Every writer must decide what kind of words are appropriate for his writing. This rule applies particularly to those words euphemistically described as “strong language”: common “cusswords” and the language of the gutter. As a former Infantry soldier and (worse yet) a graduate student, I guess I’ve heard them all. And I’ve pondered at length whether they have any place in either life or writing.
In deciding, I’ve considered the most common justifications for using these words in fiction and film. These “four-letter words” have burgeoned so much in today’s publications and films that often these words are the dialogue.
The usual justification is a claim of “realism”: First, it’s said that because people actually talk that way, realistic fiction must accurately report their words. Second, it’s claimed that four-letter words bring us into closer to “real life” than other words—that there is less distance between the word and the thing it represents.
Neither claim can withstand examination.
The first confuses “realism” with literalism. Fiction is not real life. It is an artifice that creates the illusion of real life. So, if the writer must report people’s words literally, what excuses him from including all other elements of life literally? Must every fictional day begin with the hero shaving or the heroine applying eye shadow?
And what about actions often excluded from fiction–praying, for instance? Depending on which poll one reads, 50 to 80 percent of Americans pray every day. By the “realism” criterion, shouldn’t the correct percentage of fictional characters pray with appropriate frequency during the narrative?
My conclusion: if “realism” does not justify literal inclusion of other elements in fiction, it does not justify literal inclusion of specific words.
Nor can the claim that four-letter words are closer to “reality” withstand questioning. Many uses of those words are, to put it mildly, figurative. There may have been a time when attributing bisexual reproductive capabilities to inanimate objects was amusing. But if so, the idea is now so clichéd that it’s no longer humorous.
And on representing reality, let’s consider the so-called “f-word.” The probable pre-Anglo-Saxon from which it descends was a savage language spoken in savage times. Then, perhaps, the word may have accurately described physical relationships between men and women. But many cultural changes have altered that reality.
One such change was the twelfth-century invention of romantic (courtly) love, popularized by Eleanor of Aquitaine and Chrétien de Troyes. In the 1590s, Edmund Spenser synthesized various love traditions into an ideal combining the romance of courtly love with the intellectuality of Platonic love and a dash of physicality from Ovid—all justified by marriage, one of the seven sacraments of the church. Spenser’s synthesis held general acceptance until about 1900, when it was eroded by naturalistic philosophy and Freudian psychology.
The point for “realistic” fiction is this: If the “f-word” today accurately describes the physical relationship between a man and woman, it does so only because the couple is immune to the cultural experience the past millennium.
So if the customary justifications cannot stand examination, the real reasons for using “strong language” must lie elsewhere. Some involve today’s cultural warfare, but another is more pertinent here. Writers know that conflict is basic to effective fiction. “Strong language” helps lazy writers gain the appearance of conflict without the hard work of creating genuine conflict, which is always generated by a story’s basic narrative structure. In other words, “strong language” substitutes for genuine creativity.
Profligate use of such language will always be chic, of course. But as screenwriter Morrie Ryskind put it, “The chic are always wrong.”
Donn Taylor holds a PhD in English literature (Renaissance) and has taught literature and writing at two liberal arts colleges. He is the author of the suspense novel The Lazarus File and the mystery Rhapsody in Red, as well as a poetry book, Dust and Diamond: Poems of Earth and Beyond. His suspense novel Deadly Additivewill be released soon by Pelican (Harbourlight). He is a frequent speaker at writers’ conferences. He and his wife live near Houston, TX, where he writes fiction, poetry, and essays on current topics. In a prior incarnation he served in two wars with the U.S. Army.
A very enlightening post, Donn. My favorite paragraph: “And what about actions often excluded from fiction–praying, for instance? Depending on which poll one reads, 50 to 80 percent of Americans pray every day. By the “realism” criterion, shouldn’t the correct percentage of fictional characters pray with appropriate frequency during the narrative?” So true!
I agree with you. Movie moguls will state that much of what passes for entertainment these days must have an “R” rating to get the attention of the audience. I disagree with that assumption. So much of the foul language, blood, gore and rampant sexual acts are just an excuse to be vile and completely lack any intellectual value. Our society has decided to lower its expectations in all areas of life thus leading to a poorly educated population. This population can then be led astray easily. They will follow where ever the “bread and circuses” take them. It is a repeat of the Roman Empire. Let’s all “buck the establishment and stick it to the Man” by setting our standards high and doing our very best in all things
Wonderful post, Donn, and you express yourself so eloquently! 🙂
I can’t be eloquent on this subject. To me, the use of foul language is wrong whether in real life or as a writer…and for this reason: We are instructed biblically about allowing things into our minds or before our eyes that are not godly or are unclean. While scripture doesn’t specify this instruction to include reading material, it includes it without question by saying “NO unclean thing.” If I’m reading filthy language, I’m certainly allowing it into my mind. If I’m writing it, I go a step further by offering it up for others to consume. How can any Christian possibly justify doing that? Jesus may have hung out with sinners, but He didn’t take on their behaviors! The idea that it’s “all right” to write something that does not edify the reader or glorify God, for the sake of so-called “realism,” is a joke. It is not “all right” if one truly cares about Bible teachings.
Now, if the concern is instead “making a sale,” then by all means include the trash language and sexual promiscuity in graphic detail. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord…and He has yet to grant me permission to play around with filth in any form or fashion.
See. Told you I couldn’t be eloquent on this subject! LOL
Oh…I meant to say that my son tells me the “F” word originated during a period in history when even married people were not allowed to make love except when given permission by the king. (Some kind of population control thing, I believe…?) When allowed, they hung a sign on their doors that was the equivalent of our “Do Not Disturb” sign. It read: Fornicating Under Consent of the King. Apparently acronyms have been around for a long time. 😀
A great article with a beautiful synopsis of the contributors to courtly love.
I have found that, on those rare occasions when profanity seems essential to establish a character, hints and glimpses can be more effective than a proliferation of filth. That works to separate a profligate character from his peers. If all characters use profanity, that distinction can’t be made. And you’re right: Fiction is an artifice. Even dialogue, though it has the appearance of reality, is, in fact, a distillation of actual speech patterns with much more intensity than real conversation.
I agree wholeheartedly, Donn. I’ve recently explored some of the so-called popular erotica. I’ve concluded these women authors are simply debasing themselves with their language usage. The books are supposed to be romantic, however the vulgar language used simply makes them boring and unreadable.
Donn, thanks for pointing me here. It’s always fun to read a good argument, especially when I completely agree!
very good, Donn, and I agree completely. If your story isn’t strong enough to stand alone without the vulgar language, then it needs some work. I make it clear on my website that I will not edit anything erotic or anti-American. The erotic is too disgusting and boring, and my blood pressure can’t handle anything that puts down my country.
You tell ’em, Donn! *big grin*
And it’s nice to read your books knowing there will be plenty of suspense without having to worry about running into anything offensive.
You’re so right, Donn! Dr. Ted Baehr, president of Movieguide, presents a powerful argument against the opinion that movies must include foul language and obtain an R rating in order to achieve at the box office. Several years ago, he pulled the box office numbers and was able to present to the movie industry proof that R rated movies do not do as well as PG movies. That hit the industry where they could understand it–in the pocketbook. Since that time, R rated movies have decreased and there have been an influx of more family-friendly movies.
I recently judged a secular play contest in which the winning play would be produced in a local theater. It wasn’t a difficult decision. The dialogue of at least 2/3 of the submissions was so foul that they were automatically eliminated. The plays simply could not be produced in this community. And I don’t mean a word here and there. Over and over it was line after line, page after page of the foulest, most disgusting language. There may be people who talk like that, but in all my years of working with a variety of people–Christians and non–I’ve never been around people who continually spout out the filth these “real life characters” were spewing.
And I don’t believe that’s real life for most Americans, whether they proclaim the name of Jesus or not.
Many thanks to all of you for your comments and reinforcement. For Delia on the origin of the “f-word”; dictionaries vary on its origin, none very convincing. Since it exists in Old English and similar words exist in Dutch and German, my conclusion is that it dates back to the common language before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England. Thanks again to all for the reinforcement.
I don’t like books filled with filth and I don’t want to read the Lord’s name taken in vain, but I’m not totally opposed to curse words in fiction. I don’t like stories that have been sanitized to the point they’re unrealistic. My male characters usually just ‘mutter a curse,’ but the occasional h#ll or d@mnation can go a long way to strengthening a line of dialogue or narrative–especially if used sparingly. Its true that when you choose your words carefully, it makes the writing stronger, and a well placed curse word can be a valid part of that vocabulary if it fits the character and the situation. *ducking and waiting for the flying tomatoes* : )
I would like to add another reason why writers use “strong language.” It pays and people read it. That doesn’t make it right but as long as public appitite supports gutter language, publishers will print it.
Donn:
I have always wondered why people have to “curse” in the first place…..I think some think it sounds powerful in their odd little minds….our society especially today lacks respect in films, books, and conversations. I heard as a child “cuss like a sailor”, I knew sailors that did not fit that description and fought for their country without having to curse. Thank you for your comment which I find intelligent and honest…..but then again what could I have expected from Mildred’s special husband…
Take care
I’m married to an ex sailor. When he’s angry, he lets a few fly. (Heck, when I’m angry, I occasionally let one fly.) Right or wrong, what people should do and what they actually do are sometimes two different things. I think this is what people in the ‘realistic fiction’ camp are getting at.
Hello, Melissa et al.–
Please check back on the blog itself, namely, the point about confusing realism with literalism. Fiction is an artifice that gives the illusion of reality. Lazy writers go literal–if it’s there, they put it in; genuinely creative writers create the illusion of reality without going literal. We can write about the worst of evils without going into exact details or, worse yet, allowing them to seem acceptable. There’s always the question, what are we asking our readers to enjoy? Thanks again to all who have shared their thoughts.
Thanks to everyone who stopped by and shared, and an especially big thanks to Donn for taking the time to be my guest. Great post, and great comments – thanks!
An intelligent commentary, Donn. I would have expected nothing less from you.
I’ve always wondered where these folks live who claim that constant use of the “f-bomb” is “normal” and “real.” In my world, the “f-bomb,” while not unheard-of, is the exception rather than the rule. So, no, I don’t think characters talking like that in novels is at all “realistic.”
Well done, Donn! Our father always said use of foul language indicates a limited vocabulary. When people use the sorry excuse “everyone talks that way,” I wonder who “everyone” is because no one I know uses that kind of language. Thank you for this wonderful post!
Excellent, logical argument! Particularly, the “lazy writers” and that “strong language substitutes for genuine creativity.” In real-life conversation, I agree with Brenda’s father that “use of foul language indicates a limited vocabulary.”