Umm this was never your intention for this thread to start with, so why do you make the assertion that this a "restating" of the focus. This is in no uncertain terms a derailing of your own thread. Your original statement (as per your OP) was about writing around or omitting profanity from your work (for no other motive or reason then purely to omit the profanity) would make you a better writer as it would be "More a Challenge" I disagree with you of course as using the right words at the right times for the right reasons as per how the character would address the situation is the mark of a truly great writer, especially if this places a demand upon the writer to overcome their own delicate sensibilities. In the end if this requires or demands profanity then to omit it is a weakness, an inability on the part of the author to bring to life the realism of the situation. To omit profanity for no other motive then purely for the sake to omit profanity is just as incompetent and morally bankrupt as putting in profanity for no other motive then for the sake of putting in profanity. We both know that, so lets stop beating around the bush on the subject.
With all due respect, I do know what prompted me to begin this thrread, and what I wanted to discuss in it. So I would appreciate keeping the topic on how necessary it is to use language generally considered profane in writing, or whether the writing can be effeffctive without it; within that scope, of course is the option of using a llimited quantity of such language, and what effects will that choice have on the quality of the writing. Debating just what constitutes such language may be an interesting discussion in its own right, but it would distract from the question I am trying to discuss.
Yes, in that front I am sorry as I never should have taken such an approach as to claim to know what your intentions were.
I don't want to read through this entire thread to see if anyone's used this example, but I'm going to quote Stephan King from On Writing (Great book, I highly recommend for any writer...) "If I were a Henry James or Jane Austen sort of guy, writing only about toffs or smart college folks, I'd hardly ever have to use a dirty word or profane phrase; I might never have gotten a book banned from America's school libraries or gotten a letter from some helpful fundamentalist fellow who wants me to know that I'm going to burn in hell, where all my millions of dollars won't buy me so much as a single drink of water. I did not, however, grow up among folks of that sort. I grew up up as a part of America's lower middle class, and they're the people I can write about with the most honesty and knowledge. It means that they say "****" more often that "sugar" when they bang their thumbs, but I've made peace with that." --Stephen King Sage insight. Personally, though, I try to keep profanity out of my work. I battle against every fiber in my body with it, because I think it can add (under the correct circumstances), emotions of the most powerful sort, but alas, I generally write for a young adult audience....
We do seem to be focusing purely on swearing as in: when characters use swearing in their speech. It's also possible to use it in the narrative, of course. What are people's thoughts on that?
Imagine a hard-boiled soldier surviving an alien invasion, stripped of all profanity. How hard-boiled does he seem now? Profanity helps us classify characters. It also makes for realistic dialogue, because profanity is part of our culture, no matter how you like it or not.
If the piece you're writing is in first person, and that person happens to be someone who curses, then I suppose there has to be curse words. I think that narration with cursing involved does tend to get a little annoying, but a little here and there isn't so bad. And it's true to the character.
Narrative also has a point of view and a voice. Character-driven narrative will face approximately the same decisions as dialogue, which raises another aspect of voice: the voice of a character may vary depending on to whom the voice is directed. For example, a certain activist was caught with his microphone on, speaking very differently than he ever would in a public oration. That change in voice revealed, or confirmed, a lot about his true character. Narration can be directed to am abstract reader, or to the narrator's self. In one novel I read a while ago, the narration from the POV of a murderer was directed to his dead beast of a mother. However, you don't narrate narration, so it's not as much of an option to "write around" swearing in character-driven narration. Even so, you can decide how much of it is necessary to portray the character's voice, and how much is excessive. I would still most likely take the position that "less is more." A little goes a long way in establishing color, too much just looks amateurish.
Foul language if fine if you use it to benefit a story. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story called "The Big Space ****" that employed colorful language in a science fiction setting. It worked because Vonnegut used the curse words in a way that made them useful. Since the story detailed the destruction of censorship the words were necessary and useful. Slang also has stronger connotations and emotions than other words. This makes them useful in some situations.
In my opinion, the fact that this thread was even necessary puts profanity in a bad position. But since it all depends on the crowd you're trying to please, then sometimes you must. Here are my three rules for profanity in writing: 1. Would you use it in that situation? if no, find a more colorful word. 2. Would the character use it in that situation? if no, don't kill your character's likeness. 3. and of course, limit 1 F-bomb per 200 pages. And never use it when referring to sex.
Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. For one, this is writing. It's not an exact science, and I'm not going to work out some clever sort of equation to what words I can use where, and how many pages between. It depends on the tone of your book. If you're writing for some seedy underbelly Chicago, mobsters in the 1930's, they're not going to chat amiably over the body they're dumping. There's going to be plenty of f-bombs, and they're going to come hard and fast. They will probably use it to refer to sex, too. If something is going to sound awkward, don't censor it. After all, it's going to sound pretty silly for a mobster to declare, "I want to have consensual sexual intercourse with you." Alternatively, if your band of characters are mild mannered nurses in a children's school, I don't expect them to be cussing like sailors. Personally, I think it depends on your writing. Millions of people talk in millions of ways. For something to be believable, you can't gloss it over. You can use something like 'Katey ducked out of the way, cussing,' but to totally avoid use of a word where is has it's place is ludicrous. It's just ignoring the elephant in the room.
Couldn't agree more. If the context is right - use it. Because of the censorship on this forum, my work has been ****ed up, which, as the writer, did upset me a tad. Okay, to be honest, I wasn't all 'that' upset, but it's still not nice seeing your work asterixed out of it. I am contemplating submitting another piece in the near future and am presently trawling through it, toning down my Fs and Bs until they resemble their more suitable 'cousins': frigging; crap; shagging, etc, etc. A literary bending of the knee to suit the more sensitive amongst these hallowed halls.
I never did mean for that 200 page comment to be taken seriously, but other than that, yeah I was wrong as the context of a story can definitely be aided by the use of profanity. The example above is perfect and the rule can go for other scenarios as well, like an jail cell conversation or the commotion of a bar fight. So I'll have to revise rule# 3. 3. Keep it in context. Enough said. And this may be helpful as well: You didn't **** her, you banged her.
I think the profanity in writing goes back to the history of writing. Some writers maintain an old style of ethics when creating their written works. Writing wasn't as open minded as it is today. The Late Isaac Asimov very rarely used profanity or sex in his 400 works of literature. When Kurt Vonnegut wrote Slaughter House-Five, it was banned in a lot of different schools and libraries, because he wrote "****" once. That was a few decades ago, but the creative prejudice was there (as it still is lingering today). In my person opinion, It depends on the writer and the story being told. It depends on the characters, the plot, the situations, and the overall philosophy of the written work. An old biker, from the bar, isn't necessarily going to talk like a five year old girl. Actually, considering the media influence of my generation - I might be wrong.
I don't think profanity has the same value that it once had. A hundred years ago, the use of the word, "d**n" or "h*ll" might have been used for shock value. As profanity has regretfully become more prevalent in our society, the shock value has diminished. This is not to say that there is no use for profanity. I would not expect a Harvard educated multimillionaire blue blood to use coarse words ... but ... bikers ... sailors ... low life drug dealers and gang members ... yes, yes, and yes. It is my feeling that language reflects culture. This can be the culture of crime or poverty combined with ignorance ... it could be the culture of teenage bravado where young men think that talking tough will make them tough ... it could be the culture of abuse ...
I think that there is a big difference between your characters using foul language and you using foul language ("you" meaning the narrator). For example: Johnny replied, "F*** you!" Johnny was a real a******. The first sentence is appropriate if the use of profanity fits Johnny's personality. However, the second sentence is more questionable. There are a hundred words that could have been used there, and using the "a" word doesn't necessarily make the point any better. It is gratuitous.
I have been in settings where frequent and extreme profanity was commonplace...military dorms, field combat hooches, locker rooms. In fact, I am currently completing a war story set in just such an environment. Is it necessary for my characters to insert colorful expletives in every other sentence...as in reality? No. A certain amount sets the tone for a scene but after an initial, and brief, %#@&-laden dialog, I feel it is best to allow such language to fade away. The story actually flows better. I also feel there is never a time when an omniscient narrator should inject such language.
Use swearing in writing as dictated by the three "As": artistically, authentically, and appropriately. Artistic use of swearing is using swears in the correct proportion to the rest of the piece. After a certain point, swearing loses its impact; before a certain point, readers aren't shocked by it. Don't place too much emphasis on swears, nor too little; they're like exclamation marks. Understand the 'y = x^2 curve' of effectiveness to number of swears in a piece for each swear word. Authentic use of swearing is using language in the way your characters would. None but the worst of parents will swear at their 2-year-old child under normal circumstances, but if they do, then that gives valuable character depth. A gangster who never swears may be a sociopath; his moral code permits murder for his personal gain, but not swearing. Appropriate use of swearing is swearing in the right proportion for your target audience. If you write about a gangster for children's television, then I'll be darned and twice darned if you get away with swears. If, on the other hand, you write a blockbuster action film without copious swears, then may I be roundly sodomised by an elephant.
I have written 2 chapters for one of my projects so far. It contains 2X Damns and 1X Hells. These are both contained in dialogue. Surprisingly, the protagonist - who swears constantly in normal speech - hasn't said any swear words out loud yet, just 1 of the Damns was in his thoughts. Target audience = 14-25 EDIT: Found 1X BS in there too :S.
I respectfully disagree. The Catcher in the Rye: G*d D*mn = 5 times Goddam = 89 times F*ck = 6 times D*mn = 39 times *ss = 6 times Chrissake = 18 times b*stard = 2 hell = 63 times Just sayin'.
Goddam only 89 times? Seemed like more. Seriously, good point here. That book would not be the same without that language. The cursing is an absolute requirement.
I've never really liked cussing (myself or others) and it distracted me as I read. Crazy as it sounds though, growing up I thought a book had to have cussing to be considered adult... wow. I think I'm sheltered.
I liked how the villain in Stephen King's Misery (played by Kathy Bates in the movie,) although a psychopathic killer, never cursed, but said things like, "Cock-a-Doodie" and "dirty bird."
