Excessive profanity in books - Page 9

JLeighs · 10-25-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobavey

I agree. A book doesn't need profanity to make it exciting, or realistic.

Twisted Perception

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...=2940011822049

Looks good! Puchased.

Worldwalker · 10-25-2010, 03:06 PM

A book doesn't need profanity, and it doesn't not need profanity. It needs whatever is appropriate to the characters and the story.

I find it intriguing that one aspect of storytelling -- what combinations of letters someone uses -- is being singled out over things that affect me, as a reader, a great deal more: flat plotlines, for instance.

JLeighs · 10-25-2010, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I find it intriguing that one aspect of storytelling -- what combinations of letters someone uses -- is being singled out over things that affect me, as a reader, a great deal more: flat plotlines, for instance.

What affects you as a reader is going to be completely different than what affects other readers. This is my pet peeve. Yours is different.

Lady Fitzgerald · 10-25-2010, 03:33 PM

I have no problem with the concept that certain books are more realistic or accurate with profanity. A modern gang-banger novel or an autobiography of Harry S. Truman would be wrong without a heavy seasoning of profanity. However, I don't want to see it in what I read so I don't read books like that.

Worldwalker · 10-25-2010, 03:52 PM

Well, obviously. It's just that we seem to have discussions of profanity every so often, but I haven't seen much in the way of discussion of other things (aside from hideous ebook formatting) which can be wrong with books. As I said, I find it intriguing that one specific aspect of badness is such a focus ... to the point, in fact, that you want to rate books for what kind of words they have in them, but not for whether their characters are Mary Sues, or their plots are derivative, or they seem to have been written by toddlers.

Hence my interest. I'm at least idly curious as to why certain words can make or break a book purchase, at least to the point of posting about it on MR, but other things which are as bad or worse, in my personal opinion, get a pass.

If I find a character saying ... well, let's pick a neutral word, a character saying "window" ... annoying, I can just skim over every instance of "window". But if I find a character never having to put out much of an effort to overcome all opposition annoying, there's no way to skim over that. And it's not nearly as easy to spot when you're thumbing through the book, especially a pbook in a store, at least not without giving yourself excessive spoilers. Or a mystery I read the other day ... you know the things they tell you not to do in those essays about writing mysteries? Like, oh, having the murderer be someone who wasn't even in most of the book? And having the detective use some knowledge unavailable to the reader? Yeah, I read something like that with covers on. I didn't find out until I'd read it to the end (although admittedly the dismal writing made me suspicious). I couldn't have found out how it ended without reading the end, which would of course have wrecked the whole point of buying a mystery. Instead, I wasted a few hours of my time, and added another author to my "don't buy" list. If there's a rating for what kind of words authors use, shouldn't there be a rating for stupid endings to mysteries, too? They're a lot harder to spot on a quick thumb-through.

And there we get into the big problem with rating systems in general. You want one that rates the kind of words used in books. Someone else might want one that rates the amount of violence. Someone else might want one that rates the attitude toward religion. Another person would want one that covers whether alcohol is treated positively or negatively. I would definitely want a Mary Sue rating. By the time we're done, the book cover has so many ratings on it that there's no room for the art, or maybe even the title.

The government that has the power to make other people do what you want has the power to make you do what other people want ... and that may not be what you want.

Since this thread has veered off into religious territory more than once already, I'll take it a little way back there: Let's say the government of your country wanted the power to make your religion mandatory. People would have to obey your religious rules, give money to your church, etc. That sounds great, doesn't it? Wouldn't you vote for that? But a few years from now, a different government is elected. They favor a different religion -- one that you don't like. Now some other religion is mandatory. To use the current bugaboo, all of a sudden Sharia law is the law of the land, and that applies to you, too. Wait, how did that happen? That's not what you wanted. You wanted everyone to follow your beliefs, not you having to follow someone else's! But you gave the government that power ... and when you give power to a government, you can't tell what they're going to do with it; only that the odds are it's not going to be what you expected.

There are way too many people who say "I want everyone to have the freedom to do what I want them to do." That's why restricting books that have "naughty" words in them would be very, very bad. Someone would decide to restrict books for some other reason ... and some other ... and some other. It's been done. It didn't work out very well.

hal2814 · 10-25-2010, 03:56 PM

I think there's a right way and a wrong way to approach profanity. In the 1990's Virgin started releasing those Doctor Who novels after the show died and in an attempt to make them edgy some of the novels threw some profanity in. After watching such a clean-cut show for so many years, it was more than a bit jarring to see profanity. On the other hand in other situations (many already mentioned here) it makes a lot more sense. I guess in the end, I don't care for it but it does sometimes fit the occasion and I'll tolerate it to an extent. But if profanity is what I deem excessive (entirely a personal judgement call), I'll likely just read something else. As an aside, I do like it when writers manage to get the point across without using profanity or lewd situations. I just don't think For Whom the Bell Tolls would be quite the same without all those "obscenities."

TGS · 10-25-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I have no problem with the concept that certain books are more realistic or accurate with profanity. A modern gang-banger novel or an autobiography of Harry S. Truman would be wrong without a heavy seasoning of profanity. However, I don't want to see it in what I read so I don't read books like that.

There's the solution then - to bring us back to the title of this thread - if there's too much profanity in the book you are reading, read something else. Don't know what the fuss was all about really, simple isn't it

Lemurion · 10-25-2010, 04:04 PM

This is why I think all books should be available and have easily accessible excerpts on line.

People need to be able to make informed choices of what to read. I don't want a ridiculous rating system, but I also think a person who doesn't like something shouldn't be blind-sided by it either.

Provide people the information they need to make rational informed choices and then let them read what they want to read and avoid what they want to avoid.

hal2814 · 10-25-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Well, obviously. It's just that we seem to have discussions of profanity every so often, but I haven't seen much in the way of discussion of other things (aside from hideous ebook formatting) which can be wrong with books. As I said, I find it intriguing that one specific aspect of badness is such a focus ... to the point, in fact, that you want to rate books for what kind of words they have in them, but not for whether their characters are Mary Sues, or their plots are derivative, or they seem to have been written by toddlers.

I really hate raisins. I don't like trail mix because even though I love everything else in it, when I eat it all I taste are raisins. And it's a shame because I don't think the trail mix is better for having the raisins in it. To me, profanity is sort of the same way. I think there are better ways to communicate. Even in proper character, it irritates me. I'm sure if there were like two raisins in a gallon jar of trail mix, I could get by. But when there's like 10% or more raisins, I just give up on it. If you liked all the ingredients of trail mix or are even just neutral to them, you probably wouldn't have any problem with trail mix. And that's ok, too. It's just not for me. The profanity is just one thing in the mix but sadly, it just happens to be an ingredient I really don't care for so to me it's more pronounced than it probably should be.

crich70 · 10-25-2010, 04:12 PM

Yep, I agree some are. Tanj for example (if memory serves) means There Ain't No Justice. I believe Mr. Niven invented that one for his Ringworld books. It doesn't seem to have caught on much, at least I haven't seen any other writer using it. Might be that it was just too funny to be taken seriously, who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Heck, some of those made up words were funny.

mr ploppy · 10-25-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

This is why I think all books should be available and have easily accessible excerpts on line.

Aren't they already? Other than people who have made my buy everything list, I haven't bought a book for a long, long time without reading a sample first.

crich70 · 10-25-2010, 04:27 PM

Actually the c word originally referred to the home of a small furry animal like a rabbit or other such. In other words it was another word for their den or burrow. At least that's what I'm given to understand. In that way it parallels the origin of the proper Latin name of said anatomy. Said word having been the name (that the Romans used) for the scabbard in which a sword is placed when not in use. It's interesting that both words originally were meant to be visually descriptive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Warning - this is veering off topic and into rant territory, so I apologise in advance

The one thing that really, really bothers me about the c (and the t word, although not as many people seem to know what that actually means) word is the double standard applied to swear words based on male and female anatomy. I find it incredibly offensive that a slang name for a part of me is considered to be more vulgar, more offensive, more derogatory than the slang name(s) for the closest equivilant part of male anatomy. Why are my reproductive organs more offensive than my husband's?

J. Strnad · 10-25-2010, 04:28 PM

When I was writing Risen, my mother was still alive and I knew she'd be reading it, so I debated about using certain profanity that I knew she would find offensive. But I decided that literary "honesty" outweighed offending my mother, so I have certain characters (high school students) speaking much as they would in real life.

My mother passed away and I ended up working on a high school campus. Now I'm glad that I didn't compromise my work, and I see that I woefully understated the amount of profanity my high school characters used! Apparently the word that, in my day, was an absolute shocker has become commonplace.

Quote:

And heaven forbid (pun intended) mentioning religion in front of an atheist! It's like waving a red flag in front of an irritated bull. They literally can't control themselves. They just have to attack.

Oh, god, no. There aren't enough hours in the day to do this!

Lady Fitzgerald · 10-25-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crich70

Yep, I agree some are. Tanj for example (if memory serves) means There Ain't No Justice. I believe Mr. Niven invented that one for his Ringworld books. It doesn't seem to have caught on much, at least I haven't seen any other writer using it. Might be that it was just too funny to be taken seriously, who knows.

I always liked Starbuck's use of feltercarb in Battlestar Galactica. My daughter introduced me to farknarkles. I remember back before most of you all were born seeing an interview with an actor who had just adopted a child and, to avoid using profanity around her, invented words to substitute for the bad ones. The one that stuck in what passes for my brain was laughingsnarf.

I like to come up with "replacements" for choicer terms such as donkey excavation, sagacious donkey, punting posterior (I also like alliteration), donkey osculation, hurt in the donkey, Fullfilled Oedipal Complex (being a Psych major can be useful), male bovine biowaste, ka-ka countenanced, mute donkey, secured from beneath with a helical fastener, etc. A couple of times here on MR I've used the expression, "I don't give the north end of a southbound furry rodent." That garnered a few chuckles.

crich70 · 10-25-2010, 04:37 PM

I think some of the worst profanity deals with words of a religious context myself. Some words are just more emotionally charged than others. I note that most profanity seems to fall into one of four categories as well. i.e. bodily functions, physical intimacy, taboos, and religious. In the end what profanity is used in a book I think depends on both the storyline and the comfort level of the writer. If a writer isn't comfortable with something then it will show in his/her writing if he/she tries to present it in their work.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Slow -- excessive cpu utilization	Ozzy	Calibre	23	02-15-2011 11:55 AM
Free books (Kobo) - 20 Dorchester Publishing Books (Romance, Horror, Thriller etc.)	ATDrake	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	15	09-24-2010 07:01 PM
DR 1000S and fighting the urge to use profanity....	sarikan	iRex	30	02-19-2010 05:38 AM
in NOTES，can I delete an excessive new page	genome2k	iRex	2	09-23-2008 04:12 PM

10-25-2010, 03:06 PM	#122
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	A book doesn't need profanity, and it doesn't not need profanity. It needs whatever is appropriate to the characters and the story. I find it intriguing that one aspect of storytelling -- what combinations of letters someone uses -- is being singled out over things that affect me, as a reader, a great deal more: flat plotlines, for instance.

10-25-2010, 03:33 PM	#124
Lady Fitzgerald Wizard Posts: 2,013 Karma: 251649 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tempe, AZ, USA, Earth Device: JetBook Lite (away from home) + 1 spare, 32" TV (at home)	I have no problem with the concept that certain books are more realistic or accurate with profanity. A modern gang-banger novel or an autobiography of Harry S. Truman would be wrong without a heavy seasoning of profanity. However, I don't want to see it in what I read so I don't read books like that.

10-25-2010, 03:52 PM	#125
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	Well, obviously. It's just that we seem to have discussions of profanity every so often, but I haven't seen much in the way of discussion of other things (aside from hideous ebook formatting) which can be wrong with books. As I said, I find it intriguing that one specific aspect of badness is such a focus ... to the point, in fact, that you want to rate books for what kind of words they have in them, but not for whether their characters are Mary Sues, or their plots are derivative, or they seem to have been written by toddlers. Hence my interest. I'm at least idly curious as to why certain words can make or break a book purchase, at least to the point of posting about it on MR, but other things which are as bad or worse, in my personal opinion, get a pass. If I find a character saying ... well, let's pick a neutral word, a character saying "window" ... annoying, I can just skim over every instance of "window". But if I find a character never having to put out much of an effort to overcome all opposition annoying, there's no way to skim over that. And it's not nearly as easy to spot when you're thumbing through the book, especially a pbook in a store, at least not without giving yourself excessive spoilers. Or a mystery I read the other day ... you know the things they tell you not to do in those essays about writing mysteries? Like, oh, having the murderer be someone who wasn't even in most of the book? And having the detective use some knowledge unavailable to the reader? Yeah, I read something like that with covers on. I didn't find out until I'd read it to the end (although admittedly the dismal writing made me suspicious). I couldn't have found out how it ended without reading the end, which would of course have wrecked the whole point of buying a mystery. Instead, I wasted a few hours of my time, and added another author to my "don't buy" list. If there's a rating for what kind of words authors use, shouldn't there be a rating for stupid endings to mysteries, too? They're a lot harder to spot on a quick thumb-through. And there we get into the big problem with rating systems in general. You want one that rates the kind of words used in books. Someone else might want one that rates the amount of violence. Someone else might want one that rates the attitude toward religion. Another person would want one that covers whether alcohol is treated positively or negatively. I would definitely want a Mary Sue rating. By the time we're done, the book cover has so many ratings on it that there's no room for the art, or maybe even the title. The government that has the power to make other people do what you want has the power to make you do what other people want ... and that may not be what you want. Since this thread has veered off into religious territory more than once already, I'll take it a little way back there: Let's say the government of your country wanted the power to make your religion mandatory. People would have to obey your religious rules, give money to your church, etc. That sounds great, doesn't it? Wouldn't you vote for that? But a few years from now, a different government is elected. They favor a different religion -- one that you don't like. Now some other religion is mandatory. To use the current bugaboo, all of a sudden Sharia law is the law of the land, and that applies to you, too. Wait, how did that happen? That's not what you wanted. You wanted everyone to follow your beliefs, not you having to follow someone else's! But you gave the government that power ... and when you give power to a government, you can't tell what they're going to do with it; only that the odds are it's not going to be what you expected. There are way too many people who say "I want everyone to have the freedom to do what I want them to do." That's why restricting books that have "naughty" words in them would be very, very bad. Someone would decide to restrict books for some other reason ... and some other ... and some other. It's been done. It didn't work out very well.

10-25-2010, 03:56 PM	#126
hal2814 Connoisseur Posts: 65 Karma: 2460 Join Date: Oct 2010 Device: Kindle 2	I think there's a right way and a wrong way to approach profanity. In the 1990's Virgin started releasing those Doctor Who novels after the show died and in an attempt to make them edgy some of the novels threw some profanity in. After watching such a clean-cut show for so many years, it was more than a bit jarring to see profanity. On the other hand in other situations (many already mentioned here) it makes a lot more sense. I guess in the end, I don't care for it but it does sometimes fit the occasion and I'll tolerate it to an extent. But if profanity is what I deem excessive (entirely a personal judgement call), I'll likely just read something else. As an aside, I do like it when writers manage to get the point across without using profanity or lewd situations. I just don't think For Whom the Bell Tolls would be quite the same without all those "obscenities."

10-25-2010, 04:04 PM	#128
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	This is why I think all books should be available and have easily accessible excerpts on line. People need to be able to make informed choices of what to read. I don't want a ridiculous rating system, but I also think a person who doesn't like something shouldn't be blind-sided by it either. Provide people the information they need to make rational informed choices and then let them read what they want to read and avoid what they want to avoid.

10-25-2010, 04:37 PM	#135
crich70 Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,310 Karma: 43993832 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Monroe Wisconsin Device: K3, Kindle Paperwhite, Calibre, and Mobipocket for Pc (netbook)	I think some of the worst profanity deals with words of a religious context myself. Some words are just more emotionally charged than others. I note that most profanity seems to fall into one of four categories as well. i.e. bodily functions, physical intimacy, taboos, and religious. In the end what profanity is used in a book I think depends on both the storyline and the comfort level of the writer. If a writer isn't comfortable with something then it will show in his/her writing if he/she tries to present it in their work.