E
Eilrahc
Guest
I remember a long time ago, I found a website that mentioned Saint Thomas More’s writings having a lot of cuss words in it. I can’t find anything of that topic right now.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
No, the characters don’t write themselves. You bring them to life.
A few words from the Bible:
bible.cc/james/3-9.htm
bible.cc/james/3-10.htm
bible.cc/james/3-11.htm
We will give an account of all we did in life after we die. Writers, please consider your words because they will be attributed to you even though your characters are fictional.
Peace,
Ed
A few words from the Bible:
bible.cc/james/3-9.htm
bible.cc/james/3-10.htm
bible.cc/james/3-11.htm
We will give an account of all we did in life after we die. Writers, please consider your words because they will be attributed to you even though your characters are fictional.
Peace,
Ed
J
jimmy
Guest
Was Les Miserables immoral because it portrayed theft, suicide, and other things? Was Shakespeare evil for portraying murder? Was Crime and Punishment evil because it portrayed murder? How about the Devil by Tolstoy for portraying lust?
Maybe we can make all fiction into idealism where all the characters do the perfect thing in every situation. No one ever sins, no one ever makes a mistake. Everything is gumdrops and lollipops. All the characters sing kumbaya and hold hands under the rainbow. Isn’t it lovely.:whacky:
I don’t know about you, but I would rather throwup than read that garbage.
B
Baelor
Guest
Indeed, but they are not you.
S
SilverCamellia
Guest
Well. I read a lot of fiction and I am sickened by the presence of so much swearing in some books. Some of it is completely unnecessary. I feel relieved when I come across a book with has no or very little swearing in it. Like another poster, I believe that swearing comes from a l;ack of vocabulary. I do not swear much myself from upbringing and personal; reasons. I don’t see why I should have to read it so much in fiction, when I find it distasteful myself. Same with sex scnes. Why do they have to be protrayed so graphically? I prefer the writing where it simply says something like ‘They began to kiss …’ and the rest is left to imagination ie you know it might have happened (but it might not). Rather than the practical blow-by-blow account that some books have of a couple having sex (why should anyone want to read that?)
N
Newbie2
Guest
Agreed; very good point.
Yes, but that may be the point of the writer in shaping his or her character i.e. that the character does not have a good education or strong grasp of English or is just plain crude.My take on swearing (in real life, writing, television, etc.) is this: Look at how many words are in the dictionaries of the world. So many to choose from. Swearing makes a person (to me) look as if they don’t have a strong enough grasp of the English (or any other) language to be able to find a more appropriate word!
Excellent point, Ed. While I don’t read a lot of fiction (except for maybe historical fiction with Bernard Cornwells Sharpe series, who managed to write the entire series about some pretty low characters without dropping a single F-bomb), I do see this is a LOT of period piece movies. I’ve never heard so many F-bombs; methinks the use of the F word was not anywhere near as common a couple hundred years ago as it is today.
I tend to judge the “necessity” of using foul language by comparing the “sanitized” TV version of a movie or series to the original. For example, The Sopranos is about a mob family. It’s ridiculous some of the dubs that are put it “Let me tell you this, MY FRIEND”. Of course, such phrases are to match the lip movements, but to have a “soldier on a crew” go an entire hour without dropping an F bomb is unrealistic.
On the other hand, and I think this is the key to the topic, is judging whether or not a bad word serves the plot, or is there a different way of doing it. All too often it is laziness on the part of the writer in crafting their characters, i.e. depending on the number of F-bombs to demonstrate their character has a crude side.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear TheRealJuliane,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Splendid post and thankyou for that (name removed by moderator)ut.
Christian authors, dear sister, who profess the holy religion of Christ must dare to be different and not follow the godless multitude in their customary use of profanity. This will require rectitude but also a firm resolution to avoid that which is decidedly unworthy of God and which makes its appeal to the lowest common denominator. Sadly the number of contemporary authors using profane and indecent language, especially the copious use of expletives, is very considerable and evinces most plainly the moral and cultural deterioration of our age. As you quite rightly observe, the classic writers of times-past did not need to resort to unsavoury language or ribald expressions, which ought to tell us something concerning our moral bankruptcy today. The older fiction, like the older films, was mostly distinguished by the abscence of obscenity and four-letter words, reflecting the morality antecedent to the permissive revolution of the 1960’s. Since that time things have just waxed worse and worse as men have continually sought to push the envelope just that little bit further, always giving specious explanations for so doing. A jolly good plot line with colourful characters does not need spicing up with liberal quantities of swear-words or explicit content, unless, of course, an author is using these to compensate for a want of literary ingenuity and talent. Many of today’s writers of fiction appear to have no command of the English language and their diction leaves a lot to be desired, jolly sad if you ask me. However, the reading public have become increasingly less discerning and seem to relish a poor diet of inferior fiction, which is not only morally unhealthy but also badly written to boot.
Our Lord, said: “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter (or write); for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (S. Matt. 12: 36,37, parenthetical words mine). The words, dear sister, that we speak or write are surely a true indication of the state of our hearts, as the forgoing verses show (see S. Matt, 12: 34-35) - “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”, or writes as the case may be. Words for authors of fiction to ponder very carefully indeed. There can never be any place for profanity or salacious material in a book penned by a anyone who names the name of Christ, for that is hardly a good example to non-Christians, who quite rightly expect a much higher standard from those who profess godliness. “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech be always gracious, seasoned with salt…” (Col. 4: 6). Nothing unsavoury should proceed from our lips or from our pen, and if we are writers (even of fiction) then we should always commend the faith we profess by writing novels that will inspire the Christian virtues, one way or another.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
E
edwest2
Guest
I grew up watching pre-1968 movies and television. The words “sex” and “pregnant” could not be used. Watching the Sopranos was an experience that left no good memories. To say it was realistic was true, bit it in no way advanced beyond what it was - voyeurism into a part of life that falls outside the realm of “entertainment.” It only contributed to the ongoing decline of public morality. It was a slow, gradual process. If we, as a country, had gone from I Love Lucy to Two and a Half Men overnight - the TV would have been in the trash pile the following day.
People use the word “censorship” today as a bad thing. Weren’t Catholic children taught certain words were wrong to say and certain things were wrong to see? A false reality was created based on an irrational idea: sin ends when you become an adult. Don’t children see their parents as role models? Of course they do. What we have today is the false belief that Adults are free from almost any restriction, including writers.
"In August 1934, addressing Ourselves to a delegation of the International Federation of the Motion Picture Press, We pointed out the very great importance which the motion picture has acquired in our days and its vast influence alike in the promotion of good and in the insinuation of evil, and We called to mind that it is necessary to apply to the cinema the supreme rule which must direct and regulate the great gift of art in order that it may not find itself in continual conflict with Christian morality or even with simple human morality based upon the natural law. The essential purpose of art, its raison d’être, is to assist in the perfection of the moral personality, which is man, and for this reason it must itself be moral. And We concluded amidst the manifest approval of that elect body - the memory is still dear to Us - by recommending to them the necessity of making the motion picture “moral, an influence for good morals, an educator”.
“And even recently, in April of this year, when We had the happiness of receiving in audience a group of delegates to the International Congress of the Motion Picture Press, held at Rome, We again drew attention to the gravity of the problem and We warmly exhorted all men of goodwill, in the name not only of religion but also of the true moral and civil welfare of the people, to use every means in their power, such as the Press, to make of the cinema a valuable auxiliary of instruction and education rather than of destruction and ruin of souls.”
Full document here: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html
So, to all writers, are we to congratulate ourselves that we now have the false “freedom” to exploit our gift in any way we choose? Explicit/graphic sex scenes, explicit/graphic violence, explicit/graphic language?
I’ve lived through it. It always starts small, then a little more and then a little more and a little more. The average reader, though he may have a good heart, gradually comes to accept a little to satisfy his reading habit, or is lulled into the false belief that “realism” requires it.
Why do we tell stories? To “push the envelope (of what people find acceptable),” to “break down taboos,” to “tell the sordid truth” no matter how vulgar, lurid, and graphic?
Will that be your legacy? Is that what you want? To show the censors that they were wrong and that now that you’ve spent your time writing soft porn or violence porn, you have advanced what or created what? Entertainment? No, not by any stretch of the imagination.
And art? We are told that “art must offend.” On the other hand, the Church tells us there must be real beauty in art that elevates, not degrades, though it does allow the depiction of evil as evil. The general public is often drowned out by self-anointed art critics and those schooled by the “art must offend” elitists.
mantecabulletin.com/archives/39713/
Peace,
Ed
mantecabulletin.com/archives/39713/
People use the word “censorship” today as a bad thing. Weren’t Catholic children taught certain words were wrong to say and certain things were wrong to see? A false reality was created based on an irrational idea: sin ends when you become an adult. Don’t children see their parents as role models? Of course they do. What we have today is the false belief that Adults are free from almost any restriction, including writers.
"In August 1934, addressing Ourselves to a delegation of the International Federation of the Motion Picture Press, We pointed out the very great importance which the motion picture has acquired in our days and its vast influence alike in the promotion of good and in the insinuation of evil, and We called to mind that it is necessary to apply to the cinema the supreme rule which must direct and regulate the great gift of art in order that it may not find itself in continual conflict with Christian morality or even with simple human morality based upon the natural law. The essential purpose of art, its raison d’être, is to assist in the perfection of the moral personality, which is man, and for this reason it must itself be moral. And We concluded amidst the manifest approval of that elect body - the memory is still dear to Us - by recommending to them the necessity of making the motion picture “moral, an influence for good morals, an educator”.
“And even recently, in April of this year, when We had the happiness of receiving in audience a group of delegates to the International Congress of the Motion Picture Press, held at Rome, We again drew attention to the gravity of the problem and We warmly exhorted all men of goodwill, in the name not only of religion but also of the true moral and civil welfare of the people, to use every means in their power, such as the Press, to make of the cinema a valuable auxiliary of instruction and education rather than of destruction and ruin of souls.”
Full document here: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html
So, to all writers, are we to congratulate ourselves that we now have the false “freedom” to exploit our gift in any way we choose? Explicit/graphic sex scenes, explicit/graphic violence, explicit/graphic language?
I’ve lived through it. It always starts small, then a little more and then a little more and a little more. The average reader, though he may have a good heart, gradually comes to accept a little to satisfy his reading habit, or is lulled into the false belief that “realism” requires it.
Why do we tell stories? To “push the envelope (of what people find acceptable),” to “break down taboos,” to “tell the sordid truth” no matter how vulgar, lurid, and graphic?
Will that be your legacy? Is that what you want? To show the censors that they were wrong and that now that you’ve spent your time writing soft porn or violence porn, you have advanced what or created what? Entertainment? No, not by any stretch of the imagination.
And art? We are told that “art must offend.” On the other hand, the Church tells us there must be real beauty in art that elevates, not degrades, though it does allow the depiction of evil as evil. The general public is often drowned out by self-anointed art critics and those schooled by the “art must offend” elitists.
mantecabulletin.com/archives/39713/
Peace,
Ed
mantecabulletin.com/archives/39713/
Try Aimee and David Thurlo’s Sister Agatha mystery series. Her Ella Clah series is good as well, but there are a few instances of language (very few) and a lot of Native American mysticism.
Steven F. Havill also has a mystery series, “The Posadas County” mysteries, that also keep the profanity to a minimum.
B
Baelor
Guest
Portrait,
I believe that you are well-intentioned, and I hope that you believe I am. I will therefore try to help you. I will do this by revising your post. Convincing (and generally good) prose must, regardless of the argument, be two things: clear and unpretentious. Your posts certainly lack clarity, and can be rather difficult to get through because they are wordy and imprecise.
CAF recognizes this institutionally, per its forum rules:
"CAF:
As mentioned, I have edited your post in order to make it stronger and to correct grammatical and definitional errors. It is below.
Original post: 518 words
Almost one-fifth of your post was cut out, and one may note that my revised version is tighter, clearer, and more punchy. None of the meaning has been sacrificed; in fact, it has been bolstered through the slimmer nature of the post. You are welcome.
I believe that you are well-intentioned, and I hope that you believe I am. I will therefore try to help you. I will do this by revising your post. Convincing (and generally good) prose must, regardless of the argument, be two things: clear and unpretentious. Your posts certainly lack clarity, and can be rather difficult to get through because they are wordy and imprecise.
CAF recognizes this institutionally, per its forum rules:
"CAF:
Surely you can understand the benefit of posting succinctly and with clear diction and sequence of argument. I hope that you choose to change your posting style in accordance with this goal. An excellent resource is The Elements of Style by Strunk and White.
As mentioned, I have edited your post in order to make it stronger and to correct grammatical and definitional errors. It is below.
Revised post: 423 words
Original post: 518 words
Almost one-fifth of your post was cut out, and one may note that my revised version is tighter, clearer, and more punchy. None of the meaning has been sacrificed; in fact, it has been bolstered through the slimmer nature of the post. You are welcome.
B
Baelor
Guest
The use of profanity in a work of fiction is fundamentally different from the use of profanity in the real world; one is an author actually using an expletive, the other is an expletive on a page which no one has actually said.
Swearing has not been demonstrated to belong exclusively to the “lowest common denominator” unless one defines the LCD as “those who swear,” in which case the statement is tautological and therefore useless.
Every age has its moral struggles; we have improved in some ways since the 1950s and degenerated in other ways.
Nor do the authors now; not every use of bad language is a last resort.
Again, it does not follow: you have in no way demonstrated that the reason for using swear words is to mask a lack of ingenuity and talent.
Dan Simmons, George R.R. Martin, Steven Erikson, Neal Stephenson, etc. all seem to me to have an excellent command of our language. Perhaps you would encounter better others if you were not so close-minded about what literature is acceptable.
That does not follow. The author is not actually speaking, nor is he uttering any words. He is putting words in the mouth of another. This is a fundamental distinction that separates the uneducated and weak-minded and those who are capable of appreciating the work of God in all its forms and the ability of mankind to rejoice in the creative talent with which our Creator has endowed us.
“One way or another” can include unsavory things used to a particular purpose in the novel.
Although I understand that it may be difficult for you to deal with fiction that is not straightforward, it is morally impermissible to impose on authors an approach that assumes their readers are either children or illiterates.
That is nice, but irrelevant. I fail to see why something required for the human race to perpetuate itself should be banned from public mention in every case.
That does not follow. “Censorship” does not mean that one does not believe that nothing is wrong, but rather that individuals should in this particular context be allowed to do something wrong. This should be familiar to us all; it is the societal analog of free will. Whether the society should allow that free will is a separate issue.
What does that mean, concretely? An exhaustive definition is necessary, for this one is too vague.
What does this mean? It is not difficult to reason that the portrayal of sin induces thoughts of the importance of virtue in the minds of the consumers.
E
edwest2
Guest
You’ve presented nothing new here. If an author receives an award for his book, who does it go to? A fictional character? That is not logical or rational.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
The author, obviously. For composing a work of fiction. No statement in the work of fiction can actually be attributed to the author as a statement by virtue of the nature of fiction.
For example, an author writes a novel in which a character swears in anger. Would we say that the author swore in anger? Obviously not; that is absurd.
That is, the author writes a swear word, but does not himself swear.
W
wondrousgnat
Guest
The problem I find with Christian books, including those sold by Ignatius, is that the price is quite high. And many are romance novels with repetitive themes.
How do we know that all mobsters are foul-mouthed? From the movies? Could it be possible that some are not?
Look at the movies WE WERE SOLDIERS and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. They were, in my opinion, excellent war movies. But I don’t remember any swearing in them. Did that make the movies worse?
How do we know that all mobsters are foul-mouthed? From the movies? Could it be possible that some are not?
Look at the movies WE WERE SOLDIERS and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. They were, in my opinion, excellent war movies. But I don’t remember any swearing in them. Did that make the movies worse?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is intrinsically immoral to even once use coarse language in composing a work of fiction, but I find it pretty much unnecessary and very distracting. For many centuries, many writers more brilliant than any of us managed to write villainous characters with depth without ever dropping f-bombs. Why should it now seem that it is impossible to do so?
Obscene language has always seemed like a rhetorical short-cut to me.
We want to convey “saltiness” and “reality” with words that also pack an emotional punch. The reader and the writer would be better served if the writer instead chose to hone his skills and conveyed those same sentiments in other more meaningful ways.
Obscene language has always seemed like a rhetorical short-cut to me.
We want to convey “saltiness” and “reality” with words that also pack an emotional punch. The reader and the writer would be better served if the writer instead chose to hone his skills and conveyed those same sentiments in other more meaningful ways.
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O Baelor
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your reponses.
As regards being wordy, dear friend, I would freely acknowledge that this is a failing of mine of which I am only too aware. If only there was an instant remedy for verbosity! Your comments are duly noted, however, and I will earnestly endeavour to repond more concisely in future, but please be patient with me, for old habits die hard, dear brother.
Profanity, dear friend, is always profanity and thus I think that your dichotomy between the world of fiction and the real world is false. Whilst the expletive is said in a fictious setting it still, nonetheless, sets the whole tone and sentiment of a book and that tone renders the work culturally unhealthy and necessarily lowers its quality and character. Moreover, if an author professes the holy religion of Christ, then his use of swear words is hardly a good witness to non-believers and they will be surely shocked and surprised that a Christian writer will stoop to the level of using such profanity, even in fictional context.
The use of bad language has always been considered uncouth and having no place in polite society. It tends to be associated with those who are unrefined and who habitually express their anger by cursing and swearing. That it is has become common even among the modern middle-classes in everyday conversation, only underscores the fact of the prevalent coarseness and vulgarity of our present age, dear friend. Authors who routinely use profanity are simply pandering to this coarseness and vulgarity because it boosts the sales of their books. A Christian author, of all people, should be doing the very opposite and making every effort to raise the tone in literature. That is providing a good witness and a Christian counter-culture that will help raise a lowered public opinion that desperately needs to be raised.
True, dear friend, every age does have its moral struggles, but we are today witnessing an unprecedented and deplorable decline in public morals and this is being continually reflected in the arts and literature. If proof were required of this you only have to compare a novel, film or tv series of the 1950’s and even 1960’s with a novel, film or tv series of today. The contrast will be very marked indeed and will evince most clearly our very sad plight.
Secular authors nowadays are, as I have said above, simply catering to the prevalent cultural deterioration by writing the sort of debased material that they think the public have an appetite for - it sells books, dear friend, and that is the overriding concern, not morality or decency.
If a man professes godliness, then that does necessarily make him “close-minded” as to what is acceptable as regards the arts and literature. His standards will, especially in the milieu of our decadent age, make him appear ‘narrow’ and ‘prudish’. However, that ought to be taken as a compliment rather than as something to be ashamed of. Did not our dear Lord speak of the “straight” and “narrow gate” that leadeth unto life everlasting?
It is utterly irrelevant, dear friend, that an author is putting words into the mouth of another in a fictional setting. For one thing, it reveals the state of the authors heart that he is prepared to use bad language in his novel and it conveys the impression to his readers that he approves of it (even if that is not the case in real life). Now, if he is a professing Christian this is clearly not a good testimony and he ought to feel some sense of shame. Moreover, his book is just another book contributing further to the moral and cultural declension of our times, encouraged and assented to by godless secular authors. A book peppered with expletives and containing salacious content can hardly be called a “work of God” and an example of “creative talent”, even if it is fiction, so I suppose I must plead guilty to being “uneducated and weakminded” for thinking so.
It is not a question of imposing on writers of fiction an approach which assumes that their readers are children or uneducated, rather it is an issue of raising standards in a society that has already plumbed the depths of depravity and is wallowing in the cesspit of iniquity. Why a man who professes the holy religion of Christ would wish to contribute to this moral malaise is just beyond me, dear brother. However, by writing unwholesome fiction that is precisely what he is doing and for that he will have to give an account to God, who would have surely expected him to put his ‘talent’ to good use by writing culturally healthy fiction. It is, moreover, a myth to think that just becuase people are adults they can assimilate a certain quantity of literature containing immoral content and profane language and remain unaffected by it. At length it will coarsen their manners and dull and deaden their sensitivity to that which is sinful and impure (cf. I Cor. 15: 33) - "Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals” - and by perfectly legitimate extention that can apply to bad books and bad films/tv programmes.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your reponses.
As regards being wordy, dear friend, I would freely acknowledge that this is a failing of mine of which I am only too aware. If only there was an instant remedy for verbosity! Your comments are duly noted, however, and I will earnestly endeavour to repond more concisely in future, but please be patient with me, for old habits die hard, dear brother.
Profanity, dear friend, is always profanity and thus I think that your dichotomy between the world of fiction and the real world is false. Whilst the expletive is said in a fictious setting it still, nonetheless, sets the whole tone and sentiment of a book and that tone renders the work culturally unhealthy and necessarily lowers its quality and character. Moreover, if an author professes the holy religion of Christ, then his use of swear words is hardly a good witness to non-believers and they will be surely shocked and surprised that a Christian writer will stoop to the level of using such profanity, even in fictional context.
The use of bad language has always been considered uncouth and having no place in polite society. It tends to be associated with those who are unrefined and who habitually express their anger by cursing and swearing. That it is has become common even among the modern middle-classes in everyday conversation, only underscores the fact of the prevalent coarseness and vulgarity of our present age, dear friend. Authors who routinely use profanity are simply pandering to this coarseness and vulgarity because it boosts the sales of their books. A Christian author, of all people, should be doing the very opposite and making every effort to raise the tone in literature. That is providing a good witness and a Christian counter-culture that will help raise a lowered public opinion that desperately needs to be raised.
True, dear friend, every age does have its moral struggles, but we are today witnessing an unprecedented and deplorable decline in public morals and this is being continually reflected in the arts and literature. If proof were required of this you only have to compare a novel, film or tv series of the 1950’s and even 1960’s with a novel, film or tv series of today. The contrast will be very marked indeed and will evince most clearly our very sad plight.
Secular authors nowadays are, as I have said above, simply catering to the prevalent cultural deterioration by writing the sort of debased material that they think the public have an appetite for - it sells books, dear friend, and that is the overriding concern, not morality or decency.
If a man professes godliness, then that does necessarily make him “close-minded” as to what is acceptable as regards the arts and literature. His standards will, especially in the milieu of our decadent age, make him appear ‘narrow’ and ‘prudish’. However, that ought to be taken as a compliment rather than as something to be ashamed of. Did not our dear Lord speak of the “straight” and “narrow gate” that leadeth unto life everlasting?
It is utterly irrelevant, dear friend, that an author is putting words into the mouth of another in a fictional setting. For one thing, it reveals the state of the authors heart that he is prepared to use bad language in his novel and it conveys the impression to his readers that he approves of it (even if that is not the case in real life). Now, if he is a professing Christian this is clearly not a good testimony and he ought to feel some sense of shame. Moreover, his book is just another book contributing further to the moral and cultural declension of our times, encouraged and assented to by godless secular authors. A book peppered with expletives and containing salacious content can hardly be called a “work of God” and an example of “creative talent”, even if it is fiction, so I suppose I must plead guilty to being “uneducated and weakminded” for thinking so.
It is not a question of imposing on writers of fiction an approach which assumes that their readers are children or uneducated, rather it is an issue of raising standards in a society that has already plumbed the depths of depravity and is wallowing in the cesspit of iniquity. Why a man who professes the holy religion of Christ would wish to contribute to this moral malaise is just beyond me, dear brother. However, by writing unwholesome fiction that is precisely what he is doing and for that he will have to give an account to God, who would have surely expected him to put his ‘talent’ to good use by writing culturally healthy fiction. It is, moreover, a myth to think that just becuase people are adults they can assimilate a certain quantity of literature containing immoral content and profane language and remain unaffected by it. At length it will coarsen their manners and dull and deaden their sensitivity to that which is sinful and impure (cf. I Cor. 15: 33) - "Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals” - and by perfectly legitimate extention that can apply to bad books and bad films/tv programmes.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
T
theistgal
Guest
Michael O’Brien’s “Strangers and Sojourners” - published by Ignatius Press, and part of his wildly popular “Children of the Last Days” series - contains some pretty raw language. And it’s totally appropriate to the characters and doesn’t offend.
Betty Smith’s classic “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” has a scene in which Francie and Neely (“good Catholic children”) are being cursed at by the man who “chucks Christmas trees at poor children” at midnight on Christmas eve. Francie understands that the rough, but good-hearted, man is really saying, “Goodbye - God bless you.”
Context, people, it’s all about context. Bless me, what do they teach them in those schools?
Betty Smith’s classic “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” has a scene in which Francie and Neely (“good Catholic children”) are being cursed at by the man who “chucks Christmas trees at poor children” at midnight on Christmas eve. Francie understands that the rough, but good-hearted, man is really saying, “Goodbye - God bless you.”
Context, people, it’s all about context. Bless me, what do they teach them in those schools?
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Joe,I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is intrinsically immoral to even once use coarse language in composing a work of fiction, but I find it pretty much unnecessary and very distracting. For many centuries, many writers more brilliant than any of us managed to write villainous characters with depth without ever dropping f-bombs. Why should it now seem that it is impossible to do so?
Obscene language has always seemed like a rhetorical short-cut to me.
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well with you and your dear wife. Jolly good to see you on the boards again, old chap.
The fact that authors in times past managed to write splendid novels with engaging characters without spicing their books up with distasteful expletives and obscene content, is proof positive of the moral and cultural deterioration of our age. However, that we have Catholics seeking to rationalize morally inferior books on the basis of a false dichotomy between the world of fiction and the real world, is most lamentable. Any book is either calculated to be an influence for that which is good or an influence for that which is bad and unwholesome. A Christian author will surely wish to be among the former group if he is worth his salt.
Wholly concur with your last paragraph, dear brother, modern secular authors, with some very rare exceptions, are only interested in playing to the gallery by an appeal to man’s lower appetites. This in turn fuels the public passion for yet even more risque material that pushes the envelope further. A devout Catholic author will not wish to contribute to this sad state of affairs by writing novels that are virtually indistiguishable from those written by godless secular writers. On the contrary, he will want to empoly his talent in such a manner that his literary efforts reinforce the moral virtues, at least in some way, so as to help stem the tide of moral decay. He has been given a gift and he ought to employ it wisely for the Glory of God, not in the service of moral and cultural deterioration.
God bless and so good to see you on the boards again, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
E
edwest2
Guest
That is only a dodge. Catholics are to put all our thoughts in obedience to Christ. When we put such words in the mind of any reader, are we helping or hindering?
Speaking generally, there have been many great works of literature with zero swearing. I grew up watching movies and TV shows where no swearing occurred. Only the “looking for an exception to the rule, or any excuse I can think of to avoid the rule” types agitated for the false freedom to write such words. Ever see an Underground Comic Book from the late 1960s to early 1970s? Or an Underground Newspaper from the same time period? The authors loved using swear words like pigs rolling in the mud. But human beings are smarter than pigs regarding swearing, aren’t they?
I’ve read a lot of manuscripts where I work as a professional editor. Any swearing, and the yellow highlighter marks the words for the Editor in Chief. It doesn’t matter how old or young you are - swearing is bad. You don’t offer such words to allow their entry into the mind of the reader.
Peace
B
Baelor
Guest
You have not explained why the distinction between fictional characters saying fictional things and real persons saying real things should be ignored.
Your discussion admits the difference between fiction and reality; you too observe this dichotomy, you simply happen to believe that incidents falling on both sides are problematic.
I am sure that is the reaction of all non-believers, none of whom use profanity and all of whom share Catholic ideals.
This is not true; the Roman aristocrats and poets did not shy away from swearing. It was considered out of place in particular genres, but it was not held as a taboo in a moral sense.
Perhaps you have never been exposed to the cultured society, but swearing has never been restricted to anger. Although fictional, the Merovingian in the Matrix Reloaded hardly can be considered unrefined, and yet notes the aesthetic and auditory beauty of French swear words.
Unless you proclaim yourself to be the omnipotent God, then you know you are incapable of determining the mental justifications of thousands of persons.
Raising the tone in literature, if one defines this as the production of high art, does not mean the elimination of all swearing necessarily. I agree that there are instances in which it is gratuitous and unnecessary, but this can hardly be exhaustive.
In order to illustrate, let us assume that you are correct and that swearing is uncouth. Would not dialog of a character peppered with profanities be reflective of his uncouth nature?
Indeed; at least literature today is intellectually stimulating and addresses moral and ethical concerns, versus the insipid and mentally dead TV and movies of fifty years ago. Certainly a product of the times.
I agree.
- Status