Are we really the offended by swearing?

[Kissmequick]

I can't speak for Extollager, but in my house you could say that someone did something foolish, but not that someone was a "fool." After a lot of education and some of it in counseling I now believe that it was a folksy way of saying that in an argument you criticized the behavior not the person.

I can see that, I just have visions of:

Gandalf: "Fly, you fools, fly!"

Gandalf's Mum: "Wash your mouth out with soap young man!"

Like I say, there's a big cultural gap here. UK and US, two countries divided by a single language...(and even within cultures there's big differences too. Plenty over here are brought up not to swear. It's not better or worse, just, well, different.) Possibly in this instance because that 'You fool' over here usually means 'this once you have been a numpty' not 'you are a person with all the brains of a weasel's wedding tackle'. It's usually about the behaviour (a shorter version of you have been foolish today) not the person in general

 

[Parson]

I can see that, I just have visions of:

Gandalf: "Fly, you fools, fly!"

Gandalf's Mum: "Wash your mouth out with soap young man!"

Like I say, there's a big cultural gap here. UK and US, two countries divided by a single language...(and even within cultures there's big differences too. Plenty over here are brought up not to swear. It's not better or worse, just, well, different.) Possibly in this instance because that 'You fool' over here usually means 'this once you have been a numpty' not 'you are a person with all the brains of a weasel's wedding tackle'. It's usually about the behaviour (a shorter version of you have been foolish today) not the person in general

Hm, I can't help but agree since I don't know how a proper Brit would view "fool" but it is the way we (at least my peer group) would view calling someone "fool" unless your body language was indicating that this was something less than a true and complete assessment. I would also suspect that it has something with the Bible saying "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matt. 5:22b

 

[Jo Zebedee]

You know, I'm terrified of ever going to America. I think I might give offence with every sentence I utter....

 

[Gary Compton]

You know, I'm terrified of ever going to America. I think I might give offence with every sentence I utter....

I know the feeling!

That's why I stay in the house, the pilot light goes out more than me in fact.

I have size 11's for a reason, it would seem!

 

[Grunkins]

You know, I'm terrified of ever going to America. I think I might give offence with every sentence I utter....

America is a big place, and temperament and taste vary by region. Parson seems to represent the christian mid-west, and that is very different than the secular north-east from which I come. To speak with a proper Boston accent requires the F-bomb every third or fourth word. TV never gets it right.

 

[Kissmequick]

I would also suspect that it has something with the Bible saying "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matt. 5:22b

That's a new quote I'd never seen*, but might explain a lot. Anyway, yes, around here at least, 'Oh you fool' = 'You done something a bit daft there' rather than 'you are a terminally stupid person'. Sort of balances with 'A fool for love' etc. It's certainly not generally abusive (almost any word can be abusive in the right context/tone)

ETA: I was going to make a flip remark here, but I don't want to be disrespectful. I do wonder how, given that quote, quite innocuous non-sweary works, such as JRRT, miht be taken in some quarters though. He likes saying fool (though I always think he's saying it in the British way - when he calls Pip a fool it's clear to me he's not saying Pip is always brainless, just he did something stupid today) And isn't there that old proverb about fools being wise? Samwise was -- and his name even means "half-wise or half-wit"


*Not a Christian, never read the bible except bits. Not even in RE, which is/was about "comparative religion" or now as they call it "philosophy and ethics".

I'm with Springs...but then I can see that a USian might feel the same way t'other way around!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

You know, I'm terrified of ever going to America. I think I might give offence with every sentence I utter....

I survive - my in laws are either Mid-West very Republican conservative Mormon or Christian. I've made the occasional blooper but made it home alive lol

Did get banned from one place for calling someone a pompous ass - my explanation that I meant donkey was not accepted. I mean who would use ass as a swear word when the British alternative is a much more satisfying word.

Also Americans don't really have the huge range of swear words we have available to us in the UK. We have level upon level available to us.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Any Americans I've met have been unfailingly polite and lovely but very clean-mouthed. (Grunkins, Boston, lovely...) maybe if I use eejit all the time I'll look quaint and not-rude.

 

[hopewrites]

Come to the Northwest. We dont much care how you use language, provided you are actually saying something.
Fur trappers and Gold diggers were dandy in setting up the culture here that way. Not so neighborly at first. But once you prove your a person of sense (no mater how you express it) you will do fine.

I think that's why Northern Cali hates South Cali tbh. Not a lick of truth to be found in Hollywood for decades now. *sassy wink*

 

[FuegoHelado]

I didn't read all the thread, so maybe it is all ready said.
In my opinion, we use to read the fantasy that begun with Tolkien, Williams, Jordan, etc... This is like a fairy tail, have a lot of violence of course, but is a epic and elegant violence. I dont believe that the problem be the swearing, simply is something not done.
But the new fantasy is breaking with this, if you read Abercrombi, Martin... you could see it.

(I sorry by my english, I'm working in it)

 

[Hex]

I looked up the "fool" bit in our bible (we do in fact have one -- actually, we seem to have three). Anyway: in the translation we have, "fool" (which the footnotes say is a translation of the word "raca", which is also translated as "worthless" and as "idiot" (in my version)(*). Anyhow, so my translation says that if you call someone "idiot", you're in danger of the Council, and if you "curse" them, you're in danger of hell.

Confusing :s but clearly, calling people bad things is discouraged. I don't really understand why.

Also, consider where we most often heard the word "fool". I can't believe I'm the only one who instantly thought of the A Team...

(*) I think. Though it might be that calling someone "raca" is the same as cursing them...?

 

[SevenStars]

In terms of writing, if it is in context for swear words to be used I can't see a problem.

We may or may not use such vocabulary ourselves, however, when we are engaging with a text, a story that someone has created, we need to remain aware that it is not real.

I agree entirely that some writers use this kind of language to cover sloppy writing or to try to create a shock factor, but if we have identified badly written prose we will probably not finish reading it anyway, I know I wouldn't.

Words only have power and meaning if we assign it to them.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

My stance is that I really don't care if people are offended by swearing in my books and I'll continue to use bad language as seems appropriate.

If someone reading of a murder is more offended by the fact the murderer says f*ck while killing a person than by the killing of a person... well, I'm fine with losing them from my demographic.

It's just a word, just social niceties being ruffled. Putting linguistic restrictions on literature then expecting it to say or mean something... it's just weird.

It's like... 'f*ck'. Has anyone ever read that and not seen the * as a 'u'. So what is the point of the exercise? Really. That right there, that, seems childish and trivial.

 

[hopewrites]

Lol I see it as an 'i' not a 'u' or some times an 'a' or 'o'
but I'm funny that way.

 

[Grunkins]

Lol I see it as an 'i' not a 'u' or some times an 'a' or 'o'
but I'm funny that way.

I will forever more read f*ck as fick.

 

[hopewrites]

I figure if its going to be the typed out version of the "I'm not swearing because your standing here but boy if you weren't I'd just let loose and you know what I'd be saying" slight mispronunciation of the swear word, then that's what I'm going to read it as.

 

[Parson]

I looked up the "fool" bit in our bible (we do in fact have one -- actually, we seem to have three). Anyway: in the translation we have, "fool" (which the footnotes say is a translation of the word "raca", which is also translated as "worthless" and as "idiot" (in my version)(*). Anyhow, so my translation says that if you call someone "idiot", you're in danger of the Council, and if you "curse" them, you're in danger of hell.

Confusing :s but clearly, calling people bad things is discouraged. I don't really understand why.

Also, consider where we most often heard the word "fool". I can't believe I'm the only one who instantly thought of the A Team...

(*) I think. Though it might be that calling someone "raca" is the same as cursing them...?

Actually my Hebrew professor taught us that "raca" was considerably stronger than our "fool" to the Hebrew mind set. We would probably need a phrase to convey the utter contempt that the word conveyed for the Hebrews of Jesus' time.

One thing that we all have agreed upon is that words have power, and yet that power is relative to how they are received. What someone might conceive as a "toss off" phrase another might consider the gravest of insults. Context is everything. Given my upbringing and worldview, I am likely to be more often and more thoroughly offended by profanity. So I'm not sure where that leaves the an author. I guess for myself the best advice would be "be yourself." Write the very best you can, and the profanity or the lack of it will be generally irrelevant.

As for personal language, I have to believe that you lose nothing by not being profane. So why venture into it?

 

[Grunkins]

As for personal language, I have to believe that you lose nothing by not being profane. So why venture into it?

Because I might find myself in a situation where the profane word is the exact right word to use. It's another tool in the toolbox that is sometimes called for, and more tools is better than less tools.

 

[Ursa major]

...and more tools is better than less tools.

That depends on which meaning of tool you're using.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

Because I might find myself in a situation where the profane word is the exact right word to use. It's another tool in the toolbox that is sometimes called for, and more tools is better than less tools.

I've never ran into this problem. Ever. The worse day of my life was saying something vulgar in the 7th grade. I've tried to avoid it since.