posted
Let me make my obligatory comment on the issue of profanity and "realism" in dialogue.
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.
posted
djvdakota, you took the words right out of my mouth. I just read that “10 common mistakes” post and paid particular attention to the "tendency of writers using 'favorite words' over and over" part. Then I read this post and laughed to myself that no one had mentioned the fact that swearing can be annoyingly redundant.
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.
posted
Maybe we should just not write about people who swear. Then we will have a whole new generation of non-swearers.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
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).]
posted
paraworlds, I can't believe your parents destroyed a book! I'm still stuck on that, I'm sorry. Either you're old enough to read it or you're not, but to black mark every page...geesh1
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.
posted
My parents blacked out (or whited out) profanity in some books. The books were not "destroyed" by that. Generally it was in books they liked enought that they thought they would read again at some point. And while they were definitely old enough to read the books, they just didn't like being subjected to offensive language.
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.
posted
That is a good idea with e-books. I tend to listen to audiobooks on my pda when I drive (2 hours a day)--I wish I could do that with those! I listened to Ender's Game and wrote down all of the time stamps of the swearing so I can edit the audio files for my wife and children. My wife is the type of person that will stop reading a book on the very first F word. Yes, there really are people out there that are super sensitive to swearing, and even a tame book like Ender's Game can alienate some people.
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.
posted
I think the trouble here is that we've fallen back into the trap that this discussion is about banning swear words from writing, when it's really a discussion about the value/lack thereof, of OVERUSING profanity in our writing. 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.
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.
posted
OK Eric. I'm putting your name in for sainthood.
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.
to:
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.
posted
I'm not going to sermonize, just pointing out that: 1) Use of profanity is not new. 2) Use of profanity tends to be cultural.
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?
posted
I have an early childhood memory linking blacked out text with my finger getting severed by a door. The siblings were chasing around with a book, and since they were running I followed them but I didn't quite make it into the den. I'm not sure if the blacking out of text (it was the "authentic" version of sleeping beauty, I think) came before or after my accident. I just know that I can use my pinky tip as a PDA stylus because it never grew though it was reattached.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted
I agree with the writers who think about having their relatives read what they've written. If I don't mind my mamma and my kids reading a bundle of swear words, and if I think it's going to progress the plot or develop the character, I'd use them.
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: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.
posted
It makes zero logical sense that poop, pee, sex, butt, penis, vagina, and breasts should be acceptable words and sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, *ss, c*ck, c*nt, and t*ts are unacceptable words in our culture.
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.
posted
I'd say most of those words were merely part of the English language, then they began to be used as swear words in various places and times. Now their use has become so frequent that they are largely regarded as "just the way people talk," having lost much of their shock value.
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.
posted
> After all, words just convey ideas and > those words are conveying identical ideas.
While the pairs of words you've listed may have identical denotative meanings, they are not conveying identical ideas -- they have different connotations.
posted
Well, unless one objects to the fact that the word "gay" was redefined from meaning happy to meaning homosexual, it seems rather inconsistent to object to its further redefinition.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
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
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."
posted
Some people swear, some people don’t. If you’re characters don’t, then don’t use profanity. If your characters do and the reader is just never around when they do, that’s fine too.
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.
> 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?
posted
EJS, I don't see how that principle applies to swear words. At least not any more than any other word.
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.
posted
Okay. I agree. Word choice can definitely have connotations.
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.'
posted
> But in making euphemisms for profanity, > aren't we still being profane? Especially > when we intend to convey an ugly thought?
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).]
posted
I'm not sure you can detach moral and manners so easily. While you may think of it as just good manners, the reason you are showing good manners is so you are not offensive to others. Is there then a moral issue here of you respecting other people's right to not be offended?
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.
posted
I suppose that I should just admit that I don't know what to say about this topic. I grew up in a verbal environment...let's just say that no profanity/obscenity/blasphemy utterable by human tongue has ever had the power to shock me. A lot of people haven't been fully aware of my upbringing, so the fact that I'm not shocked by such words (indeed, cannot be shocked by such words) has occasionally puzzled others.
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....
Printer-friendly view of this topic
