Ann Marston: My feelings on the F-word, and just about all
obscenities, vulgarities, and other assorted ‘swears’, is that I have no
objection to a few sprinkled here and there for effect, or to delineate a
character's speech patterns. However, bad language is much like dialect. You
need only a little here and there to instill into the reader's head that this
character uses a lot of foul language. A suggestion is usually more effective
than the proverbial load of bricks. It's been my experience that if the writer
uses the F-word too often, it quickly loses its shock value and begins to
sound trite, silly, and downright annoying. As both a reader and an editor, I
really don't feel obligated to read anything trite, silly, and/or
annoying.
Robin Carson: In real-estate, it is said that
the three main rules are 'location, location, location.' For a writer, the
rules are similar: 'motivation, motivation, motivation.' Remembering that words
can either be motivating or motivated, those words can be whatever a given
character would either say, or react to. In other words, there must be
appropriateness in the use of the words—any
words, taboo or not. Words for the sake of words have no place in tight,
effective writing.
In addition, as my dear old Dad
used to say, "Leave them wanting more." Some writers seem to think
that if you shock someone once with words or violence, doing it twice makes it
twice as good. There is no subtlety in that; no elegance in the crafting.
Besides, with repetition, lack of variety soon makes readers yawn. Repetition
is just one small effect in what should be a full complement of effects.
Bottom line? If taboo words motivate
a situation, or are motivated by the nature of a character, then you don't need
permission to use them: at On Spec, we seldom ask, “But what about the
children?” If, though, these words are intended as some kind of
replacement for good writing, expect rejection.
Barb Galler-Smith: Verisimilitude in writing is deeply important, but just because a character REALLY would place a ‘fuck’ in between every word they utter, and a few ‘mother’s’ to go along with it, is bad in writing. I hear writers claim that’s the way the character would really talk. Possibly, but in the written word it’s nonsense. Excessive expletives, vulgarities, or profanities are no more useful in writing speech than a hundred ‘uhms’. One or two to make it clear a character swears is fine, but too many are intrusive. After that, it gets in the way of the real story.
Barb Galler-Smith: Verisimilitude in writing is deeply important, but just because a character REALLY would place a ‘fuck’ in between every word they utter, and a few ‘mother’s’ to go along with it, is bad in writing. I hear writers claim that’s the way the character would really talk. Possibly, but in the written word it’s nonsense. Excessive expletives, vulgarities, or profanities are no more useful in writing speech than a hundred ‘uhms’. One or two to make it clear a character swears is fine, but too many are intrusive. After that, it gets in the way of the real story.
Diane Walton: Choice of language spoken by a
character all depends on that character, and all the influences (education,
socio-economic status, peer group) that brought them to where they are at the
moment the story takes place. If a character is the kind of person who resorts
to strong language in a stressful situation, or even if the character
is a street-wise braggart who says ‘fuck’ every fourth word to impress his
peers, I’m okay with that as long as the characterization is honest, and it isn’t
simply being done for cheap shock value.
Even then, there’s a difference
between the speaker using language to
shock or impress his audience within the story, and the author using language to shock the reader because they are too lazy
to come up with more interesting words. (I am reminded of Cyrano de
Bergerac lecturing the louts on all the creative ways they could be insulting
his nose.) You don’t want to have the choice of language dominate the narrative
or alienate the reader from the story. A good writer could simply drop a
bomb or two and then imply that the character’s speech is peppered with similar
words, and we’ll get the message.
Bottom line is know your audience. On Spec is not a YA magazine. We expect adult content, but that
speaks more to the sophistication of the telling than it does to the number of
four letter words or sex scenes the author can squeeze in.
One thing that turns me off would
be a first person narrator who fills the page with profanities. Even Holden
Caulfield knew the value of a carefully placed ‘goddam’.
(So, there you have it. There isn’t
much I can add. I think Ann, Robin, Barb, and Diane have said it very well. Thanks, guys.)
Next Post: Publicists, Part Two: Can You Work With Two Publicists at a Time? by Rachel Sentes.
