On Cursing in fiction

[Baelor]

We must proceed from the fundamentals first, i.e.

culturally healthy fiction.

Please define this in such a way that your definition may by itself properly categorize an arbitrary work of fiction.

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.

This can be organized as a logical argument in the following way:

1. Swearing reveals the state of the author’s heart that he is prepared to use bad language in his novel.
2. Swearing conveys the impression to an author’s readers that he approves of it (even if that is not the case in real life)
3. From 2), if he is a professing Christian, he is violating standards of Christian testimony.
   Therefore, swearing in novels is morally impermissible.

There is a parallel argument as follows:

1. Swearing in novels contributes to moral decline etc.
   Therefore, swearing in novels is morally impermissible

One may supply without problem that contribution to moral decline is impermissible.

The logic of your argument is sound. The problem is that the premises are flawed and/or unproven. For example, I justly claim that the only conclusion one may draw concerning the author’s mindset from the presence of swear words in a novel is that the author decided to include swear words in the novel. I could also challenge the unproven second premise in your first argument in at least two ways: that such an impression is not conveyed; that the responsibility of the author does not extend to actions over which he has no control, i.e. interpretation of his fictional text.

So too may I challenge the fact that swearing inherently and in all cases contributes to moral decline, the burden of proof of which claim seems rather lofty to me.

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.

The fact that the justification for your condemnation of swearing assumes that readers are children or illiterates proves my assertion that it is, in fact, a question of imposing on writers in that way.

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.

It is hardly a myth; it is a reality among those who are not children and illiterates, as I stated previously.

 

[Baelor]

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?

It is not a dodge. It was a direct response to your statement.

Catholics are to put all thoughts in obedience to Christ. First, the Church does not condemn all swearing in all situations. Is “****” permissible but one marginally worse not? Is “shucks” too offensive? etc. We are not to take the Lord’s name; we are not to hurt others in anger or otherwise; we are not to offend others nor to reference sex in an unacceptable manner. That does not include all swear words and instances thereof.

Speaking generally, there have been many great works of literature with zero swearing.

So? Swearing is not necessary for great works of literature.

The authors loved using swear words like pigs rolling in the mud. But human beings are smarter than pigs regarding swearing, aren’t they?

For the sake of your own edification, please take a course in logic or even rhetoric.

 

[edwest2]

“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 think this statement provides clear evidence regarding what Portrait stated. There was a New York Times Book Review during the time period.

Writing today is morally dead.

It is soulless and insensitive.

I have heard it said from a friend of mine, “Oh, I didn’t like those TV shows from 50 years ago. No one could live up to that.” Translation: Let’s not even try to be a little bit like that. It’s too hard. It takes work. I live a mediocre life and I don’t want to be reminded in any way, shape or form, that I could do better. I’m lazy and showing me a good alternative makes feel uncomfortable and I never want to feel uncomfortable.

On a Catholic Forum IT BETTER BE CLEAR TO ALL THAT WE ARE CALLED TO HOLINESS.

Some readers obviously want their miserable, dysfunctional lives portrayed as something good. To be celebrated. That’s a lie. That’s self-delusion. That’s nihilism. Take “Married with Children,” the story of a miserable man, living a miserable life, whose primary interaction with his family is giving them money and how the Bundy’s lot in life is more misery, unless we’re talking about boobies. And his non-wife and non-mother who just exists to shop, tries to make food, and who asks for sex from her reluctant “husband.”

But there are some today that:

A) Loathe the books, movies and TV shows of 50 years ago. Why? Because they showed romance and beauty and courage and sacrifice, and people getting along. Oh sure, there was evil, but you could clearly tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys. Growing up with all this, I learned that life was not all about pleasure. People got sick and died and wives lost their husbands in war. But noooooo… I want to roll in the mud. I want the sick, twisted and perverted, either because my own life stinks or I was raised in an environment where I was taught to admire those things.

B) We knew they were actors but we admired them. Why? Because their public example was reflective of someone good and genuinely likable. Someone you’d want to meet. If I saw a beautiful girl on screen, my first thought was about her whole whole person, her behavior, followed by, “I wish, when I get older, I could meet and fall in love with a girl like her.”

NOTE TO CATHOLIC AUTHORS: Stop writing mental poison. Stop imitating the other writers out there. Otherwise, how are you being Catholic? How are you showing good example to anyone? How are you the bearer of the good, the salt of the earth?

Do we, Catholic and not, want a better world for all? Not just food and clothing for the poor but good food for the mind and soul and a better culture? A culture that is lifted up - not down among the hookers, the pimps, the drug dealers, those who can’t control themselves, and those who love, i mean looooooove, the dirty, the filthy and the perverted.

Forty years ago, I loved reading books and watching TV and I couldn’t wait for more. I loved it. Today, what is your favorite episode of the Sopranos or Dexter or Californication?

The writers didn’t say the words that were written, but the actors did. So, everybody’s off the hook. The writers because “I didn’t say those words out loud.” And the actors because “Those weren’t words I wanted to say. I was paid to repeat them from a script written by somebody else.”

Deal with it. We all want a better world. And no, I am not suggesting the world was perfect 50 years ago but it was a lot better for a lack of cursing in fiction. You could pretend you were a pilot, or a space explorer or in a beautiful romance, which could have its ups and downs. But when you were done, you felt good, even inspired. Your mind was at ease and it was a pleasure to read about courage and sacrifice and true love. And I never got tired of crime stories where the criminal was brought to justice, not murdered by Dirty Harry.

For those who think, “I want to leave this world a better place. I want to help make it a better place.” Please – do it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

Writing today is morally dead.

It is not!

It is soulless and insensitive.

Those are words that mean nothing until further explained.

I have heard it said from a friend of mine, “Oh, I didn’t like those TV shows from 50 years ago. No one could live up to that.”

That is totally irrelevant. Whether every character is moral is irrelevant to whether the novel is of good quality.

Some readers obviously want their miserable, dysfunctional lives portrayed as something good. To be celebrated. That’s a lie. That’s self-delusion. That’s nihilism.

I agree entirely. That does not preclude the possibility of including “miserable, dysfunctional” characters, only that the glorification thereof is not good in real life.

A) Loathe the books, movies and TV shows of 50 years ago. Why? Because they showed romance and beauty and courage and sacrifice, and people getting along.

So? There is nothing wrong with that. We are not required to pursue art that only “shows romance etc.”

Oh sure, there was evil, but you could clearly tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys.

So? Not everyone wants a fairy tale in which this is the case. You are certainly permitted to enjoy such stories, but it is not required, and stories that are not so simplistic are similarly not problematic.

B) We knew they were actors but we admired them. Why? Because their public example was reflective of someone good and genuinely likable. Someone you’d want to meet. If I saw a beautiful girl on screen, my first thought was about her whole whole person, her behavior, followed by, “I wish, when I get older, I could meet and fall in love with a girl like her.”

Irrelevant.

The writers didn’t say the words that were written, but the actors did. So, everybody’s off the hook. The writers because “I didn’t say those words out loud.” And the actors because “Those weren’t words I wanted to say. I was paid to repeat them from a script written by somebody else.”

Both of those things are completely accurate. We are talking about fictional people saying fictional things.

 

[Portrait]

I think this statement provides clear evidence regarding what Portrait stated. There was a New York Times Book Review during the time period.

Writing today is morally dead.

It is soulless and insensitive.

I have heard it said from a friend of mine, “Oh, I didn’t like those TV shows from 50 years ago. No one could live up to that.” Translation: Let’s not even try to be a little bit like that. It’s too hard. It takes work. I live a mediocre life and I don’t want to be reminded in any way, shape or form, that I could do better. I’m lazy and showing me a good alternative makes feel uncomfortable and I never want to feel uncomfortable.

On a Catholic Forum IT BETTER BE CLEAR TO ALL THAT WE ARE CALLED TO HOLINESS.

Some readers obviously want their miserable, dysfunctional lives portrayed as something good. To be celebrated. That’s a lie. That’s self-delusion. That’s nihilism. Take “Married with Children,” the story of a miserable man, living a miserable life, whose primary interaction with his family is giving them money and how the Bundy’s lot in life is more misery, unless we’re talking about boobies. And his non-wife and non-mother who just exists to shop, tries to make food, and who asks for sex from her reluctant “husband.”

But there are some today that:

A) Loathe the books, movies and TV shows of 50 years ago. Why? Because they showed romance and beauty and courage and sacrifice, and people getting along. Oh sure, there was evil, but you could clearly tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys. Growing up with all this, I learned that life was not all about pleasure. People got sick and died and wives lost their husbands in war. But noooooo… I want to roll in the mud. I want the sick, twisted and perverted, either because my own life stinks or I was raised in an environment where I was taught to admire those things.

B) We knew they were actors but we admired them. Why? Because their public example was reflective of someone good and genuinely likable. Someone you’d want to meet. If I saw a beautiful girl on screen, my first thought was about her whole whole person, her behavior, followed by, “I wish, when I get older, I could meet and fall in love with a girl like her.”

NOTE TO CATHOLIC AUTHORS: Stop writing mental poison. Stop imitating the other writers out there. Otherwise, how are you being Catholic? How are you showing good example to anyone? How are you the bearer of the good, the salt of the earth?

Do we, Catholic and not, want a better world for all? Not just food and clothing for the poor but good food for the mind and soul and a better culture? A culture that is lifted up - not down among the hookers, the pimps, the drug dealers, those who can’t control themselves, and those who love, i mean looooooove, the dirty, the filthy and the perverted.

Forty years ago, I loved reading books and watching TV and I couldn’t wait for more. I loved it. Today, what is your favorite episode of the Sopranos or Dexter or Californication?

The writers didn’t say the words that were written, but the actors did. So, everybody’s off the hook. The writers because “I didn’t say those words out loud.” And the actors because “Those weren’t words I wanted to say. I was paid to repeat them from a script written by somebody else.”

Deal with it. We all want a better world. And no, I am not suggesting the world was perfect 50 years ago but it was a lot better for a lack of cursing in fiction. You could pretend you were a pilot, or a space explorer or in a beautiful romance, which could have its ups and downs. But when you were done, you felt good, even inspired. Your mind was at ease and it was a pleasure to read about courage and sacrifice and true love. And I never got tired of crime stories where the criminal was brought to justice, not murdered by Dirty Harry.

For those who think, “I want to leave this world a better place. I want to help make it a better place.” Please – do it.

Peace,
Ed

Dear edwest,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Jolly splendid (name removed by moderator)ut and a hearty Amen to all of your comments, my dear chap.

In the past, dear brother, blasphemy and profanity as well as obscenity and indecency were, of course, contained in censorship. Sadly the post-Christian mindset has tolerated ventures into profanity which would have shocked previous generations. An unspoken etiquette emanated from a Christian consciousness and spread among the bulk of the population and this greatly helped keep moral and cultural deterioration in check. Alas, this is no longer the case and it has to be said that professing Christians today are so conformed to the world that they have, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be the salt of the earth or the moral disinfectant of the world.

The post-Christian world-view has operated to persuade the public that there are no boundaries of good taste or decency which cannot be transgressed in the name of ‘art’. There is, dear friend, plenty of evidence that the public can be bamboozled into acceptance of any profanity, absurdity or obscenity provided self-assumed artistic authority so decrees. Is it any wonder that those who dare to uphold high standards in the arts and literature are intensely disliked? What the post-Chistian mindset hates most in thoroughgoing Christians is that morally they know where they stand and that the positions they tenaciously cling to are corroborated by centuries of experience. Men today are desperate to be released from the past and an allegedly outmoded Victorian prudery and that is why they are adrift on a sea of moral uncertainty.

God bless and thankyou for your contributions, which are always a joy to read.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

Thank you for your kind words and constant show of charity and restraint.

Today, right now, Catholic or non-Catholic, there are two directions:

morality <<<<<<<<< mediocrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> immorality

50 years ago, there were people practicing immorality, the same immorality we see in the Bible written much earlier. But, for a time, there was a calm. No, it was not perfect. But there was a lessening toward the immoral. The mind requires good food, the body requires good food and the spirit requires good food. And we need to rest and exercise. Life is to be enjoyed as well. Restraints were put into place for good reason. There were common rules and shared values.

Before: Parties had a beginning, a middle and an end.

Now: “Let’s party!” is a call to excess.

Before: Time to exercise.

Now: Xtreme sports.

Before: Male-female relationships required certain steps be followed - joyfully - for a chance at true happiness. Young ladies were to be treated with respect. There was dating, going steady, courtship, engagement and marriage. Or not. Children were a “bundle of joy” and a “gift from God.”

Growing up in an environment where I saw all these things, I knew, even in my early teens, that this worked. That it was beneficial to all. Again, it was not perfect, but it was indeed much better.

Then the strangers appeared, offering us “freedom,” and they actively lived out their lack of faith and respect for any authority. From day one, it was clear that they wanted a society as it is today – in their image and likeness, and where they recognize nothing as true or right, just whatever satisfies their eyes and their flesh. And most important of all: their lack of anything one might call morality, to any degree, is held up and put in our faces:

“You must accept what I want. You must raise it to the status of a good. You must celebrate it. Or you will face condemnation.”

The easy answer? Who’s stopping you from living how you want? And for years, they wanted Christians to stop caring. To say nothing about their lifestyle. Now they want it all subsidized under the guise of rights.

What was beautiful in the arts was reformed into that same image. They know the power of the written word. To say otherwise is a lie.

The one secular sin is this: boredom. But that is also a denial of what God has given them. So when the Master returns and finds the servant who was given one talent had done nothing with it, what will he say?

We don’t struggle against flesh and blood, but we read what those who are deceived say every day.

For writers, and artists, they were all slowly, gradually pushed in this direction, like the rest of us. Some believe, wrongly, that we had plumbed the depths of courage and virtue and true love and true families for too long. Due to our fallen state, the next step, for some, had to be in the opposite direction.

And the dials labeled Sick, Twisted, Immoral and Horrific – they were all gradually turned up a little as the decades passed. We have so-called “soft porn” on TV now. The only direction it has to go is more explicitness, and more explicitness, until we reach the graphic porn level. Even rape has been added to the “”"“entertainment”"" mix.

We Catholics have every opportunity, right now, to be that remnant. The ones to renew the culture. And not just by what little strength we have but by the strength God will give us if we ask Him.

We have the problem and the answer right in front of us:

"The Holy Father says:

If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

Additional commentary from the practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

We who are creative must throw away the rotten fruit from the last 40 years. We must discard it for the anti-virtue, anti-loving, nihilistic, sick, twisted and perverted thing it became and all that continues today. We must search out those things that existed in the past first, and show the utmost discernment over anything labeled “entertainment” since that time.

Only then can we be more authentically human. Only then can we help to revive those things that were lost and give body, mind and spirit good fruit to enjoy and savor. True virtue, true heroism, true sacrifice, true love and true commitment - so we can nourish all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your responses.

In the second paragraph of my post, dear friend, I thought that I had provided some convincing arguments as to why no distinction is to be drawn between a fictional context and the real world, as regards use of profanity. It admits of no doubt that when an author makes use of expletives or ribald plot lines he ipso facto depreciates the moral worth and sentiment of his book. This is surely manifestly obvious, since such unwholesome content hardly enhances and ennobles his literary work, irrespective of whether he deems such material essential to the books storyline. Clearly, his material is hardly likely to elevate to a higher plane of thought and feeling, those who have the misfortune to read it. Moreover, if your author professes the religion of Christ, then he is undeniably not being a credible witness of that religion or commending it to others. Non-Christians who have ample opportunity to observe the offences against good taste commited by religious professors are not thereby encouraged to assume the mantle Christ’s religion themselves. That is a very grave matter indeed and such perversity only serves to bring contempt upon our most holy faith (cf. Rom. 2: 24).

Indeed, dear friend, there is a distinction between the world of fiction and the world of fantasy and this I would not stop to deny. However, one cannot drive a wedge between those worlds with respect to the usage of profanity and smut, since they are offences against decency regardless of whether we are in the realm of an imaginary world or not. Those words and smutty plot lines still have the capacity to offend and corrupt public morals, which is precisely what has occured since the avant-garde of the permissive Sixties broke loose from the moral uprightness of previous generations when a Christian consciouness still held sway.

It is because, dear brother, that non-Christians habitually swear (even when they are not expressing anger) nowaday’s that they are shocked when those who profess religion also use bad language. Even though they are ungodly themselves, they can still see that it is incongrous with a profession of religion to curse and swear. In their simple minds ‘religious types’ just do not use bad language, full stop.

Yes, dear friend, I do appreciate that swearing is not always an expression of anger, but that does not in way lessen its offensiveness against good taste. It will always be unacceptable in polite society where good manners have not been corrupted.

Authors, dear friend, are eager to get their books published for that is their livlihood. To this end they will undoubtedly pander to what they think the book buying public want. Thus given today’s immoral climate it does seem perfectly reasonable to assume that they will resort to the use of expletives and salacious story lines. The only exception would be if they were men of recititude, motivated by more than just wanting to make it quickly to Easy Street.

The inclusion of four-lettter words and unsavoury content will never ennoble a literary work and therefore should never be used, for it will only degrade it and impair it from a morally healthy standpoint.

The older novels, dear friend, frequently had unsavoury characters and yet they were never made to utter expletives by the author. If good thrilling tales good be written then, without having to have recourse to foul language and obscenity, then why not now? Is it perhaps that our more liberated age regards such novels as bland and ‘corny’, too much like morality tales where good and evil is too sharply defined?

Contemporary literature is anything but intellectually stimulating, dear friend, and is mostly tawdry and eminently forgetable. Moreover, it often subtly (sometimes not so subtly) promotes a liberal agenda and seeks normalize alternative lifestyles, such as homosexual acts of depravity or transsexualism. It will also champion the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of any other consideration. This would never have occured in times past and would have been quite rightly frowned upon by the public.

My dear brother, were such classic films as *Shane, High Noon, Bridge Over The River Kwai, It’s A *Wonderful Life and The Ten Commandments “insipid and mentally dead”? Surely these films are of enduring worth and that is why they continue to be in popular demand even today, perhaps because men recognize that they in stark contrast to the bilge water that passes for entertainment today. Yes, they were creations of their time, but that time was still very much influenced by a Christian consciousness, unlike today, alas.

As to television of yesteryear, my wife and I have just been watching DVD’s of that highly influential 60’s drama series The Fugitive (starring the late David Janssen). This is a lovely heartwaming series suitable for all the family and it is decidedly not “insipid and mentally dead”. On the contary, it is perfectly constructed and maintains constant tension. In fact, dear friend, the series made Mr. Janssen one of TV’s first superstars, as in each episode he portrays the poor restless soul who roamed America in pursuit of the real killer of his wife (a one-armed man), getting involved with complete strangers in need. Compelling and wholesome entertainment, the like of which is very absent from our screens today. How sad.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

We must proceed from the fundamentals first, i.e.

Please define this in such a way that your definition may by itself properly categorize an arbitrary work of fiction.

This can be organized as a logical argument in the following way:

1. Swearing reveals the state of the author’s heart that he is prepared to use bad language in his novel.
2. Swearing conveys the impression to an author’s readers that he approves of it (even if that is not the case in real life)
3. From 2), if he is a professing Christian, he is violating standards of Christian testimony.
   Therefore, swearing in novels is morally impermissible.

There is a parallel argument as follows:

1. Swearing in novels contributes to moral decline etc.
   Therefore, swearing in novels is morally impermissible

One may supply without problem that contribution to moral decline is impermissible.

The logic of your argument is sound. The problem is that the premises are flawed and/or unproven. For example, I justly claim that the only conclusion one may draw concerning the author’s mindset from the presence of swear words in a novel is that the author decided to include swear words in the novel. I could also challenge the unproven second premise in your first argument in at least two ways: that such an impression is not conveyed; that the responsibility of the author does not extend to actions over which he has no control, i.e. interpretation of his fictional text.

So too may I challenge the fact that swearing inherently and in all cases contributes to moral decline, the burden of proof of which claim seems rather lofty to me.

The fact that the justification for your condemnation of swearing assumes that readers are children or illiterates proves my assertion that it is, in fact, a question of imposing on writers in that way.

It is hardly a myth; it is a reality among those who are not children and illiterates, as I stated previously.

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your further reply to my post.

By ‘culturally unhealthy fiction’, dear friend, I advert to that sort of literature which contains profanity, blasphemy or obscenity and which is an afront to correct and tasteful standards and, therefore, calculated to be a negative unwholesome influence.

My line of reasoning is not unsound, dear friend, but is in fact quite self-evident. First, if the author made the choice to make use of four-letter words then that does reveal something to his readers, namely that he has no scruples as to the morality or propriety of using such profanity - “out of the abundance of his heart” his pen writes. It will surely be assumed that he is a man of the world and not overly prissy regarding such matters. Now if he professes the holy religion of Christ then this is clearly an issue, for it is incongrous with such a religious profession, which is desirous of maintaining good standards in all areas of life, including professional life. Second, a writer is responsible for how his readers perceive his fictional work, for he is the one who is the author of it and has exercised his choice to include swear-words or unsavoury content. Thus it is simply wrong to say that he had “no control”, for he most certainly did, inasmuch as he had the freedom to ethier use profanity or not use it, to include salacious content or not include it.

Incontrovertibly, dear friend, the use of bad or foul language will not be conducive to promoting a morally and godly outlook and can only but contribute to the coarsening of manners in society. There is no need for men to utter profanity in any context and its use is chiefly bound up with a loss of control or downright boorishness and we Catholics should never seek to excuse its use.

When it comes to the use of swearing or cursing, being children or being uneducated does not enter into it, dear friend. It is more about authors themselves having standards of decency which they will not transgress for any reason. Moreover, refraining from using profanity actually assumes the best of one’s readers by taking for granted that they also are respectable and decent folk who find such debased language distasteful.

Adults, dear friend, are still fallen beings and must needs take care that they do not befoul their souls with the distracting and demoralizing influences of the godless world, including the arts and literature. St. Paul would profoundly disagree that absorbing literature containing unwholsome content and expletives will not affect one adversely if they spiritually strong enough. He admonished us to “Be not deceived: Bad company ruins good morals”(I Cor. 15: 33) - and by reasonable extention that can be applied to bad books, bad music and bad film and TV. The apostle was not of the opinion that as adults we somehow outgrow all of that sort of thing. Moreover, he also exhorted us to “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on these things” (Philipp. 4: 8). Now how can we accommodate the use of four-letter words and obscenity, even in works of fiction, in the view of this? How can we switch off our minds if we are writers and pretend that this does not matter and that we can remain impervious to foul-language or salacious plot lines?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

It admits of no doubt that when an author makes use of expletives or ribald plot lines he ipso facto depreciates the moral worth and sentiment of his book.

It does admit doubt given that the use of profanity at all (in real life) is not inherently sinful according to Catholic teaching. Furthermore, it is not inherently immoral to include immoral actions within fiction.

This is surely manifestly obvious, since such unwholesome content hardly enhances and ennobles his literary work,

Perhaps to you; the Church and God both disagree.

Clearly, his material is hardly likely to elevate to a higher plane of thought and feeling, those who have the misfortune to read it.

This is not clear to me at all; I cannot think of a single book in which there was no sin at all.

However, one cannot drive a wedge between those worlds with respect to the usage of profanity and smut, since they are offences against decency regardless of whether we are in the realm of an imaginary world or not.

Pornography is clearly immoral; that is not the subject here. The Church does not condemn swearing as sinful in all occasions, so it is hardly an offense against dignity. Furthermore, the Church recognizes the difference between reality and fiction, and consequently does not condemn all immorality in fiction.

It is because, dear brother, that non-Christians habitually swear (even when they are not expressing anger) nowaday’s that they are shocked when those who profess religion also use bad language.

That is an unjustified generalization.

Even though they are ungodly themselves, they can still see that it is incongrous with a profession of religion to curse and swear. In their simple minds ‘religious types’ just do not use bad language, full stop.

Rather, societal stereotypes dictate that extremely religious people do not swear. That is not the same as what you describe.

Yes, dear friend, I do appreciate that swearing is not always an expression of anger, but that does not in way lessen its offensiveness against good taste. It will always be unacceptable in polite society where good manners have not been corrupted.

The educated, elite society has always used bad language. I am happy to provide references from any literate period of this. If you define “polite society” as “society that does not swear,” then your argument is meaningless because it is tautological.

The only exception would be if they were men of recititude, motivated by more than just wanting to make it quickly to Easy Street.

Those interested in producing high-quality art may still feel compelled to have their characters sin in a given way or to have them use profanity.

The inclusion of four-lettter words and unsavoury content will never ennoble a literary work and therefore should never be used, for it will only degrade it and impair it from a morally healthy standpoint.

Could you please point me in the direction of the Church teaching that states this?

The older novels, dear friend, frequently had unsavoury characters and yet they were never made to utter expletives by the author.

Catullus 16

If good thrilling tales good be written then, without having to have recourse to foul language and obscenity, then why not now?

That is the wrong question. The correct one is whether there is a moral compulsion to omit profanity.

Contemporary literature is anything but intellectually stimulating, dear friend, and is mostly tawdry and eminently forgetable.

Perhaps you have been reading banal books.

Moreover, it often subtly (sometimes not so subtly) promotes a liberal agenda and seeks normalize alternative lifestyles, such as homosexual acts of depravity or transsexualism.

Perhaps you have been reading overly-preachy books.

It will also champion the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of any other consideration.

I have never encountered this scenario in literature.

This would never have occured in times past and would have been quite rightly frowned upon by the public.

Read Tess of the d’Urbervilles and then talk to me about motherly love.

My dear brother, were such classic films as *Shane, High Noon, Bridge Over The River Kwai, It’s A *Wonderful Life and The Ten Commandments “insipid and mentally dead”?

Yes. They were totally insipid. How dull. The Ten Commandments was almost impossible for me to get through. I fail to see what contribution it made to art as a whole, other than falling into a line of high-budget epics.

Surely these films are of enduring worth and that is why they continue to be in popular demand even today,

Britney Spears is still in demand; that does not make her music worth our while.

 

[Baelor]

perhaps because men recognize that they in stark contrast to the bilge water that passes for entertainment today.

Or perhaps because most individuals cannot respond to anything other than moral anvils being dropped on their heads, and are incapable of appreciating anything other than vapidly didactic fiction.

In fact, dear friend, the series made Mr. Janssen one of TV’s first superstars, as in each episode he portrays the poor restless soul who roamed America in pursuit of the real killer of his wife (a one-armed man), getting involved with complete strangers in need.

Where is the tension?

By ‘culturally unhealthy fiction’, dear friend, I advert to that sort of literature which contains profanity, blasphemy or obscenity and which is an afront to correct and tasteful standards and, therefore, calculated to be a negative unwholesome influence.

Violence and general sinfulness is permitted, then?

My line of reasoning is not unsound, dear friend, but is in fact quite self-evident.

The last resort has come!

First, if the author made the choice to make use of four-letter words then that does reveal something to his readers, namely that he has no scruples as to the morality or propriety of using such profanity

A position that is corroborated by Catholic teaching.

Now if he professes the holy religion of Christ then this is clearly an issue, for it is incongrous with such a religious profession, which is desirous of maintaining good standards in all areas of life, including professional life.

Catholicism does not condemn all profanity.

Second, a writer is responsible for how his readers perceive his fictional work, for he is the one who is the author of it and has exercised his choice to include swear-words or unsavoury content.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. You have still not explained how the author is even going to manage the interpretation of his (potentially) millions of readers. Why should the onus fall on them? If someone misinterprets his novel, why is he culpable? If he does not seek to push a moral or immoral message, and someone feels that he is, why should he be held responsible?

Thus it is simply wrong to say that he had “no control”, for he most certainly did, inasmuch as he had the freedom to ethier use profanity or not use it, to include salacious content or not include it.

That is irrelevant; see above.

Incontrovertibly, dear friend, the use of bad or foul language will not be conducive to promoting a morally and godly outlook and can only but contribute to the coarsening of manners in society.

“Coarsening of manners,” so long as it is not sinful, is permissible.

It is more about authors themselves having standards of decency which they will not transgress for any reason.

Catholicism understands decency different than you.

Moreover, refraining from using profanity actually assumes the best of one’s readers by taking for granted that they also are respectable and decent folk who find such debased language distasteful.

That does not follow; you are incorrectly defining “respectable and decent folk.”

He admonished us to “Be not deceived: Bad company ruins good morals”(I Cor. 15: 33) - and by reasonable extention that can be applied to bad books, bad music and bad film and TV.

No, it cannot. “Bad company” involves real people; fiction does not. This is a fundamental difference that you have yet to grasp.

 

[edwest2]

Wow. What a list of dodges and excuses. What I’m seeing here is a sharp, dedicated eye from the Excusers. Those who are committed to finding excuses. And those who simply say: You’re wrong! Period!!!

The poison dripped into our veins over the last 40 years has not gone unnoticed:

themillions.com/2011/11/where-have-all-the-catholic-writers-gone.html

Like hundreds of hammers pounding against a wall, dissidents inside and outside the Church began to crack it starting in 1968. They had to attack it from all sides - with words, with artwork, with fiction, and on rare occasion, non-fiction, along with lies, half-truths, and protest signs. They were as committed as Orthodox Catholics were and are today. That is the issue. They would breach the walls of the Church. They would be in charge. They would defy God and build a tower to the heavens and turn everything into Babel.

The Excusers can keep their excuses. The dissidents have died off. Those voices of deception. These are the villains in the story of the mass assault that began in 1968 and culminated in the five year plan that in 1973, created the biggest lie and death sentence ever given to a people since World War II – the Supreme Court legalized abortion - not the people.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Yes, the 1960s had great TV. Mission Impossible (spy-espionage drama), the Avengers (spy/espionage) and Star Trek, where, in one episode, the Captain of the Enterprise makes a reference to an alien race and Sun worship. His Communications Officer corrects him. She said these people weren’t talking about the Sun but the Son of God whose words profoundly affected them. And aside from a few flying saucers in previous science fiction movies, we saw a quantum leap in technology: compact communicators with ground to space capability, compact energy weapons called phasers, matter transporters that disassembled and reassembled living and non-living things, and sent them from ship to ship and ship to ground. And a spaceship whose like we would not see again until Star Wars.

No, we’re done here. In any war, as in World War II, artists and writers were among the first to be recruited. The Walt Disney Company designed service patches for the US Army Air Force, Dr. Seuss was employed to illustrate a booklet for troops about the dangers of disease carrying mosquitoes, and comic book great, Will Eisner, illustrated booklets for soldiers that illustrated, in perfect detail, the handling, use and operation of field artillery. And propaganda. Writers were employed to feed innocent looking stories to the foreign press to frighten, confuse and demoralize the enemy. Allied bombers dropped leaflets all over German held territory that were carefully written to lower the morale of troops, to frighten them and to imply that the worse was yet to come.

Things have changed.

blog.catholicwritersguild.com/2012/09/inspiring-catholic-writers.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

What I’m seeing here is a sharp, dedicated eye from the Excusers. Those who are committed to finding excuses.

I would rather be sharp and dedicated than mentally flabby and limp.

My goodness, your rants are irrelevant. Not once did you actually discuss the morality of anything, but rather your artistic preferences.

I am happy the Catholic Church rejoices in diversity within its framework of absolutism.

 

[edwest2]

I would rather be sharp and dedicated than mentally flabby and limp.

My goodness, your rants are irrelevant. Not once did you actually discuss the morality of anything, but rather your artistic preferences.

I am happy the Catholic Church rejoices in diversity within its framework of absolutism.

I am against embracing perversity. There are moral absolutes, but like an expert in the martial arts, you are highly skilled at dodging the obvious.

Most fine art today is the voice of the destruction of all that is good and beautiful, and embracing the darkness and/or perverse. In my advanced painting class in the 1970s, I saw the art drones producing canvas after canvas of totally meaningless marks and symbols, and as the decades passed, I watched the darkness descend on fiction. It was, and still is, garbage - suitable for landfill or the local tip (to borrow a foreign word to the US meaning).

Peace,
Ed

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your recent responses.

Can you, dear friend, adduce magisterial teaching which clearly states that profanity is not inherently wrong? Surely cursing and swearing is a sin against the Second Commandment. Profanity comes under the sin of unjust anger and is mostly associated with that or with just plain boorishness. At any rate, I cannot see how it can be squared with a profession of godliness. Moreover, we express our love for God by imitating Christ, whom God has sent not only as our Saviour but also as our Model. Would He have used or condoned the use of profanity, should we condone and use it?

Does our Church, dear friend, really need to teach us that a novel peppered with four-letter words and unwholesome content is not ennobling or worthy of praise? Does not our own conscience inform us of that truth? If it does not then perhaps we need to ask if we have a radically defective conscience that has become desensitized by the prevailing godless cullture with which we are sadly surrounded. Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of Catholics never use profanity, strongly sugests that they do have a well-formed conscience that tells that swearing is wrong.

Sin is another matter, dear friend, and certainly Sacred Scripture itself contains instances of men’s sinful deeds and words, but these things are written not for the purposes of entertainment but to instruct men in the ways of godliness. This is poles apart from the use of bad language and unsavoury plot lines in books written for entertainment only.

It is a common sense deduction that men of the world would be surprised and shocked to hear a professing Christian use four-letter words.

What you refer to as “societal sterotypes” have been the result of the influence of a Christian consciousness from previous centuries, antecedent to the permissive revolution of the Sixties. We should all, dear friend, be earnestly religious because we are all called to a life of sanctity and separation from the godless world. Therefore we will strive to avoid its unwholesome influences and this will include avoiding the use of profanity on all occasions. It is not compatible with cultivating a more intimate union with our Lord.

In the course of my life, dear friend, it has been my pleasure to be acquainted with many people having refined tastes and manners and a good education, and yet none of them used profane language in their discourse. Indeed, bad language was always considered to be unacceptable and distasteful and usually associated with boorishness, even by those who did not identify as Christians. There will always be exceptions but they do not disprove what has generally been the norm in polite society.

It is certainly morally acceptable for characters in books to do things which are wrong and sinful, but that is a wholly different thing from sexually explicit material that comes jolly near to the wind and which contains a liberal sprinkling of profanity. It is the latter which is now sadly prevalent, especially in the West, once the centre of Christian civilisation. However, a talented author will not need to feel “compelled” to use profanity to make his novel engaging and neither will he need to incorporate a large measure of filth to spice it up.

Where, dear friend, in magisterial teaching does it state that four-letter words and unsavoury content will not degrade or impair a literary work from a moral perspective? Surely this again is a matter of sanctified common sense and there is no requirement for official Church pronoucments. The faithful do not need to be spoon fed regarding such issues and to want to be so fed is evidence of spiritual immaturity and an inability to discriminate between what is good and bad and what is acceptable and unacceptable. We are, as the writer to the Hebrews states, to have our senses exercised to discern good and evil (Heb. 5: 14).

Your link makes very depressing reading and only highlights the moral degeneracy of the ancient world, which exhibited an awful catalogue of sins including sexual vice. This degeneracy even extended to the elite and so we should not be surprised at their use of profanity, rather in their case we should almost expect it.

There is a moral obligation to omit profanity and filth if one professes the holy religion of Christ.

The general consensus would, I feel, dear friend, be on my side with regards to those outstanding classic films which I cited.

Britney Spears is hardly in the same league as The Ten Commandments or Bridge Over The River Kawi and they are clearly in demand for very different reasons.

God bless. My supper is now ready so I will bid you goodbye for now, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

I am against embracing perversity.

I do not think there are many persons would claim they are for embracing diversity.

There are moral absolutes,

I too believe in moral absolutes. Why do you suggest that I do not? The Church teaches that there are moral absolutes, but not that all morals are absolute.

but like an expert in the martial arts, you are highly skilled at dodging the obvious.

The obvious should be impossible to dodge, so it appears that it is not so obvious after all.

What have I said that is factually incorrect? If the correct is manifest, so too should be the incorrect.

Most fine art today is the voice of the destruction of all that is good and beautiful, and embracing the darkness and/or perverse.

What is a metric that can be used to determine this for a particular work of art?

 

[Baelor]

Can you, dear friend, adduce magisterial teaching which clearly states that profanity is not inherently wrong?

Yes: its absence is proof enough. The Church does not hold us to absolutes that She has not articulated in Her doctrine. The room for individual decisions come with our consciences, but the Church speaks on issues on which all our consciences must align. Thus, because the Church has spoken extensively on pornography, decency, etc. but not on the inherent immorality of all swearing, that should be proof enough.

Furthermore, one can reason out the problem with saying that swearing is in all cases sinful: words are created by society, not by God. Four-letter words in English did not exist in nature, waiting to be discovered, but rather developed as a result of social processes. This demonstrates adequately that there is no such thing as an inherent swear word, but rather a word that is deemed “swearing” by the society.

What makes swearing impermissible? Is it an arbitrary absolute? Hardly. I think we would agree that swearing offends the sensibilities of others and/or shows disrespect toward them. Now, if someone is neither offended at nor disrespected by swear words, then the usage of swear words around them loses the bases for its problematic nature. Thus, I have demonstrated that swear words are not in all cases sinful, as they are sinful only circumstantially.

Furthermore, there are occasions when one swears not at someone but at a circumstance, e.g. a grievous error, physical pain, etc. If any utterance of dismay or surprise is permissible, what makes swearing impermissible if those around are neither offended nor even shocked?

Surely cursing and swearing is a sin against the Second Commandment.

The Church does not agree, q.v. the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Second Commandment.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible or even Catholic theology, or is capable of thought at all, will realize that the Second Commandment concerns itself only with the name of Our Lord and oaths taken in His name. This should be obvious from the Bible.

Profanity comes under the sin of unjust anger and is mostly associated with that or with just plain boorishness.

You just said that it was against the Second Commandment, and now you are saying it is a sin of anger. I am confused.

Furthermore, not all swearing is done in anger, and “boorishness” is hardly a sin, even if swearing is boorish.

At any rate, I cannot see how it can be squared with a profession of godliness.

Reality does not depend on what concepts you are capable of grasping.

Moreover, we express our love for God by imitating Christ, whom God has sent not only as our Saviour but also as our Model. Would He have used or condoned the use of profanity, should we condone and use it?

I am not in a position to make a claim either way. God teaches us to be respectful of others.

Does our Church, dear friend, really need to teach us that a novel peppered with four-letter words and unwholesome content is not ennobling or worthy of praise?

Define “unwholesome.” Give me a metric that can be used to determine whether any piece of art is permissible or not.

Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of Catholics never use profanity, strongly sugests that they do have a well-formed conscience that tells that swearing is wrong.

What is your source?

Furthermore, that is irrelevant. You cannot claim that even Catholics are corrupted by the evils of the modern godless society and then make an argumentum ad numerum based on the actions of Catholics.

 

[Baelor]

This is poles apart from the use of bad language and unsavoury plot lines in books written for entertainment only.

What about bad language and unsavory plot lines that are not written for entertainment only?

It is a common sense deduction that men of the world would be surprised and shocked to hear a professing Christian use four-letter words.

Clearly it is not common enough. You have provided no evidence, and I see no reason why I should believe you, especially because my own sense – clearly not so common that it extends to you – is fairly certain that that is not the case.

What you refer to as “societal sterotypes” have been the result of the influence of a Christian consciousness from previous centuries, antecedent to the permissive revolution of the Sixties.

So you admit they exist, and thus the alleged surprise at Christians swearing is not due to an inherent aspect of the sensibilities of others.

In the course of my life, dear friend, it has been my pleasure to be acquainted with many people having refined tastes and manners and a good education,

I do not believe you.

and yet none of them used profane language in their discourse.

I have met many refined, educated persons who use profane language, some of them priests who tolerate no heterodoxy and have beliefs that I find impermissible conservative.

Indeed, bad language was always considered to be unacceptable and distasteful and usually associated with boorishness, even by those who did not identify as Christians.

This is quite untrue; perhaps you should read more history. The Victorian era is the only one I can imagine that was so stringent.

There will always be exceptions but they do not disprove what has generally been the norm in polite society.

If there are exceptions, then clearly bad language was NOT “always considered to be unacceptable and distasteful and usually associated with boorishness.”

It is certainly morally acceptable for characters in books to do things which are wrong and sinful,

Such as swearing.

but that is a wholly different thing from sexually explicit material that comes jolly near to the wind and which contains a liberal sprinkling of profanity.

How does one determine which immoral actions of characters are permissible and which are not?

Where, dear friend, in magisterial teaching does it state that four-letter words and unsavoury content will not degrade or impair a literary work from a moral perspective?

It says nothing, which is why making an absolute claim that the Church does not espouse is so problematic.

The faithful do not need to be spoon fed regarding such issues and to want to be so fed is evidence of spiritual immaturity and an inability to discriminate between what is good and bad and what is acceptable and unacceptable.

How then do you explain the pronouncements against pornography and gratuitous violence, the subject of several Church documents?

Your link makes very depressing reading and only highlights the moral degeneracy of the ancient world, which exhibited an awful catalogue of sins including sexual vice. This degeneracy even extended to the elite and so we should not be surprised at their use of profanity, rather in their case we should almost expect it.

In which case you have disproved your own statement:

Portrait:

Indeed, bad language was always considered to be unacceptable and distasteful and usually associated with boorishness, even by those who did not identify as Christians

There is a moral obligation to omit profanity and filth if one professes the holy religion of Christ.

Certainly not.

Britney Spears is hardly in the same league as The Ten Commandments or Bridge Over The River Kawi and they are clearly in demand for very different reasons.

They are in demand because they appeal to the sensibilities and affectations of the masses.

 

[edwest2]

By the grace of God, I have helped create many fictional worlds and characters. I have helped young artists improve their craft and even mentored a young screenwriter. Never. Not once - out of a love for God - did I feel a need for “cursing in fiction.” I was raised on fiction (books, TV shows, movies and song lyrics) that included zero cursing. I was in awe, fascinated and inspired by them, and God saw to it that I am now in a place to bring my ideas to young and old alike.

Sure, sin and evil were portrayed in the past, but not with cursing.

Metric? What is that? I think you’re trying to make the simple sound more complicated than it is.

I ask you to re-read everything Portrait wrote. I also ask you to abandon the false maze that was created for all creative people during the great assault on God that began in the late 1960s.

As Catholics, we are called to imitate Christ, not the world. That is the answer.

But I see it all the time: young creatives who see what is available today in fiction, and think, “This is what I have to do. I need to embrace this because I was never taught that there’s something better. Or, I love the bad, the wrong and the incomprehensible.”

Metric?

I read the last issue of a fine arts magazine and it was filled, from cover to cover, with junk. Incomprehensible nonsense. But it does contain one strange thing: a page where each artist talks about their work presented, what motivates/inspires them, and then they resort - ever so briefly - to becoming human schizophrenics. They explain what the meaningless scratches and scribbles and distorted faces and other flotsam actually means! And, in all cases, it always means nothing that the viewer himself could ever know. To use a coarse example, if someone put a piece like that in front of me with a gun to my head, and asked me to explain it or else – I’d be dead. Laying in a pool of blood.

How’s that for a metric?

Those artists have been brainwashed. They have been taught that art is NO LONGER A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM, it is only what their brainwashers say it should be. It can never be anything else. So they all imitate each other, while the rational part of their brain – like a disembodied voice – tells us what their work means and why they do what they do. They then go back to living in their fantasy world as if they are unaware of the other part of them that gave their art what it needs - a message that is the gift of a true piece of art to a viewer. Not confusion. Not, as I read one brainwasher tell his students: “The viewer – not you – is responsible for interpreting the art.”

And as far as fiction ---- more schizophrenia. “I am not responsible for what my characters say or do.” “I am not responsible for the words they speak because I did not speak them.”

How’s that for a metric? Let’s try Psychology 101.

All action starts with an idea. As a working writer, I create everything: the scene, the mood, the plot, the characters. As I write, I give each character a personality. I imagine being that character. As my story is being developed, I usually run across parts that don’t work or don’t sound right. I then become the problem solver. It may take a day or two, but the solution comes to me. I always need to keep the pace, tone and goal of a particular piece in mind. I have to discard anything that doesn’t advance the story, even if I think it’s a cool idea at the time (I can save that idea for another story). Like a movie, all the words and actions have got to make the reader want to turn the page - to find out what happens next. This applies to action-adventure, or any other genre.

So here’s an interview with you on the TV show: Authors Tonight.

Good evening, book lovers. I’m Jack Grey and our guest tonight is Baelor Smith, author of Dark Hand.

(usual exchange of greetings, etc.)

Jack: I must say, after reading your book, I was reminded of Michael Forest and his best seller.

Baelor: Yes. Murder in Minot County. I must admit I drew some inspiration from his work.

Jack: What most impressed me with Dark Hand was the smooth interactions of the characters and the tone you set. Can you comment on that?

Baelor: Well, I wanted it to be suspenseful without presenting the reader with too many frightening moments. As I was writing it, I found that a little hard to do. I didn’t want to go too over the top. So I had to set up the scenes in such a way that the reader would keep turning the page while keeping the fear at a medium level throughout.

Jack: What about some of your critics who complain that there’s too much cursing in this book and your other books?

Baelor: All I can say is: I’m not responsible for any of the cursing. My characters are.

Jack: What do you mean?

Baelor: I never actually said any of those words. My characters did.

Jack: But you came up with those words, correct? I mean, don’t you think your critics have a valid complaint? You did write the book, not your characters. Right?

Baelor: What’s so hard to understand? I didn’t say those words.

Jack: I hate to press the point, but you wrote the book and as we all know, people are affected by what they read. Don’t you feel in any way responsible for what one critic wrote that you were “aiding and abetting the coarsening of the media culture”?

Baelor: No. Not at all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

Metric? What is that? I think you’re trying to make the simple sound more complicated than it is.

Metric: “(technical) a system or standard of measurement.”

That is, please give me a means by which to determine whether an arbitrary piece of fiction is morally permissible or not.

As Catholics, we are called to imitate Christ, not the world. That is the answer.

Then let us all return to robes, lack of medicine and the society that existed in His time, as His behavior on Earth was constrained (by His choice) in the society in which He lived. If we agree that is unnecessary, then we agree that certain things are morally permissible and others are not. Hence my desire for a metric. Someone who is so frighteningly obsessive as you about this topic should be able to produce one with ease.

“The viewer – not you – is responsible for interpreting the art.”

This is true. This reasoning goes all the way back to the Greeks and allegorical interpretations of Homer. You can check into Porphyry for some early allegorists.

How’s that for a metric?

Rather bad, which is unsurprising given that it is clear you do not know what that word means.

Baelor: All I can say is: I’m not responsible for any of the cursing. My characters are.

That is absurd. I never once claimed that.

Baelor: I never actually said any of those words. My characters did.

This is certainly true. “I” did not swear – my characters did.

Jack: I hate to press the point, but you wrote the book and as we all know, people are affected by what they read. Don’t you feel in any way responsible for what one critic wrote that you were “aiding and abetting the coarsening of the media culture”?

No, not at all – if the simple-minded and illiterate misinterpret and cannot handle a subject, then we should be helping them while permitting art to be created.

 

[edwest2]

You misquoted me. I did not write that I don’t embrace diversity. I wrote that I don’t embrace perversity.

Peace,
Ed