about. Second, an overtone of anger in your message, as if you are upset by the dog's actions.
That second part isn't in the definition. It's in the connotation.
Does that help?
> I'm sorry, but I think you will have to
> explain this to me.
Are you saying you don't understand how different words with the same denotation can have different connotations, or are you saying that you don't understand how that principle applies to swear words?
For example:
If I said, "Janet is such a vagina." vs. "Janet is such a c*nt." my idea is exactly the same. I'm making the connotation by usage, not by word choice.
Christine, are you saying that an overtone of anger makes the dog's natural function different? Certainly I understand that sh*t is the vulgar form of poop (and therefore the more offensive choice), but I don't think the meaning was altered.
1. The constabulary will be here soon.
2. The police will be here soon.
3. The cops will be here soon.
4. The fuzz will be here soon.
5. The heat will be here soon.
6. The pigs will be here soon.
While the words constabulary, police, cops, fuzz, heat and pigs all mean "law enforcement personnel," and the sentences above all convey the same denotative meaning (law enforcement personnel will be here soon), the sentences are not identical in their connotative meanings. #6 is not conveying an identical idea to #1, because the derogatory connotations #6 has are not present in #1.
> . . . is the vulgar form . . .
The mere fact that some words are considered more vulgar than others that refer to the same thing gives different connotations to their usage, and that means a sentence using a vulgar word is not conveying identical ideas as one which does not. They may convey very similar meanings, but the use of the vulgar word tends to convey a different attitude than use of a non-vulgar alternative.
I was using vulgar in a language sense meaning "informal speech." Which, in this case, also happens to be offensive speech.
But in making euphemisms for profanity, aren't we still being profane? Especially when we intend to convey an ugly thought?
Some words have an unusual emotional impact, but that doesn't necessarily make their accepted alternatives better. On some level it doesn't make much sense.
"Billy's mom's a prostitute!" doesn't have the same punch as, "Billy's mom's a whore!"
I can feel the difference in the sentences, but I have no idea why 'prostitute' is a nicer thing to call someone than 'whore.'
Words are words are words.
If there's not malice behind them, there shouldn't be a difference between shit and poopie, but there is.
<just kidding>
It'll make WBriggs happy.
I think that in some ways euphemisms are good in the same way hypocrisy is good: "Hypocrisy is an homage that vice renders to virtue." -- François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld
Use of a euphemism is an acknowledgement of the sensibilities of others.
Sure words are words. but they are also symbols attached to meanings. Why are some words with the same meanings different from other words with the same apparent meanings? I don't know, I guess we could just use sentences of the smallest words possible instead of big words.
Though another point is that not everyone knows the definition of every word. Sometimes general rules on what words to use where are good. I myself went several months calling people d!ld* meaning what I thought was "stupidhead" or something. One day someone confronted me about what it meant. Boy was I shocked. I can only imagine that my mom and older siblings didn't know.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited June 16, 2005).]
This would only not be true if your manners came just from conditioning. The use of vulgarities, profanity, and swearing can tell us a lot about a chracter. Of course, overuse of such tells us that the writer is rather limited in what he wants to convey. It'd be like saying the girl had blonde hair a hundred times in one chapter - pointless.
As some others have tried t osay, there is a difference between being realistic and total realism. You are never going to be completely accurate to what people do and think. Most readers are not interested in our characters' toilet habits, so wh yshould they be interested because they swear all the time? Let the reader know about it, and they can add their own swear words.
I don't use profane or obscene language lightly in my speech, nor do I use it in my writing. But I don't have any personal difficulty enjoying art that includes it. Generally, I don't think it really adds much, it really could be censored with much the same effect (I recently saw an interesting use of "censoring" effects to make something look really gross).
But that's me. I accept the more apparently rational position that avoiding use of profanity is better literature, particularly since that seems to match my own experience. Certainly, the most vulger language is also the least creative and does little to truly stimulate the imagination. But I am missing out on the "shock value". It's true, "shock value" is not usually counted an asset to true art, but some theories promote it above all other considerations. Given that I lack the ability to be shocked by words (and most human art that tries to be "shocking" is merely disgusting to me), I'm not a follower of any such theory.
But I can hardly discount them. It would be like a colorblind man dismissing the use of reds in a painting as a powerful expression of emotion. Since I cannot percieve the effect myself, I have no choice but to go with those that put forward the more persuasive argument in the abstract.
And it seems that those who use profanity a lot suffer from either having a poor argument or little verbal reasoning ability. That's just an observation based on the evidence I've seen. I think it's sort of a self-fufilling prophecy. A literate and intelligent person will avoid using profanity when there is something important to be said, because people always sound like idiots when they swear a lot. This reinforces the selection against using profanity to communicate intellecually.
Even for writers, the same applies. The really good writers get by using far less profanity than a poor writer "needs" in the same scene. So abundent profanity tends to be a solid indicator of poor writing, which makes it more likely that good writers will avoid it.
On the other hand...I think that if you were to really use profanity in an intelligent and creative fashion, it would magnify the objectionability of the language along with it's impact. One reason I don't use profanity is because it has to be used in stock phrases if it is to remain "acceptable". Let's just say that I'm pretty sure about this...it would probably be evil and wrong to test my hypothesis extensively (only partly because the test subjects would have to be rendered unconcious after each test ).
So many things I'd like to do if only they weren't evil and wrong....