Swearing in Fiction

[Extollager]

I honestly really don't see swearing as a true moral issue, words are just words in any language

Whew -- I have to disagree. That sounds like reductionism -- "nothing but" -- which is a besetting illness of our age. (Meaning no offense to you.) Our awareness of the depth of being and the human mystery is liable to be diminished, diminished, diminished by such habits.

Nobody else may be visible in one's vicinity, but one injures oneself when one indulges in malediction.

Of course one may have any number of characters who would swear, but that doesn't mean we have to quote them.

 

[Extollager]

Former U. N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld: "Respect for the word is the first commandment in the discipline by which a man can be educated to maturity -- intellectual, emotional and moral. Respect for the word -- to employ it with scrupulous care and an incorruptible heartfelt love of truth -- is essential if there is to be any growth in a society or in the human race. To misuse the word is to show contempt for man."

 

[Extollager]

Tolkien, Appendix F, The Return of the King: "Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong."

 

[Steve Harrison]

Interesting points, @Extollager, but I agree more with Kam's Return. Swear words are just that, words. And they are there for writers to use as they see fit, same as any others. They were not created in isolation and while I am sure most writers try not to misuse, abuse or overuse them, I do not see any need to pretend they don't exist.

 

[Extollager]

I do not see any need to pretend they don't exist.

"Pretend" there is slippery. It could mean "affecting ignorance of such a thing," which no one is advocating, or it could mean practicing a social decency of the same sort that well-bred people do when they "pretend" not to have heard someone fart during a memorial service for someone's elderly relative.

Was Tolkien wrong, by the way? The Lord of the Rings is blemished because Tolkien didn't concoct Orkish obscenities?

I have tried to suggest -- perhaps that's the best one can do -- benefits of forgoing obscenity, swearing, etc. Would someone like to mount an argument for the good that is achieved when an author invents obscenities, etc. for a work of fiction?

To anticipate the first argument -- someone will invoke verisimilitude.

To that I would say, I'm not very impressed, so far, by an author's verbal resourcefulness, if he or she can't convey character without use of offensive language. I've read lots of classic works that conveyed character without use of what may, at the time, have been "unprintable" expressions.

The argument for verisimilitude would go like this:

Verisimilitude is a literary good.
It is so vital for good writing that it outweighs other considerations.
Obscene and profane language are essential for literary verisimilitude.
Therefore, obscene and profane language are good in literature.

To this, I would respond:

Verisimilitude is not necessarily a simple matter of a "slice of life" recording of recognizable bits of demotic speech. How a work shall be made to seem real to the reader depends on a number of things, which might include, say, the effect of weather on characters and groups (often overlooked by fantasy writers), etc.
There are other considerations in writing than just verisimilitude. An author who was not selective in his or her presentation of details, but rather tried to cram in everything for the sake of "verisimilitude" would produce an unreadable work.
I won't attempt to enumerate all the considerations for good writing, but respect along the lines implied by Hammarskjöld and Tolkien would be one of them.
Thus, I think a reasonable person should be skeptical, at the least, about the use of obscenity and profanity in literature.

But there might be other arguments someone would make for why swearing etc. are good. But if they are not good, why would you want to include them?

To anticipate a second argument: The author may contend that he or she feels a need to include obscene and profane language in order to express himself or herself.

Perhaps a writer regards writing as a form of therapy. Whatever may be said for this idea, it is not a reason why someone else should read that writing, especially if the reader is not the writer's therapist.

To anticipate a third argument: publishers want abusive language, to sell books. So authors "have to" use it.

So that's the price of your soul, author?

 

[Steve Harrison]

There are a lot of arguments there, but I wouldn't use any of them to argue for or against the use of profanity. I have no interest in justifying the use or non-use of any words in my work.

I am guided by my portrayal of my characters, my perceived impression of what my reading audience wants/expects and gut feel.

As to Tolkien, I don't think he was wrong. As all writers should, he made decisions about his own work. If Frodo had raced around middle earth swearing like a drunken sailor, Tolkien would have been just as right. Lord of the Rings would not have been published at that time if he had done that, which is why it's pointless trying to compare restricted and tolerant writing eras.

 

[-K2-]

Though most sides seem to have been covered, I'll throw my 2-cents in just for the-- fun of it.

Sadly, I'm likely older than many here and have spent my years in extremely diverse environments with the most conservatively bland to excessively spicy people. The lion's share of my experience was around folks who insisted that every other word is a curse word (one guy even used the F-word as his sole adjective and adverb, insisting upon applying it to each and every pronoun, noun and verb). However, I have also lived in many communities where substitutes for profanity such as 'sugar, fudge, heck, darn,' would find the person an outcast if they continued using such language.

Personally, I prefer the latter of the two examples and make an effort... not always successfully, to limit if not totally curb my swearing. Part of the reason being an effort to not PROVE my lack of education and upbringing. Past that, I don't buy into the whole 'it's all a part of language, colorful character and free speech' nonsense. It typically shows a lack of effort, tact, often vocabulary, and most certainly control. That last often 'over-acted.' People often 'try' to swear at precise moments believing it shows how passionate they are regarding the situation. Beyond that point I'll hold my tongue, positive I've already offended some.

That said, who doesn't find 93-year old Miss Margaret who typically speaks in bible verses endearing when out of the blue she shouts, "what the F____?" More so, who buys into Bob the longshoreman boozing it up with his friends speaking like a preacher?

When it comes to characters, they need to speak as that character would. If that character doesn't need such words to demonstrate their shortcomings, then why use them to try and add flavor, in that they simply detract from any character?

In direct contrast, what I have been working on for a while finds the protagonist cursing like a sailor even though most of the rest of humanity has stopped... somewhat. Somewhat in that the new language has substituted words like 'cram' for 'f___.' However, just like with profanity substitutes mentioned above, the new swear words are looked upon as 'not the same' as the old (as is typical for most pidgins and slang). The reason being... to use a substitute demonstrates self control.

That's what most people find offensive and unacceptable. That a person has lost control to such a point that they begin swearing (AND YES, in much of western society today that fact is lost on most people). We want to believe that swearing is simply a part of language. It was never meant to be. In cases where a person simply swears as part of their normal speech, it is often intentionally done so-- until habit... to make a point. A point to fit in, seem rough, vulgar, uncaring of socially accepted conventions, whatever. Swearing always either demonstrated, either intentionally or not, a lack of control, or, an intentional effort to say something about yourself (which is most often not the case or you'd not need to swear to reinforce it).

Nevertheless, it needs to suit the character... right up until the story is meant to be something more, or should be something more.

Right off mention of 'young-adult' was made. Yes, I get that the average 10-year old probably knows more current curse words than I ever will... but... why encourage young readers to take on the mindset that swearing is socially acceptable? So acceptable that a book for minors makes use of swearing without concern (posting the thread shows concern, but, the reader will never see this thread). A rare word in one or two places is one thing. Better still if it is reacted to in a negative way. However, using profanity with a character that a young reader might identify with, perhaps idolize, then makes profanity a manner of speech they might aspire to emulate.

I write a 'f___-ton' of text that utilizes sex and language I hope a minor (and many adults) never get exposed to. I make all efforts to ensure that only my target audience will ever view it. Even still, I warn these people that are looking for exactly that.

Good language might be out of fashion, yet I believe social responsibility never should be. So, if you're thinking of selling this to impressionable minors, then I'm of the opinion that you should tailor the language used appropriately to help better them. They can mess up their good upbringing on their own... and don't trust other adults, even their parents, to monitor them and what they read.

So, it's up to you. Just my opinions.

K2

 

[Toby Frost]

Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it.

Cockneys! To be honest, I think the Gor blimey voices were a mistake, and not just from a modern "diversity" point of view. They just sounded like coarse people who had been doing the job for too long, rather than monsters. I suppose that Tolkien didn't have much space to make the orcs barbarous, and hearing a lot of dialogue from them would have been tedious. The quote about orc speech makes me wonder what he would have written if he could have done, given the time of writing (probably much the same, I expect).

Of course, you don't need to swear to be degraded, and quite often politicians will try to work up some fake outrage about a rival who was heard to curse. I can think of a Well-Known Political Figure who to me represents humanity at its absolute lowest, totally worthless and debased, and he doesn't swear (at least not in public). "Dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt" sounds right.

 

[Cathbad]

Was Tolkien wrong, by the way? The Lord of the Rings is blemished because Tolkien didn't concoct Orkish obscenities?

Tolkien wrote the way he wanted to. I write the way I want to. You should write the way you want to.

Please... don't be 'preachy' when offering 'advice'. And let writers decide how and what they will write.

 

[zmunkz]

I don’t find your contra-verisimilitude argument compelling. It is more accurate to depict speech in its full range as it is used. There are people that curse a lot. It always stands out, to me, when reading a story and watching characters try and fail and nobody gets riled up enough to say anything about it.

Then there’s the emotional response to curses. It is well documented that people physiologically react with stress to curses, differently than euphemisms and artificial curses. If its a part of the spectrum of human experience, authors shouldn’t feel any hesitation exploring it. (Swearing, Euphemisms, and Linguistic Relativity)

As to reductionism and the diminishing of the human mystery, I think you’re holding the knife on the wrong side. How would sidestepping part of the human experience serve to better illuminate the totality of the human experience? It wouldn’t. It would do the opposite.

Then there’s the general protest that I, as a free speech absolutist, need to add. Social restrictions on expression aren’t much better than legal ones, and the moment we start trying to define a comfortable playground of language that won’t upset anyone, we resign ourselves to the demise of free expression. Expression, even in fiction, must be willing to risk offending or discomforting as a matter of course.

Authors should decide for themselves and their audience if cursing suits their story, but morality is not one of the relevant factors, and it’s reductio ad absurdum of the vilest sort to suggest the sacrifice of one’s soul is, either.

 

[sknox]

Words are just words? That's an astonishing thing to hear from a writer. It's a bit like saying notes are just notes, or paint is just paint. Every word is unique. Every combination of words is unique. Indeed, more than unique, for the same word will reverberate differently with different readers, and even with the same reader at different stages of life. Writing is symphonic, with every instrument complementary to every other, each changed by each. For a practical example, take a look at how radically different translations of poetry can be.

As for characters swearing, they only say what we wish them to say. This reader might be shocked by a vulgarity, another might be bored by it, and a third might find it merely clumsy. All the author can do is write 'em as they hear 'em, to paraphrase the ump.

 

[Cathbad]

I believe words are just words... until us writers get hold of 'em..

...then they're ammo!

 

[Mirannan]

Speaking of such things, I am far less tolerant of sex scenes than I am of swearing. Not to sound prudish but I always think there's rarely a justification for it in books or films/TV. If it's not relevant to the story/character, then I don't want to waste time reading or seeing it.

We don't populate our books with details of people going to the loo, yet we know everyone has to do it. That's how I feel about sex in fiction.

Of course there are many reasons to have sexual content in works of fiction, but I expect them to be relevant other than: These two are in love, look here's proof, they're sexing....

pH

What, finding out the gender of chickens?

I rather liked Niven's near-future stuff, in which he had people using "censored" as a generic swearword.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A little swearing goes a long way in fiction. If the character is the kind of person who uses, for instance, f**ck a lot, an occasional instance will get that across without having to use it five or six times per page, even if they are the kind of person who might do so in reality. Because that gets monotonous. Remember, in fiction dialogue just has to pass as realistic, not be realistic because utterly realistic dialogue with all its ums and uhs and incoherent ramblings would be boring. It's the same with swearing. Also, swearing is not really eloquent. It's expressive, if used with precision to show strong emotion, especially for someone who doesn't usually do it, but sprinkled throughout a conversation it becomes banal because it doesn't really reflect specific thought, just a general "I'm angry" or "I'm tough and edgy." Unless the character is unusually creative in how they use profanity. But even then, if the writer is using it all the time to characterize a character as gritty and profane, it begins to look forced, it looks lazy, it looks like a shortcut for real characterization, because there are better ways, more effective ways, to show us what kind of person that individual is. Especially if you have several characters doing it, where they begin to blend together, it hardly makes any one of them memorable. So I think writers should definitely not be afraid to use profanity if it is right for the character, but be careful not to overuse it, as a writer's skill is shown in how they use language to maximum effect, and in how they place words where they make the greatest impression.

 

[Steve Harrison]

Words are just words? That's an astonishing thing to hear from a writer. It's a bit like saying notes are just notes, or paint is just paint. Every word is unique. Every combination of words is unique. Indeed, more than unique, for the same word will reverberate differently with different readers, and even with the same reader at different stages of life. Writing is symphonic, with every instrument complementary to every other, each changed by each. For a practical example, take a look at how radically different translations of poetry can be.

That sums up exactly why words are just words to a writer until selected and applied.

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

Former U. N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld: "Respect for the word is the first commandment in the discipline by which a man can be educated to maturity -- intellectual, emotional and moral. Respect for the word -- to employ it with scrupulous care and an incorruptible heartfelt love of truth -- is essential if there is to be any growth in a society or in the human race. To misuse the word is to show contempt for man."

I believe that's very out of context. If I"m not mistaken, he was talking about letter vs. spirit of a treaty, not cussin'.

 

[Extollager]

LRF, to me it sounds like Hammarskjöld was enunciating what he believed to be general principles relating to language, so the application of those principles would include, though of course not be limited to, the topic of swearing, obscenity, etc.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

As stated previously it depends on the context. Like Helen Mirren I wish I'd learned to swear more earlier. Two years on a mechanics course with teenagers and my language has been liberated .

My current main character is a young female mechanic and she swears like a trooper. In the opening scene she's hit her boyfriend with a breaker bar (there are reasons) and then she's stuck in the back of a taxi outside her dad's house because she can't pay her fare. The taxi driver has had a week that is just as bad. They both let rip with a string of swear words that makes the start of Four Weddings and a Funeral look conservative.

I was really nervous about taking it into my writers group (I'm the youngest by a decade or so) its been interesting that the men were initially uncomfortable but the ladies are loving Maggie and the fact she doesn't care.

There's been swear words in kids books for over 40 years. I remember reading the Machine Gunners in primary school. They are just words and should be used the same way any other word is used; when needed to convey the story.

 

[tinkerdan]

On a some what simplistic level: writers should be working toward an economy of words--in that they should be looking for the best words to express what they are describing, with the fewest words being the better choice.
That means that whatever choice words your characters use you are filtering(not the same thing as filter words)it all out to express the most concise and exact way of characterizing the scene and the character in the scene--this includes their dialogue.

In that respect I think that swearing should be handled the same way that adverbs, adjectives and other colorful language; which is that you should stop on your way through with the edits and ask if there is another or a better way of doing that; keeping in mind that the first consideration is whether the words used are hurting the work and possibly the reader experience. Also keeping in mind that it could be just as damaging to remove all instances of these colorful pieces of speech-meaning that sometimes the adverbs and adjectives and expletives have to stand because they tend to enforce natural speech and enhance the flow of the dialogue.

The use of these words should be just a sparingly as those other characteristics of speech that we are mindful of and tempered with the same realization that sometimes these words fit where they are: as they are.

However; one thing I consider is how it all sounds when someone reads it aloud; which is something I do a lot of when editing through.

 

[Ursa major]

Sometimes "an economy of words" requires the use of swearing...

...particularly if a non-PoV character** who has not shown the slightest sign of swearing, does so. This can also be a clear example of "show not tell".


** - A character whose thoughts the reader is not privy to.