If you use too much cussing, I think it means you need to learn more adjectives and adverbs.

Why should fiction limit itself? Censorship, even self-censure, should not be acceptable in any ways. If your style does not involve cuss words, that's fine. But if your style does include them, because you feel it is necessary to add realism, then there is no need to try and clean up your writing. Omitting the "F" word isn't going to make you less publishable (Stephen King is a prime example) and deliberately going back to erase those words is only going to make your writing less "you".

Once again, if your style does not include such words naturally, I do not advocate you go back and add them to make it more real. But if your natural writing style does included them, you do not need to go back and erase them.

First of all, using cuss words does make you less publishable, not that I think you should necessarily write for other people, but in the end I do want to get published so it is a consideration. Stephen King can do whatever he wants, he's no one for a new writer to say, "Well, Stephen King does it so it must be ok." There is more leeway for known, popular, published writers who are garunteed to bring you in millions of dollars worth of business. For little ole me, who has yet to show that I can sell books, it is much more difficult. If you read the guidelines on many publication sites, they ask you to keep profanity to a dminimum.

As for the reality angle of things...IMHO, writing fiction is not about writing reality, it is about writing truth. (What did she just say?) Let me explain. When you write fiction, you want people to believe it, to be there, in the moment, loving your story and accepting your theme. You want them to come away from your fictional scenario with a sense thatre was some small seed of truth in it. Reality? I don't know about you, but I write about magic and aliens. Whether or not they cuss in real life is entirely up to me. But let's go a step further...

Let's say you were writiing a mainstream fiction novel set in modern times. As you have correctly pointed out, in real life everyone cusses. )Well, nearly.) Last weekend I even found otu that my very religious friend who I've known for 8 years and had never heard utter a cuss word, actually cusses sometimes. (Long story...not too important or interesting, but there's the point. EVERYONE CUSSES.)

Fine. What does that have to dow ith writing fiction? Dialogue, in particular, while not meant to sound unreal, is fashioned in fiction differently from the way a conversation would go in real life. How often do you have your characters forget words, stutter, stumble, say the wrong thing, spend too much time skirting the issue,....Most of these things happen only when they are relevent to the plot, and if they are not relevent to the plot you just don't do them. But people do in real life, so why don't we put those parts of dialogue in there?

The answer...fiction is not about showing reality it is about showing truth.

In reality, people cuss. In truth, we don't like it when people cuss (most of us) because we were raised to believe that this foul language is a bad thing. A character who cusses will not be very sympathetic, especially if he does it indiscrimently. Now, if you don't want sympathy for your character, make them a potty mouth, but this isn't eevn something a reader like me can intellectualize. I se a cuss word and my gut reaction is "bad wrong bad." One or two, in reaction to some rational stimuli or in an intense scene and I'll hardly notice. Cussing on every page...I'll put the book down before too long.

So, at least in my opinion, reality has very little to do with anything. This is why an excellent writer can make you think that cussing happened when it didn't and a bad writer has to use cuss words because if he didn't you'd notice and miss them. There are many ways to avoid the cuss words, not the least of which is to simply not put them in there. The ocassional "he cursed" is ok but use that too often and I'll notic what you're doing for certain.

It's clear that opinions will vary about using cusses or not to use them. Either choice doesn't make you a good or bad writer, depsite the previous suggestions to the contrary.

In effect, you, the writer, must choose the appropriate dialogue for your characters and for the market you're writing for. Obviously, a children's story wouldn't fare well with a slew of obscenities.

Again, I'd like to make my point just a bit clearer: Do NOT substitute less offensive words for the real thing. You can rewrite your dialogue, cleverly allude to cursing and make other inferences, or use the real thing. Your decision. Inserting a "Gosh!" when a "Damn" (or other) is more appropriate is going to make me think you're a terrible author.

Consider that.

quote:

---

This is why an excellent writer can make you think that cussing happened when it didn't and a bad writer has to use cuss words because if he didn't you'd notice and miss them.

---

Complete and TOTAL misunderstanding!!

Let me rephrase and put the emphasis where it belongs.

A bad writer HAS to use cuss words.

The intended counter-thought that was supposed to go through your head was that a good writer can choose to use cuss words but not HAVE to use them as a crutch.

Look, to illustrate my point further: let's just say we're writing a modern-day prison scene. And let's substitute in some less offensive words phrases:

Frank shuddered uncontrollably. His cellmate, Bubba the Breaker, was bigger than a house.

"Come over here, boy" Bubba said. "I want to caress you all night long. I'm gonna to make you my lover."

"Like heck you will, you big, stinking, gorilla!" Frank pressed himself against the bars. "Guards! Help me!"

***

So: Who would have wrote that scene just like that? I could've been coarser about it... but I'm short on time and have to catch a train in 10 mins.

If I wrote a book in contemporary times, I might have to use bad language.

I probably go weeks at a time without encountering the F word. Seriously.

What you said shows us another point.

Different cultures, societies, and countries swear and cuss in different ways. I've been in 13 other countries and what we consider cussing, they don't necessarily.

The best reason for not using cuss words in speculative fiction is that speculative fiction is generally concerned with different societies than ours.

Is American bad language really normal for space three hundred years from now? Or for a magical kingdom in the distant past? Or another world?

In fact, why are F and S and all those body funtion words cuss words at all? Because for some reason, moral, religious or otherwise, they've come to take on negative connotations. But since I am not trying to write a thesis on swearing in our culture, or other cultures, I'll just go back to my point. In the end it comes down to a matter of style, of worldview, of personal preference. In the end, that choice, as any other choice, is completely personal.

In the prison example that HSO provided I could rewrite it to say:

quote:

---

"Not a chance, you big, stinking, gorilla!" Frank pressed himself against the bars. "Guards! Help me!"

---

I think the best point that has been made has been that bad language is different depending on what cultures we're in. Thinking about what constitutes unclean behaivor in a speculative culture will probably give great insight into how they would curse.

Now, he is not one to swear (nor am I), so in that sense, the avoidance was normal. But the way he said it, slowly, calmly, it was very natural. It was such a serious situation that it didn't need an explosive explative. Crud was enough. Though, thinking back now, it was almost a humorous response.

My wife, I fear, may have missed her calling to be a sailor: her penchant for colorful phrases is amazing, and I've learned many new cusses from her since we've married. This is surprising, because I was in the Marines for four years -- I thought I'd heard them all. I was dead wrong in that assumption.

Still, one of my favorite movie scenes of all time is from A Christmas Story, when Ralphie lets loose the F-word while helping his dad change the tire. Instead of actually having him say the word (which would have been inappropriate for that movie) they did something far funnier: they made it unintelligble (or did he say, "fudge". Indeed, the father, when he's in the basement is letting out a slew of profanities and none of them are intelligible. Brilliant stuff.

So, yeah, it simply depends on what you're trying to achieve. The last story I finished (the spider one for the challenge) and the one I'm working on now are both clean and obscentiy-free. However, I allude to the S-word by having another character cut them off before it's said. It's done for comedic effect, but also because I feel it's inappopriate for these stories. Only when I'm dealing with a particular nasty piece of work do I include cussing in my stories -- and only then when I think it's necessary.

Probably since language was invented, there have been vulgarities. There has always been words that "educated" people would never use in polite conversation. It's funny to me, and I've done much research on the matter (due to another message board forum where all offensive words must be censored out or you get moderated and lose board privileges).

To the best of my knowledge (and I could easily be wrong), the only thing the bible makes mention of is not using the Lord's name in vain. I've also read the Book of Mormon -- 17 years ago when I lived in SLC -- and I don't recall a single passage which mentions profanities. So, I don't see how swearing is going to affect anyone's chances of making it to heaven -- but who knows?

As an aside, and not to be blasphemous, but Jesus was a carpenter, right? I wonder what he said when his hammer slipped and whacked his thumb -- if such a thing happened. Surely, at least the temptation was there... (kidding folks -- don't take this seriously)

A good many of our current swear words were deemed offensive by Puritans and other religious groups in England so long ago. Others were classified as offensive by the educated class (lords and such) and these 'dreadful' words were typically reserved for use by the serfs and peasants -- being far less educated.

The etymology of certain cusses can be traced back to Germanic and Nordic origin. No idea why, but my guess is that a good many Viking ships probably sank until they perfected their boats and the words they had weren't quite strong enough to express their displeasure. Or maybe it was just the very cold winters that brought out the worst words in their vocabulary. Who knows?

1. For those of you familiar with "Farscape", a television series that ran on the Sci-Fi channel in the US, they subsituted "Frell" in for the F-word (as well as substituting other curses for other new words they came up with). It was clear what they meant when used, and they explained it off by saying the translator microbes, for whatever reason, couldn't handle profanity. Absolutely brilliant way of dealing with profanity in a psuedo-network television program where actual swearing is not allowed.

Which brings me right to point number:

2. Any word can be a cuss word. It's not the word itself that is offensive. It is the context behind the word, i.e., how you meant it to be. So, a harmless word like 'fudge', for instance, can be used in a variety of ways (and is):

Fudge off!
I fudged it up.
Don't fudge with me; I'll break your fudging fingers!

Is there any difference between the actual F-word and Fudge when used like that?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Keep that in mind before you get all worried about curses; thinking they are bad and evil; that they are a sinful. In two words: They ain't. At least, not any more so than say: Cucumber. It's only a word... language. Not nice, definitely not polite, but still and always just a word.

Context and meaning, folks... not the word itself. I can string together completely harmless words to say things far more offensive than any curse word could ever come near to expressing. Consider that.

Besides, most words will not have any power of you unless... you let them. Of course, this doesn't take into consideration how editors and publishers feel about words.

That's my final twenty dollars on this subject and an end to my tirade, diatribe, rant and what have you.

Have a fudging nice day.

There's also lots of stuff about "filthy communication" and language defiling a man. I had a youth minister, years ago (I don't want to think about how many...), who said that meant the intention of the language, not the words themselves. He totally agreed with you that 'fudge', said in anger, was as bad as "****".

None of which has anything to do with whether one should avoid using cursing in story when looking at it simply as story (author's morals not withstanding). I agreed with Christines point about reality vs. fiction though I would have phrased it differently. I would have said "essence" rather than "truth". There are times in which curseing is the best way to capture a character's essences; where it is unavoidable and vital to the scene. There are also times, where it would be more natural, but naturalism is not always the best choice for fiction. It is a case by case basis.

As a person, I well into adulthood before I started cursing. (Ironically, it was not until I started touring elementary schools that the words began to come easily.) I wish I could go back to not using these words, not because they are 'bad' but because I feel like my own expression is less specific. That for me is the weakness of cursing in writing, the times when it takes the place of specificity.

I could say, "You're an ass!" to a number of people, but there are only specific people that I could say, "You're a empty-headed windbag, who doesn't have the brains it would take to crawl out of an open wet paperbag." All I'm saying is that, just as we look for ways to have active verbs ("He ambled", rather than "He walked"), cursing in fiction should work as hard for the writer's goals.

Funny memory: My tour partners and I had a set that provoked a lot of swearing in the attempt to put it up. We clearly couldn't say most of the things that we wanted to so instead, we took the company manager's name in vain. "Janet!" and "Reg!" were shouted in times of stress.

And finally, I'll close with my favorite Shakespeare curse. Ahem. (And this is from memory) King Lear, Act II scene 2 (Folio text. I prefer this one to the Quarto. Geez.... I am a theater geek) Kent to Oswald.

quote:

---

A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats, a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited hundred-pound filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing super-servicable finical rougue; one-trunk inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in the way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch, one whom I will beat into clamorous whining if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

---

As far as defining bad language is concerned, that's another matter. Here's a story about my brother-in-law. Names have been changed to protect the innocent/guilty.

WARNING! THIS STORY CONTAINS THE F WORD!

So he was a mormon missionary serving in Southern California, right? Phil (the brother-in-law in question) has a reputation for having a pretty dirty mouth without ever cussing. He uses replacement words. One of his favorite words is "fetch." "Get the fetch out of here!" "What the fetch do you think you're doing?" And so on. One of his companions was bothered by his "profanity," didn't think it was within the spirit of their calling, so he told their mission president about it.

Not long after that, Phil sits down to an interview with his mission president. President raises the issue of Phil's language and tells him it bothers his companion.

"You know, Elder Thompson (a.k.a. Phil), it's really the same as cussing. There's no difference."

Phil looks his mission president in the eye and says, "F*ck that."

Mission president freezes for a minute, then thaws. "Okay, Elder Walter. Keep saying fetch," he says.

So, HSO, is there any difference between the actual F-word and and Fudge when used like that? In my less-than-humble opinion, yes.

I actually laughed at HSO's 'fudge' examples. I wouldn't have laughed if he had used the f-word.

One of the things that makes a swear word a swear word is it's meaning. Fudge has no vulgar meaning or (as MaryRobinette inferred) no sacred oath meaning to it. F*** and Sh** both are vulgar representations related to physical properties of the human body. There are many other words like them that may not always have been vulgar, but are now. 'Nigger' is an example. 'Faggot' another (though perhaps a poor one). Both f*** and sh*** have synonyms that are much more polite to use.

Hell and Damn, on the other hand, are swear words because they are historically considered curses (as in to bring doom upon, rather than to use a nasty word)--using them constitutes usurping the power of God to have sole decidorship over whether a mortal man will be damned or not. To get a better picture, saying "Go to Hell!" or "Damn you!" was a man's way of attempting to usurp that authority or at least to make unrighteous judgements about an enemy's post-mortal fate that are not his to make. It goes along, to some degree, with what Mary was saying about oaths. Men are warned in the Bible to avoid swearing (meaning promising) oaths, because in God's eyes an oath is BINDING! One did not, in those days, make such promises lightly. An oath meant dying to keep that promise. Receiving an oath from another meant that you could trust completely that the oath would be kept.

For example, in the Book of Mormon, Captain Moroni gives his enemies two choices--make an oath of peace or fight to the death. He does so in an effort to preserve the peace of his people. They fight and fight until finally the enemy relents and makes the oath. Moroni, with no fear of reprisal, simply lets them go. Both sides understood well the eternally binding nature of oaths. Too bad we don't still understand it so well.

A promise well-kept is a rare treasure indeed these days.

So is this relevant to the topic under discussion? I suppose it depends on what you, as the author considering the question, believe. While I sometimes am guilty of letting these harsh invectives slip into my spoken vocabulary, I try to avoid using them in my writing, and would never consider writing a story or within a genre that would require it. Let alone reading a story with the f-word plastered on every page like feces smeared wallpaper. No matter how appropriate to the subject matter it is.

I guess that's why I write spec/fic.

Two black guys can call each other nigga, but coming from someone of a different colour it is an odious term.

Personally, I find blaspheme far more offensive than swears like f*** and Sh**; part of that is how I was raised, but it is also because of what I believe.

Cursing in writing is more perilous than cursing verbally for the same reasons that comunicating via email is more easily misunderstood than face-to-face conversation; the subtext, much of the context and non-verbal communication are missing. No?

If not, then why the ?

So while the reader understands that the character is swearing, it doesn't have an offensive feel to it, as it might if contemporary English/American swear words were used.

That's not so far different from HSO's substitution of "fudge".

***

quote:

---

In the prison example that HSO provided I could rewrite it to say:

quote:"Not a chance, you big, stinking, gorilla!" Frank pressed himself against the bars. "Guards! Help me!"

---

Ah... I think you may be underestimating the effect of imminent rape on the male psyche. My father was a correctional officer at a state prison farm, and also at a city jail, and believe me, the dominant prisoners don't say "Come here and be my lover, sweetie". They TAKE what they want, especially in a facility that houses violent criminals.

And the guards don't usually interfere. They just pretend they don't see/hear anything. Why risk their necks to help scum against scum?

***

quote:

---

As an aside, and not to be blasphemous, but Jesus was a carpenter, right? I wonder what he said when his hammer slipped and whacked his thumb -- if such a thing happened.

---

Ummm.. ouch?

quote:

---

Instead she chose to create her own vocabulary of swear words based on the culture of her books.

---

Firstly, it is mankind who determines which words are vulgar -- not God. Nowhere will you find a list of words that God doesn't approve of--and if you have one, I'd love a copy of it (thank you). Especially vulgarities in English would there not be such a list to refer to.

Why, you ask? Because, English wasn't even a language when the bible was written or the Book of Mormon. Thusly, that argument is bunk. Filthy speech most likely refers to things like abhorrent and abnormal sexual things -- discussing them openly, perhaps. Babylon, etc. All subject to personal interpretation, of course. Think what you will...

Now, mayhap a prophet or two who has spoken with heavenly beings and has created such a list for the English speaking world, but I find that highly doubtful. Why bother? Surely there are much better things to discuss than semantics w/ beings from God's kingdom. Surely there must be.

Personally, if an angel came to me and said make this list, I'd laugh and say, "You're joking, right? Puh-leeze. Go back and tell whoever sent you to stop wasting my time. I've got my fellow man to look out for; souls to save; gospel to spread -- words are not my priortity at this moment. How about something like a revelation or two? That would be nice -- like, I dunno, when is the second coming going to happen? Give me something I can work with."

No, the truth is, language and the words we find offensive are left solely for man to decide. With one exception, and that's using the Lord's name in vain, of course.

EDIT: by the way, if any of you think I'm being blasphemous, I'm not. I'm only using humor to illustrate a point. And if you don't think God has a sense of humor, well you're just wrong: He buried all of those dinosaur bones, right? [Thanks, Bill Hicks.]

Second EDIT: God, being omnipotent, transcends man's necessity for language. We need it -- he doesn't. That isn't to say he doesn't care what we say... I just cannot believe an omnipotent being would give a flying leap about swearing. Overseeing an entire universe is probably keeping him quite busy.

[This message has been edited by HSO (edited August 11, 2004).]

What is relevant is what your target audience believes about swearing. Maybe they believe it's against the laws of God, or maybe they just think it's crude and impolite. On the other hand, maybe they believe swearing makes fiction more realistic or more subversive or more cool.

Unless you're writing just for yourself, you need to write for your audience. But unless your audience expects profanity, it's smart to keep it to a bare minimum, if you use it at all.

Why? Because there are some readers who are turned off by profanity, and if your fiction includes too much of it they'll put it down and never read any more of your writing, even if they thought it was otherwise good. But the converse reaction -- someone who thinks your writing is good, but they stop reading because of a lack of profanity -- almost never happens.

Nay. The connotative meanings of the words would have been the same no matter what the language. The Bible in it's earliest Hebrew and Greek forms has words for Hell and Damn with the same warnings against damning someone to hell in those languages. It never, I would agree, labels those words as profane words. But they have become such through the evolution of language because of the warnings against condemning others. And while we don't know the Reformed Egyptian words for 'oath' we can still say that swearing an oath in those days had some powerful meaning that we ignore these days.

I NEVER meant my post to be Bible-thumping. I was simply trying to point out the origins of Hell and Damn as cuss words, as well as the origins of referring to such words as Curses and Swear words. Believe in God or no, the people who wrote the Bible DID believe in God, DID follow his laws, DID believe it a sin to damn someone to hell, DID believe that God bound a man by the oaths he makes.

Now, HSO, I'm wondering...
You've been a bit harsher this past week or so--on all your posts. I'm worried about you. I'm wondering what's going on that's prompting you to become so prickly and defensive and angry. If I did anything to offend you, I'm sorry. I tend to be the kind of person who's tongue slips offensively without really noticing, because offenses from others often slip so easily off my back. Have I forgotten to thank you for a critique? Thank you. A million times, thank you. Thanks to all of you.

It's an undeniable fact in 3 galaxies, actually. I've an award or two here... 'spose I could scan them in.

Thusly, not prickly. Simply arrogant. Slight difference, I'd think. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I put to all of you that I'm am in no way attacking your faiths -- rather, I am challenging your faith's intepretation of its own faith. (Indeed, I'm well versed in most Christian religions, save for the actual content of the bible, since it's been quite awhile since I've peeked at one -- except for a brief foray into Revelations two months ago) For: Why else would there be so many different sects of one simple religion? They [Christians] all believe in the same God, yet their interpretation of that very same God is completely different. I put to all of you to consider that maybe, just maybe, we're all wrong in our assumptions (yes, I mean assumptions), because it is in fact Man who has determined for man-self what is arguably offensive and what isn't, and what possibly God meant by whatever God has said to man. This cannot be defended against except by the miracle of faith. Either you choose to believe or you don't. It is, after all, a tenet of Christianity to have the freedom of choice, is it not?

Consider this: Let's agree that God knows all things past and future. Yet, he's given man the gift of Freedom of Choice. It can be said, then, there's a probability--however slight it might be--that God could not have forseen a particular word being used in any language. Therefore, one could logically assume from this simple probability that the word "start" could have at one point been deemed offensive by the English speaking world. Freedom of Choice allows me to bravely make that assumption.

For if we did not have Freedom of Choice, then what would be the point? No? And therefore, when I say your arguments about language and God saying such and such is bad and evil are bunk, I am, undeniably, and unequivocally absolutely correct.

But the devil, if I may be so bold, is clever, and right now is telling you to believe me -- is he not? He's taking advantage of your free will right this second. He's saying to you: "You know, he's got a point, there. Seriously."

Ha!

Confused? Don't be. At least LDS put a disclaimer in there testimonials: "so long as the Bible is translated correctly." I believe this is a wise move -- and quite possibly the only sensible move in this situation. How many versions of the bible are there? 20? 30? 50? At least, I'd say. Statistically, the chance for error is right about 100%, maybe higher -- given that man himself has probably distorted and twisted the words (and mistranslated a dozen times over) for its own benefit. Don't believe me? It's a proven fact.

Of course, this is far better than alternative: Scientology. Bah. Stay well clear of that. Lost a really good rock band to that religion. Bah! At least Chrisitanity is generally noble and cares about its fellow man -- wishing to save souls and wishing for all of us to be with God. I dig that much. What I don't dig about Scientology is that I'm inherently screwed up because bad things happened to me as a child or while I was a fetus in my mother's womb. That's nuts. Simply, spending 10 grand a year holding an expensive digital multimeter, that would be better suited for checking electrical current in one's house, is stupid.

Now, I've stated a few times, Eric, that I am not saying that using cuss words in your writing is the best way to go about it. In fact, I actually agree (I said agree... look there it is in writing) that it can be highly detrimental to your possible career. If you've missed that post, just go back and few and I'm sure you'll see it... if you'd care to check.

Dakota, you've not offended me in anyway. Please rest assured in that fact. Big smiley, dear.

Apologize for any grammar/spelling errors...

(By the way, if none of you have worked it out yet... I'm not really taking this as seriously as it may seem. This is being light -- and, of course, arrogant. Where's the harm in that? So, please, lighten up yourselves and enjoy the ride. It's only life, after all... life on a message board -- hardly worth noticing, right?)

My mistake; I thought your spirited defense of swearing was in the context of whether swearing was objectionable in writing.

Kind sir, please take note of the above.

And everything is in the context of writing. Or am I missing something? Everything is relevant to writing. Again: Everything.

I'm gwad you stiw wike me.

But I'm not going to comment any further. I feel like we're kinda revolving around the same argument (OK. 'Argument' is probably too strong a word that I've been lambasted for using before, but I'm gonna use it anyway)--like we're arguing against each other on the same side, ya know?

*X* There. How's that for a kiss?

quote:

---

Firstly, it is mankind who determines which words are vulgar -- not God.

---

quote:

---

No, the truth is, language and the words we find offensive are left solely for man to decide. With one exception, and that's using the Lord's name in vain, of course.

---

quote:

---

rather, I am challenging your faith's intepretation of its own faith.

---

quote:

---

And therefore, when I say your arguments about language and God saying such and such is bad and evil are bunk, I am, undeniably, and unequivocally absolutely correct.

---

----------------------------------------

quote:

---

And everything is in the context of writing. Or am I missing something? Everything is relevant to writing. Again: Everything.

---

You're missing something.

Yes, in a sense everything is related to writing, because we can write about everything.

Eric, you -- like many other people do quite frequently -- are reading into something that isn't there. You see what you want to see, not what is being said. You can try to argue with me about what I said, pull quotes out, and so forth. You will still fail at realizing what I'm saying. The reason for this is clear, but I need not explain it, because you already know the reason.

Most importantly, you sir, have no idea, from anything I've written so far, what I actually believe and what I don't believe. Nor will you ever... at least, not on a message board. For all intent and practical purposes, I could easily be playing "devil's advocate." Or... I could mean everything I've written. The simple fact is, you'll never know. I still win.

However:

A challenge doesn't imply anything near telling someone to believe someone else. It's asking you to look into your faith. It should by all means strengthen it if anything. It's not something you even need to consider, is it? You could easily ignore it, but you can't. You certainly don't need to defend it. It is what you believe. Fine. Good for you. Shall we move on the important part of this lesson?

Oh, before I do, and I am right about this. In fact, I've had several conversations with many a bishop, priest, and reverend in my day. Funny thing, everyone of them agreed with me. Go talk to your bishop -- you'll see. It's not the words themselves, it's how you talk to people (lies or truth); how you treat them; and what's in your heart that matters more than anything else. Duh! Got it yet?

I'm not questioning your faith, Eric -- I'm question man's ability to understand faith. And how MAN distorts his faith for his own personal gain, and generally to blind himself to the truth, or to avoid what he cannot comprehend. There is a difference. When you're old enough (and that can be any age, by the way), when you've had enough life experience to begin to understand these questions, you'll figure it out. Trust me.

Again, so that I'm very, very clear on this: I'm not attacking your respective faiths, people. I'm attacking the ever imperfect mankind and its ability to grasp its very own faiths. You might think you know it... you very well may have the holy spirit in you and be righteous and all of the cotton candy that makes it all worthwhile. But you will never, ever, as a living breathing human fully understand it. Ever. The books you hold in your hands when you go to sacrament are guides. Holy, sure. Divine? Very possibly. Still just guides. Guides for you to learn from. Simple little thing, it is. Yet, I wonder: Has anyone really learnt anything from it? But I digress.

That sir, is my point. Thank you for joining today's lesson. As you can see, these past few examples [posts] have been given to you to stir up that grey matter a bit in your head, so that you may now write convincing and believable characters dealing with arguably the most important subject they'll ever tackle: Faith.

Every little thing is about writing after all, isn't it... And if you disagree with that, then well, you're not ready to write. That's what we do as writers. We tell stories. But we need to see the 'everything' to do so. We must observe. We must question everything. Why? What? Can it be? How? Am I right? Am I wrong? Who is right? What am I doing here on a message board learning how to write? These are the questions.

Of course, there is this other little thing: Survival v. Faith. But that's a lesson for another day.

Why do I even bother?

Shush.

It worked fine for me. The ONLY reason I noticed the "freaking" was because this thread had placed the topic right on top of my pre-frontal lobes. (If there were any other examples in there, I missed them anyway.)