Swearing/Profanity in Fantasy for or against?

[Toby Frost]

I agree, but there's stuff in Lovecraft and MR James that I wouldn't want to remember in a non compos mentis state. But I don't see why you should have to look at the bodies. While there is horror that I love, some of it quite grisly, there does seem to be a sort that I think of as like a poo-sniffing contest: how long can you smell this before you have to turn away? To which the reasonable answer is "Why would I want to sniff a poo?"

As for swearing, well, whatever works. The six Space Captain Smith books have one s**t and nothing stronger, and I had to use that exact word so the joke would work. That's partly because it seemed appropriate in terms of who might read it, partly because nothing stronger was needed (I had a policy of only hinting at the very dark stuff in their world) and partly because of the sort of comedy that inspired me (Blackadder in particular). But the fantasy stuff I write has a very noir feeling, and so characters do swear because they're low types in desperate situations.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I wouldn't say that the inclusion (or exclusion) of profanity makes a difference to the believability of a story. Characters (usually) speak far too eloquently for that to be the case.

I think that written dialogue is what the character meant or would have liked to say if they had been given time to tbink about it. No mis-pronunciation, repetition, stuttering or saying the wrong thing. And the person that they are addressing doesn't (usually) misunderstand, mishear or misconstrue what is being said to them. They also don't interrupt the speaker until they have finished wgat it is they were saying.

Which is completely unrealistic, because that's not whst happens in real life. But that doesn't matter, because it is part of the contract in regards to the suspension of disbelief that we agree with the author when reading their story.

Otherwise we would spend more time in stories with characters sitting around waiting for time to pass, eating, sleeping, carrying out bodily functions and (these days) playing on their mobiles.

 

[Elckerlyc]

What paranoid marvin said.
Also,
Up to a point this discussion, as many of similar kind, is pointless. Preferences differ, both by writers and readers. Nothing of what you write and the way you present it will please every reader. Some readers enjoy realism and expect (some might say, require) the inclusion of blood, gore, sex and swearing. Others feel that referring to it, without any explicate details, will do. It would still paint the picture.
Person A said, "&*%$@!"
Person A cursed.
Personally I would go for the second form. But that's me.
As the creator of your works, follow your own idea and add to it what you think is required to make it work. But - and this goes even more for that other discussion about eroticism - make sure it is clear about what's in the box. And let people decide for themselves.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In my opinion, LOTR and GoT sit nicely both sides of the fence in relation to sex and violence. One has it in buckets the other is almost entirely absent.

I enjoyed reading both (the tv series of GoT is on another level altogether to the book) but the one I enjoyed more (and the one I have and will continue returning to) is Tolkien's.

Same applies to M R James' suggested horror than the guts and gore of more graphic authors.

 

[ColGray]

I wouldn't say that the inclusion (or exclusion) of profanity makes a difference to the believability of a story. Characters (usually) speak far too eloquently for that to be the case.

I think that written dialogue is what the character meant or would have liked to say if they had been given time to tbink about it. No mis-pronunciation, repetition, stuttering or saying the wrong thing. And the person that they are addressing doesn't (usually) misunderstand, mishear or misconstrue what is being said to them. They also don't interrupt the speaker until they have finished wgat it is they were saying.

Which is completely unrealistic, because that's not whst happens in real life. But that doesn't matter, because it is part of the contract in regards to the suspension of disbelief that we agree with the author when reading their story.

Otherwise we would spend more time in stories with characters sitting around waiting for time to pass, eating, sleeping, carrying out bodily functions and (these days) playing on their mobiles.

Agree to disagree on the believability (and on not reading characters interrupting/talking over each other? I feel like I see that all the time, but we may read different books?)

Along the spectrum of style, on the one extreme is ultra-realism, then there's suspension of disbelief and then the other end is faking honesty. Either extreme is turd city (IMO). I will suspend disbelief and allow for smooth dialogue and clear understanding.

I don't need to read a running litany of every curse word the soldier in the fox hole is thinking as their huddling against mortar fire, but if you put me in his head, the internal monologue better feel real or it will detract from the story. That might include curses. It might not. By the same token, if the author puts me in the huddling soldier's head and it reads like <fans himself> the idle musings of a southern gentleman with a case of the vapah's, then i'm out! That's too fake.

Word choice matters. If someone is using swears to be lazy, then yawn. If it's to showcase the character, their morals/education/stress level/situation, then, it adds to the character and scene.

Johnny Ringo is such a great villain to play against Doc Holliday in Tombstone because of word choice. Ringo blusters. Holliday mocks. Ringo mocks Holliday's use of latin. Holliday mocks right back with a hardy smirk. Ringo tells Holliday to go somewhere hot --the word choice and juxtaposition to Latin highlights Ringo's frustration and irritation: Doc isn't intimidated and Ringo is annoyed and losing his cool. The interplay works not because of or in spite of the swear, but because each component is true and honest to both characters: the audience understands both characters, their morals, their backgrounds.

 

[The Big Peat]

The thing about reality and verisimilitude is so many people have so many versions of what fits and what doesn't. Ergo, there can't be any hard and fast rule as to whether swearing breaks reality or not. For some people it does, for some people don't.

What I would suggest is that there are many ways to peel an orange when it comes to including swearing (or not), but what there shouldn't be with this sort of thing is an inconsistency of approach. It invites complaint and scrutiny of the story's underpinnings.