I agree with this...obscenities are verbal pollution. They only belong in extreme anger or when being used in a piece of fiction as part of the plot and character. A gangbanger in the Bronx would not say, "Gadzooks!"
I am so happy you wrote this. The lazy writing that results in the overuse of curses is mirrored in the business world, and it does such a disservice to language and to the curses themselves. There is a time and a place for everything but overuse of profanity diminishes its power, and that sadly devalues them in our lexicon.
There is a scene in Casablanca in which Rick calls Ilsa a whore but the writers make it far more powerful by describing the word rather than using it. The dialog reads:
"I heard a story once - as a matter of fact, I've heard a lot of stories in my time. They went along with the sound of a tinny piano playing in the parlor downstairs. "Mister, I met a man once when I was a kid," it always began.
[laughs]
Well, I guess neither one of our stories is very funny. Tell me, who was it you left me for? Was it Lazlo, or were there others in between or... aren't you the kind that tells?"
It cuts Ilsa to the core and leaves so much greater an impression on the audience.
By comparison, back in the late 1970's in the largely forgettable film 10, when Dudley Moore asks Bo Derek what she does when she puts Ravel's Bolero on the turntable, her reply ("Fuck") was the perfect use for the term, and it had the perfect combination of shock and titillation. Of course, now it is old hat while, at least to my ears, Casablanca's dialog remains eloquent, at least from my perspective.
The dialogue in Casablanca is pitch perfect. And your take on that stretch is lovely. I grew up watching classics like that on TV and it helped me grow as a writer. Favorite screwball comedy: Midnight with Don Ameche, Claudette Colbert and a stunning cast.
I am currently rewatching the Think Man Series and it never gets old! William Powell and Myrna Loy are captivating. Claudette Colbert was also brilliant in all things.
The Hayes Code forced screen writers to be creative and to find ways to work around the censors. As much as I hate censorship, it does force writers to be smarter in their word selection! It also forces audiences to think rather than settle for being told.
I cringe when it shows up in the wrong period. I stopped some Tudor series because someone was lambasting his father (or son, can't recall) with a fuck-filled tirade. It was ridiculous and empty.
I had an interesting conversation this morning with a friend in England who speaks Hungarian as a first language. She told me that swears spoken in English (in which she is fluent) have no effect on her but she recoils when she hears the same words in Hungarian (the language she learned as a child). In contrast, her partner's English mother is quite upset to hear the swears in English but has no issue when they are spoken in Hungarian.
Sharing here because the conversation arose as we discussed your commentary.
It's getting harder and harder to read some of my favorite writers because they seem to feel compelled to use curse words in every other sentence (sometimes every sentence). Perhaps enough readers will rebel and complain, and writers will take note.
apart from any other considerations, people writing historical fiction should take pains to ensure the language they use is culturally and historically specific. otherwise, it could be anywhere, anytime. Any word that's overused is a turn off and is not quality writing. Steering away from that word beginning with f, today a read an article that used the word '"twee" twice. Once was cute, but the second time in less than a paragraph space, was annoying. I only skimmed the rest of the article -surely the writer could have come up with another word? When words are used that are not relevant to the historical and cultural time of the work's setting, they are simply not authentic and make the piece not really worth reading, in my opinion.
I find it more and more difficult to read some newspapers that do exactly what you're saying, or have bad subject/verb agreement or metaphors that don't make sense or the wrong diction. This can even show up in the NYT and the DC Post--and I assume it's either 1) not knowing the language well because the young writer hasn't read widely enough and/or 2) the writer relies on spell and grammar checking that is faulty.
Yes, Lev Raphael, many writers overuse the f-word. When I was a student at Oberlin College, two English poets came to read their work. Great Britain had just legalized swear words, so the two poets filled their reading with f-bombs and other such terms. I understood their reaction to censorship being lifted, but I felt that the writers had gone too far in inserting swear words everywhere. There are other ways for authors to create emphasis. Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Janet Ruth Heller
Author of the poetry books Nature’s Olympics (Wipf and Stock, 2021), Exodus (WordTech Editions, 2014), Folk Concert: Changing Times (Anaphora Literary Press, 2012) and Traffic Stop (Finishing Line Press, 2011), the scholarly book Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama (University of Missouri Press, 1990), the middle-grade chapter book for kids The Passover Surprise (Fictive Press, 2015, 2016), and the award-winning picture book for kids about bullying, How the Moon Regained Her Shape (Arbordale, 2006; seventh edition 2022).
The advice you gave to your students is very similar to the protocol I use. It is called an F "bomb" for a reason- you should drop it abruptly and unexpectedly, and to make a big impact.
I do tell them that it can work that way as a surprise, but also it can fit certain characters. The point is not to use it so much that it loses effect.
Not using profanity is a standard rule. When you break a standard, there has to be a good reason. For me, breaking a standard without good reason is the offensive part
I disagree with your assertion that the oath "fuck" is "grossly over-used."
Why?
Because it is an unrealistic assumption that this particular oath is repugnant to all classes and all cultures. Even in the anachronistic examples you cite, there were oaths that were viewed as equally repellent and undesirable.
I have written works where you won't find "fuck" appearing on any page. I have also written works where it happens frequently. The difference lies in the characters and whether they are profane, or prudish. The presence of such swearing or lack thereof, and whether said characters can appropriately code switch depending on circumstances to swear--or not--is a part of building character.
If anything, I find the prudish workarounds to avoid its usage to be tiring and overused (shall we talk about the use of "frack" instead?). It can also be a very useful tool in character and writing voice when a character who has been prim and proper up to a certain point suddenly breaks out in oaths.
For me, its usage adequately represents a situation where the character perceives that he or she is well and truly FUBARed. There are times when only the earthy plosives of the "f" followed by the "uh" either in short or drawn out tones, ending with the hard "ck" work in voice. Saying that "we are well and truly screwed" lacks the same visceral impact, and I'm not going to pull my punches when I'm setting up a character for whom the word is a useful tool.
And that doesn't even get into the social and economic class implications of the usage. Perceptions have been shaped by over years of vigorous censorship of anything but the mildest of oaths, especially anything that relates to bodily functions. Realistically, it's used frequently and in very broad circles, not just in current times but in the past.
Does that mean I might lose readers by using it when that word usage appropriate for the characters? Probably. But I refuse to water down my characters and thus betray them. Note: my social circles have ranged widely, including high-level corporate managers. The usage is quite common in those circles.
I think we are talking about entirely different things:. You're raising prudery, classism, and censorship when I'm pointing out lack of imagination and anachronisms.
Not really. I spent enough time in conservative religious circles to hear the "lack of imagination" argument applied to any sort of swearing. I'm somewhat allergic to that argument as a result because it's used as a means of social control. Especially if the person swearing is female.
And...I would argue that there were equally crude epithets used in the past that would be incomprehensible/lack impact to modern readers if used instead.
interestingly, the words deemed "swear words" or "bad words" in English are words for body parts or sexual activities stemming from Germanic origin, and the words for body parts or sexual activities that are deemed "proper" are usually stemmed from Latin. and there we have it. There's nothing intrinsic in a combination of letters to make a word that make it "bad", it's social attitudes that do that. Seems that the words poor people used were deemed "bad" by the powers that be. Back in the 11th Century, "God's bones" was pretty treacherous. God's Bones!!
Exactly! Oaths that sound pretty innocuous or even endearing or cute to us these days were the equivalent of the words some of us hold problematic now. It's a class and cultural issue, plain and simple.
Exactly. Of course it's appropriate in certain situations and for certain characters. But when it's relied on too much, it cheats the viewer or reader.
Let's be honest. Most writers use profanity for the wrong reasons. Because everyone else does it. Because "that's how people talk". Because they want to produce an effect and are lazy (like using exclamation points). Because they want to appear "street", or tough, or irreverent. All bad.
I disagree, but you do you. Not interested in repeating this dialogue over and over again. There are people who are squicked by profanity and you, sir, appear to be one of them.
Me? I had the "lack of creativity" argument regarding the use of profanity jammed down my throat by religious conservatives who wanted to control my thoughts, my actions, and my body. If anything, this argument--especially from a man--just throws me back into that era when people wanted to manipulate me into agreeing with them.
Don't want to use or read profanity? Fine. That's an acceptable choice on your part.
Do not attempt to impose your personal standards on me, however. And I would prefer that you and I leave this discussion where it currently lies.
I want to express my solidarity here, even though “fuck” and its fucking declensions are a big part of my talking day. I’m with you on the overuse and laziness. I used to have more “fucking”s in my essays, and after a while I got tired of seeing them when I was editing. They just made the prose look dead.
But— I also want to point out a TV scene from the Wire. There’s a bit in the first season where Bunk— one of my favorite cop characters ever— is gathering evidence at a murder scene. There’s blood everywhere, it’s just an ugly mess— and he and the other cop measuring and collating all the gore just keep saying “fuck” over and over, adding ludicrous variations like “fuckety-fuck.”
It’s the most creative use of the word I’ve ever come across, and it’s just wonderfully appropriate for what they’re doing in the scene.
Whether it’s blues music, action films, literary fiction, or anything else— it’s a rookie mistake to assume that more is always more. Sometimes it is, but too much more ends up being less.
There’s probably a shorter and more effective way to say that last bit, but my coffee is boiling.
Even though I’m snobbish about rom coms, and I mostly prefer the great ones from the golden age, I think Hugh Grant is excellent, so your rec has me intrigued. Thanks!
Couldn't agree more. For my first novel set on the American frontier of 1797, I did a ton of research on language, including curse words. Frankly, it was great fun learning about all of the colorful ways people used to swear.
It can be taxing on one's patience, even when they're mobsters and we "assume" they speak this way. But there's reality, and then there's making reality readable/watchable. :-)
I agree with this...obscenities are verbal pollution. They only belong in extreme anger or when being used in a piece of fiction as part of the plot and character. A gangbanger in the Bronx would not say, "Gadzooks!"
Obscenities and slang and anything "non-standard" can reveal a lot in a story or memoir about character.
I am so happy you wrote this. The lazy writing that results in the overuse of curses is mirrored in the business world, and it does such a disservice to language and to the curses themselves. There is a time and a place for everything but overuse of profanity diminishes its power, and that sadly devalues them in our lexicon.
There is a scene in Casablanca in which Rick calls Ilsa a whore but the writers make it far more powerful by describing the word rather than using it. The dialog reads:
"I heard a story once - as a matter of fact, I've heard a lot of stories in my time. They went along with the sound of a tinny piano playing in the parlor downstairs. "Mister, I met a man once when I was a kid," it always began.
[laughs]
Well, I guess neither one of our stories is very funny. Tell me, who was it you left me for? Was it Lazlo, or were there others in between or... aren't you the kind that tells?"
It cuts Ilsa to the core and leaves so much greater an impression on the audience.
By comparison, back in the late 1970's in the largely forgettable film 10, when Dudley Moore asks Bo Derek what she does when she puts Ravel's Bolero on the turntable, her reply ("Fuck") was the perfect use for the term, and it had the perfect combination of shock and titillation. Of course, now it is old hat while, at least to my ears, Casablanca's dialog remains eloquent, at least from my perspective.
The dialogue in Casablanca is pitch perfect. And your take on that stretch is lovely. I grew up watching classics like that on TV and it helped me grow as a writer. Favorite screwball comedy: Midnight with Don Ameche, Claudette Colbert and a stunning cast.
I am currently rewatching the Think Man Series and it never gets old! William Powell and Myrna Loy are captivating. Claudette Colbert was also brilliant in all things.
The Hayes Code forced screen writers to be creative and to find ways to work around the censors. As much as I hate censorship, it does force writers to be smarter in their word selection! It also forces audiences to think rather than settle for being told.
I cringe when it shows up in the wrong period. I stopped some Tudor series because someone was lambasting his father (or son, can't recall) with a fuck-filled tirade. It was ridiculous and empty.
I had an interesting conversation this morning with a friend in England who speaks Hungarian as a first language. She told me that swears spoken in English (in which she is fluent) have no effect on her but she recoils when she hears the same words in Hungarian (the language she learned as a child). In contrast, her partner's English mother is quite upset to hear the swears in English but has no issue when they are spoken in Hungarian.
Sharing here because the conversation arose as we discussed your commentary.
I once accidentally said something mildly obscene in Germany, thinking it was a common polite expression. It wasn't. :-(
It's getting harder and harder to read some of my favorite writers because they seem to feel compelled to use curse words in every other sentence (sometimes every sentence). Perhaps enough readers will rebel and complain, and writers will take note.
I hear you! It's gotten to the point where my spouse and I watch a series or movie and marvel at the lack of anachronistic obscenity.
I agree. The overuse of "fuck" has gotten tiresome. A word to the wise: adding several "fucks"s to a boring passage doesn't magically make it funny.
Amen--not funny and not necessarily stronger either.
apart from any other considerations, people writing historical fiction should take pains to ensure the language they use is culturally and historically specific. otherwise, it could be anywhere, anytime. Any word that's overused is a turn off and is not quality writing. Steering away from that word beginning with f, today a read an article that used the word '"twee" twice. Once was cute, but the second time in less than a paragraph space, was annoying. I only skimmed the rest of the article -surely the writer could have come up with another word? When words are used that are not relevant to the historical and cultural time of the work's setting, they are simply not authentic and make the piece not really worth reading, in my opinion.
I find it more and more difficult to read some newspapers that do exactly what you're saying, or have bad subject/verb agreement or metaphors that don't make sense or the wrong diction. This can even show up in the NYT and the DC Post--and I assume it's either 1) not knowing the language well because the young writer hasn't read widely enough and/or 2) the writer relies on spell and grammar checking that is faulty.
Three words: “less is more.”
Three more: I quite agree.
Yes, Lev Raphael, many writers overuse the f-word. When I was a student at Oberlin College, two English poets came to read their work. Great Britain had just legalized swear words, so the two poets filled their reading with f-bombs and other such terms. I understood their reaction to censorship being lifted, but I felt that the writers had gone too far in inserting swear words everywhere. There are other ways for authors to create emphasis. Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Janet Ruth Heller
Author of the poetry books Nature’s Olympics (Wipf and Stock, 2021), Exodus (WordTech Editions, 2014), Folk Concert: Changing Times (Anaphora Literary Press, 2012) and Traffic Stop (Finishing Line Press, 2011), the scholarly book Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama (University of Missouri Press, 1990), the middle-grade chapter book for kids The Passover Surprise (Fictive Press, 2015, 2016), and the award-winning picture book for kids about bullying, How the Moon Regained Her Shape (Arbordale, 2006; seventh edition 2022).
My website is https://www.janetruthheller.com/
That must have been some effin' reading. ;-)
"How to Use Profanity and Other Raw Talk in Your Fiction"
https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/how-to-use-profanity-and-other-raw-talk-in-your-fiction
The advice you gave to your students is very similar to the protocol I use. It is called an F "bomb" for a reason- you should drop it abruptly and unexpectedly, and to make a big impact.
I do tell them that it can work that way as a surprise, but also it can fit certain characters. The point is not to use it so much that it loses effect.
Not using profanity is a standard rule. When you break a standard, there has to be a good reason. For me, breaking a standard without good reason is the offensive part
I disagree with your assertion that the oath "fuck" is "grossly over-used."
Why?
Because it is an unrealistic assumption that this particular oath is repugnant to all classes and all cultures. Even in the anachronistic examples you cite, there were oaths that were viewed as equally repellent and undesirable.
I have written works where you won't find "fuck" appearing on any page. I have also written works where it happens frequently. The difference lies in the characters and whether they are profane, or prudish. The presence of such swearing or lack thereof, and whether said characters can appropriately code switch depending on circumstances to swear--or not--is a part of building character.
If anything, I find the prudish workarounds to avoid its usage to be tiring and overused (shall we talk about the use of "frack" instead?). It can also be a very useful tool in character and writing voice when a character who has been prim and proper up to a certain point suddenly breaks out in oaths.
For me, its usage adequately represents a situation where the character perceives that he or she is well and truly FUBARed. There are times when only the earthy plosives of the "f" followed by the "uh" either in short or drawn out tones, ending with the hard "ck" work in voice. Saying that "we are well and truly screwed" lacks the same visceral impact, and I'm not going to pull my punches when I'm setting up a character for whom the word is a useful tool.
And that doesn't even get into the social and economic class implications of the usage. Perceptions have been shaped by over years of vigorous censorship of anything but the mildest of oaths, especially anything that relates to bodily functions. Realistically, it's used frequently and in very broad circles, not just in current times but in the past.
Does that mean I might lose readers by using it when that word usage appropriate for the characters? Probably. But I refuse to water down my characters and thus betray them. Note: my social circles have ranged widely, including high-level corporate managers. The usage is quite common in those circles.
I think we are talking about entirely different things:. You're raising prudery, classism, and censorship when I'm pointing out lack of imagination and anachronisms.
Not really. I spent enough time in conservative religious circles to hear the "lack of imagination" argument applied to any sort of swearing. I'm somewhat allergic to that argument as a result because it's used as a means of social control. Especially if the person swearing is female.
And...I would argue that there were equally crude epithets used in the past that would be incomprehensible/lack impact to modern readers if used instead.
interestingly, the words deemed "swear words" or "bad words" in English are words for body parts or sexual activities stemming from Germanic origin, and the words for body parts or sexual activities that are deemed "proper" are usually stemmed from Latin. and there we have it. There's nothing intrinsic in a combination of letters to make a word that make it "bad", it's social attitudes that do that. Seems that the words poor people used were deemed "bad" by the powers that be. Back in the 11th Century, "God's bones" was pretty treacherous. God's Bones!!
Exactly! Oaths that sound pretty innocuous or even endearing or cute to us these days were the equivalent of the words some of us hold problematic now. It's a class and cultural issue, plain and simple.
Lev is saying the overuse is the issue. Of course there are times when it's appropriate, but these are rare
Exactly. Of course it's appropriate in certain situations and for certain characters. But when it's relied on too much, it cheats the viewer or reader.
Disagree about the rarity.
Let's be honest. Most writers use profanity for the wrong reasons. Because everyone else does it. Because "that's how people talk". Because they want to produce an effect and are lazy (like using exclamation points). Because they want to appear "street", or tough, or irreverent. All bad.
I disagree, but you do you. Not interested in repeating this dialogue over and over again. There are people who are squicked by profanity and you, sir, appear to be one of them.
Me? I had the "lack of creativity" argument regarding the use of profanity jammed down my throat by religious conservatives who wanted to control my thoughts, my actions, and my body. If anything, this argument--especially from a man--just throws me back into that era when people wanted to manipulate me into agreeing with them.
Don't want to use or read profanity? Fine. That's an acceptable choice on your part.
Do not attempt to impose your personal standards on me, however. And I would prefer that you and I leave this discussion where it currently lies.
I'm not at all being "personal". I'm repeating advice found in any how-to book.
Cite your sources. I've not seen such advice from any credible source.
I want to express my solidarity here, even though “fuck” and its fucking declensions are a big part of my talking day. I’m with you on the overuse and laziness. I used to have more “fucking”s in my essays, and after a while I got tired of seeing them when I was editing. They just made the prose look dead.
But— I also want to point out a TV scene from the Wire. There’s a bit in the first season where Bunk— one of my favorite cop characters ever— is gathering evidence at a murder scene. There’s blood everywhere, it’s just an ugly mess— and he and the other cop measuring and collating all the gore just keep saying “fuck” over and over, adding ludicrous variations like “fuckety-fuck.”
It’s the most creative use of the word I’ve ever come across, and it’s just wonderfully appropriate for what they’re doing in the scene.
Whether it’s blues music, action films, literary fiction, or anything else— it’s a rookie mistake to assume that more is always more. Sometimes it is, but too much more ends up being less.
There’s probably a shorter and more effective way to say that last bit, but my coffee is boiling.
It's funny in Four Weddings and a Funeral when he's late.
Haven’t seen that— I’ll have to take a look.
It's at the very beginning and that's one of Hugh Grant's best movies.
Even though I’m snobbish about rom coms, and I mostly prefer the great ones from the golden age, I think Hugh Grant is excellent, so your rec has me intrigued. Thanks!
I've seen it many times since the on-screen debut and it's witty, charming, moving.
Couldn't agree more. For my first novel set on the American frontier of 1797, I did a ton of research on language, including curse words. Frankly, it was great fun learning about all of the colorful ways people used to swear.
So many choices! When I wrote my Gilded Age novel, I immersed myself in all genres of books from that period to tune my ear.
It can be taxing on one's patience, even when they're mobsters and we "assume" they speak this way. But there's reality, and then there's making reality readable/watchable. :-)
I can imagine! My mother and father spoke Russian as their language to hide things from me and my brother. :-)