# Vulgar language in fantasy



## RangerWickett (Jun 22, 2007)

I'm curious. A discussion on another forum prompted this statement:



> The reason f*** (and many obscenities) sounds out of place in fantasy novels is genre prudishness, not some actual historical reason.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why "sh**" would be acceptable but "f***" would not except that the fantasy genre is puerile and childish in its tastes.




What do you think? I mean, people swear in real life, and few of them go to the effort to come up with creative but non-vulgar curses, so why is it so rare to see vulgar language in fantasy compared to other genres? Sure, the occasional "By Crom!" is fair, but I think Conan had to have some word in his vocabulary for situations when we would just exclaim, "Holy s***!" or "We are so f***ed."

If you were reading a fantasy novel and someone used the same sorts of swear words we use in our everyday life, what would you think? (Assume that the curses are being used in a reasonable way, and not in some Tarantino-esque marathon of obscenities.)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 22, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> If you were reading a fantasy novel and someone used the same sorts of swear words we use in our everyday life, what would you think?



I'm all for the increased usage of real-world vulgarities in fantasy literature. So much of it sounds unnecessarily neutered to me, particularly when you consider how frequently the protagonists are in life-and-death situations. "By Crom" my *ss. More fantasy heroes should talk like soldiers. Besides, it's not like vulgar, scatological, or otherwise inflammatory speech is a recent invention. 

I'm won't touch the 'genre is puerile' issue --not now, at least--  but I do think the general aversion to salty language (and sex, for that matter) in fantasy fiction is the product of the genre being seen (both inside and outside of the readership) as an outgrowth of juvenile fiction, or even another species of juvenile fiction.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 22, 2007)

Personally I don't really like swearing in fantasy books using the current swears of our society.  For the most part I feel it is unneccesary.  I am more accepting in other genres, but I still don't really like it, just like I don't like graphic sex or rape scenes in my books either.  Maybe it makes me puerile or just a prude, but that is the way it is. 

Of course one reason I don't like it is that I have an eight-year old daughter who is really good at reading over my shoulder.  I don't need her asking what those words are just yet.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 22, 2007)

I'm all for it, mostly because I think authors should be able to write whatever they want without any form of censorship being applied, even if it is just the social standards of what people expect. If using expletives seems to make more sense in the context of the story, or better conveys what the writer has in mind, then they should use them. 

That said, I know there's no historical reason for it, but using the "big two" curse words in the forms of expletives of anger seems like a modern (or even post-modern) trope. Having a fantasy hero glare at the villain and say "F--- you" just seems out of place because it feels like darker, more hardcore writing that's set in modern times has co-opted that already. It doesn't sound out of place to hear something like that being said in an Anita Blake novel, but it'd sound slightly odd if you had Gord the Rogue say it.

As an aside, Thornir, I can understand your position, but it seems like the "protect the children!" stance is becoming over-used. I see so much about books, movies, video games, etc. all being maligned because kids might be exposed to them. In all honesty, I don't think that sort of thing is nearly as damaging as everyone seems to be afraid of, and also it just seems like a poor excuse to try and neuter things meant for adults (by which I mean people in their late teens onward) just because kids might happen to be exposed to them.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2007)

Assuming it's appropriate for the target audience, I have no more objection to seeing the "f-word" or "s-word" in a fantasy novel than I have with seeing the words "the" or "bread."

We're reading the book in English, no matter what language the characters might "really" be speaking, so the author should use English. No blatantly modern slang, but beyond that, everything goes.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 22, 2007)

Gord the Rogue, maybe, would not be cursing, but I would find it completely appropriate if Conan was about to fight a villain, and the villain gave his diabolical monologue, and Conan (who is not good with words) replied with a hearty "F--- you."

Actually, I think this particular trend in my writing might be due to Bobby Shaftoe from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 22, 2007)

Maybe I'm wierd, but...

When I'm reading fantasy (and usually science-fiction that's not near-future Earth, for that matter),  I have this mindset that the characters are speaking their own languages and what I'm reading is a kind of translation.  I mean, the places are named differently, the books are usually rife with internal world-specific terms (animals, for example), and so forth.  So I find the intrusion of modern English swearing to be jarring.  Not as bad as hearing Conan saying 'Dude, we are so hosed.  Game over, man.' but in a similar vein.  Mentally I accept that 'By Crom' is really 'gosh darnit' but hearing the former is in-character, and the latter wouldn't be.


----------



## Croesus (Jun 22, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> If you were reading a fantasy novel and someone used the same sorts of swear words we use in our everyday life, what would you think? (Assume that the curses are being used in a reasonable way, and not in some Tarantino-esque marathon of obscenities.)




I can't stand it, but I don't like vulgarity in real life either. I prefer to be around people who can express themselves adequately without such crutches. 

In novels, as others have said, I find it rather jarring, pulling me out of the story. In addition, I usually read for escapism - the last thing I want in those instances is too much ugliness from real life. Lastly, most of the time when I encounter such language and situations in novels, the authors do so in an incredibly juvenile manner. Some of the stuff I've read has left me convinced the author is a severely disturbed individual.

That said, there are a (very) few authors who, IMO, have handled adult situations well, in a thoughtful and mature manner. One thing I notice about those authors is that vulgarity and offensive material is not pervasive in the book, is not used simply to shock, is part of truly multi-dimensional characters, etc.

IMO, too many people equate vulgarity with maturity. In my experience, it's too often the opposite.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jun 22, 2007)

I like the way BSG and Starwars have handled it by creating their own curses. Starwars has Sithspawn or whatever, BSG has Frack (which I use a whole lot myself).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2007)

See, I find this:



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> When I'm reading fantasy (and usually science-fiction that's not near-future Earth, for that matter),  I have this mindset that the characters are speaking their own languages and what I'm reading is a kind of translation.  I mean, the places are named differently, the books are usually rife with internal world-specific terms (animals, for example), and so forth.




Directly contradicts this:



> So I find the intrusion of modern English swearing to be jarring.




If you're assuming the novel is "translated" into English, why is "s---" or "f---" any more jarring than "house" or "windmill"? In both cases, it's purely an issue of the author "translating" a nonexistant language into terms the reader can understand.


----------



## Croesus (Jun 22, 2007)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I like the way BSG and Starwars have handled it by creating their own curses. Starwars has Sithspawn or whatever, BSG has Frack (which I use a whole lot myself).




Yep, that works for me too. Which makes me suspect a significant part of my dislike for vulgarity in novels is based on how I was raised. If the characters don't use our "bad" words, it's somehow easier to overlook. And to my ear, it's not so jarring - they don't sound like a co-worker at the office, or the guy at the neighborhood convenience store.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 23, 2007)

Croesus said:
			
		

> In novels, as others have said, I find it rather jarring, pulling me out of the story.



I have opposite reaction; having fantasy (or SF) characters use everyday speech --like profanity-- makes them more believable to me.



> In addition, I usually read for escapism - the last thing I want in those instances is too much ugliness from real life.



And yet fantasy stories are rife with bloody violence, diabolism, and loving depictions of war at the Medieval level of technology. Is that ugliness somehow more palatable? Why?



> Lastly, most of the time when I encounter such language and situations in novels, the authors do so in an incredibly juvenile manner.



Profanity has been found in just about every segment of the literature I'm familiar with (initially this involved a few a high-profile court cases, but still...) for the past 75 or so years, including many of the 20th Century greats. Perhaps you should try reading some different books?



> IMO, too many people equate vulgarity with maturity.



By 'people' do you mean 'teenagers'?


----------



## Jeysie (Jun 23, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> In all honesty, I don't think that sort of thing is nearly as damaging as everyone seems to be afraid of, and also it just seems like a poor excuse to try and neuter things meant for adults (by which I mean people in their late teens onward) just because kids might happen to be exposed to them.




Being someone who learned almost every curse word and dirty joke she knows by the age of ten, despite growing up with respectable parents and mainly middle-class surroundings, I'm inclined to agree. I'd like to think I ended up being fairly well-mannered regardless.

Not that I don't find the desire to protect children admirable... just that I know from experience they're not as fragile as we think they are.

Back on the topic at hand, I fall into the "swearing makes it seem more realistic" camp. Overdoing it on the swearing is a turn-off, but it's difficult to pull off euphemisms without making it sound cheesy and/or contrived.

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 23, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> If you're assuming the novel is "translated" into English, why is "s---" or "f---" any more jarring than "house" or "windmill"? In both cases, it's purely an issue of the author "translating" a nonexistant language into terms the reader can understand.




It's the difference between a literal translation and an idiomatic one, maybe.  Or like reading a novel in your native language from a hundred years ago.  Same language, but the slang and idioms and structure  are different.  Remember this line from The Scarlet Letter -- "Behold...there is the woman of the scarlet letter...come, therefore, and let us fling mud at her."  Still English, but odd-sounding to modern ears.  Similarly, when a fantasy novel goes to such great lengths to inject different words and cultures and so forth, resorting to modern slang in any form is jarring, I think.  It's just that profanity is the most likely.  I don't find it objectionable on puritanical grounds (I'm the guy that got a detention in 4th grade for reading The Exorcist in class.  At a Catholic school, no less).  

That said, it's not a iron-clad rule.  The Black Company books and  Thieve's World come to mind.  There the grim and gritty nature of the world made the grim and gritty language seem natural.


----------



## Michael Tree (Jun 23, 2007)

I don't like that the language in most fantasy books has been sanitized, but I find that using modern english swearwords in fantasy settings sometimes kills the verisimilitude for me.  It's jarring unless it's done well, because it usuallly comes out sounding like modern idiom or slang. 

It doesn't help that English has such a paucity of curses.  You just can't curse well in English.  It's boring.  You can use the F word, or the S word, maybe the C word or half a dozen lesser words.  Compare this to Spanish, or old english.  A Spanish speaking friend of mine can go on for a good two or three minutes in spanish without repeating the same profanity twice.  You can get creative in English, but there are few standard profanities aside from a handful of words associated with bodily functions.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 23, 2007)

I find that so many are complaining about 'modern' English swear words being translations from fantasy languages hilarious. They've been around pretty much since English was invented! There is *nothing* _modern_ about them!

On the other hand, as much of a fan of Doc Smith's writing as I am, every time he has the hero of the Lensmen books exclaim something like: "Holy Klono's gadolinium guts and carballoy intestines!" I wince in embarrassment. (But I don't find it at all surprising that it was a bunch of 13-16 year old fans who conned him into using such language.)


----------



## Pants (Jun 23, 2007)

Don't mind it at all really. 

Sometimes it's appropriate sometimes it's not, depends on the writer and the novel being written.


----------



## Croesus (Jun 23, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Profanity has been found in just about every segment of the literature I'm familiar with (initially this involved a few a high-profile court cases, but still...) for the past 75 or so years, including many of the 20th Century greats. Perhaps you should try reading some different books?




For me, it all depends on how it's used. As I said above, I've started too many novels where the author seems to use vulgarity for the wrong reasons (too narrow a command of the English language, shock value, believing it adds an air of "adultness" to the story, and so on). 

As for the books I read, I read 50-60 books a year, 3/4 nonfiction. There's plenty of real life in those, so I tend to prefer more escapist material in my fiction. That said, I do believe some authors can write stories that deal with disturbing themes and language well - I just also believe most authors can't (or don't). 

C.S. Friedman I would recommend. Larry Niven. Orson Scott Card. Steven Brust. Stephen Donaldson. All have used vulgarity and/or disturbing themes, but handled them adeptly. To me, they shine in a sea of dreck.




			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> By 'people' do you mean 'teenagers'?




Nope. I mean people, as in people of all ages, backgrounds, and both genders.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 23, 2007)

I don't see the necessity of using the terms in any literature let along fantasy literature. Language is complex enough to say anything without resorting to vulgarity

Of course there is also an issue of culture. For instance in my native language the two worst profanities translate as "*Your Brains*!" and "*Boiled head*!". Culturally referring about bodily functions and/or coitus is quite neutral, odd maybe, but not vulgar. 
Probably the closest thing to English vulgarity translates to "Your anus!" and is an interjection similar to english "Whatever" or as I like to tansklate it "Shut up dude, You're talking out of your bum"

So perhaps Conan simply comes from a culture where feces is just brown and sticky and tupping is what rams do with ewes. Besides saying "By Croms shaggy crotch" is so much more evocative than simply saying "Holy Fooking Shete"


----------



## Stereofm (Jun 23, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm curious. A discussion on another forum prompted this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you. 
Some characters should be more likely to use vulgarity than some others though.
Especially if you talk about uneducated/brutish/thuggish types.
Take a look at the thieves' world novel books : you may not like them, but the authors have developed a local slang for the city of Sanctuary, which is quite interesting.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 23, 2007)

To me, swearing falls into the same mental category as slang.  Both of them just seem out of place.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> I find that so many are complaining about 'modern' English swear words being translations from fantasy languages hilarious. They've been around pretty much since English was invented! There is *nothing* _modern_ about them!




Yep. It's actually less anachronistic, if I'm not mistaken, to use "f---" than it is to use "hello." 

(I'm assuming everyone involved in this discussion knows that the theory of that word as an abbreviation of the phrase "for unlawful carnal knowledge" is a load of hooey.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> I don't see the necessity of using the terms in any literature let along fantasy literature. Language is complex enough to say anything without resorting to vulgarity




On the other hand, the majority of people swear on occasion, and they don't often bother to be creative about it.

As both a reader and a writer, I prefer that my characters sound like real people, rather than sounding like an attempt at creating literature. As such, the dialogue needs to sound like something people would actually say.

And sometimes, even when the author might've had other options, that includes the occasional boring, uncreative profanity.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> To me, swearing falls into the same mental category as slang.  Both of them just seem out of place.




But have you given any thought as to why that is? Most slang is (relatively) modern. Most curse words, at least among the "classics," aren't.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 23, 2007)

I don't like my fiction to be sanitised. Perhaps if I was suggesting reading material for seven year olds, or what have you, then sure. But really, words are. . . just words. I can't see any use of them in fiction [for adults] as being "wrong" for such a reason. You either like/appreciate a story, or you don't. 

And if you don't like it, there are most likely writers who cater more to your needs.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 23, 2007)

Sometimes swear words sound out of place in a fantasy novel (mostly, I guess, because the genre rose from juvenile literature), but I like it when new swear words are created in-setting.

For instance, in the weekly comic series "52", the Apokolips-raised Power Boy uses the expletive "Darkseid's Testicles!". Gotta love that!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> (mostly, I guess, because the genre rose from juvenile literature)




Bwah?

Neither Tolkien (from which, arguably, almost all modern fantasy evolved), nor his pulp-era precursors (Conan, etc.), nor his semi-modern successors (i.e. Moorcock), were aimed at children. The notion of fantasy being aimed at kids is a combination of misinterpretations (sometimes deliberate ones, made by the "high-brow elite" in response to Tolkien), and of authors then proceeding to build upon said misinterpretations.


----------



## hong (Jun 23, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> I find that so many are complaining about 'modern' English swear words being translations from fantasy languages hilarious. They've been around pretty much since English was invented! There is *nothing* _modern_ about them!




Fo'shizzle.


----------



## Pants (Jun 23, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Fo'shizzle.



I wanna hear Conan or Aragorn say that.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 23, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> As an aside, Thornir, I can understand your position, but it seems like the "protect the children!" stance is becoming over-used. I see so much about books, movies, video games, etc. all being maligned because kids might be exposed to them. In all honesty, I don't think that sort of thing is nearly as damaging as everyone seems to be afraid of, and also it just seems like a poor excuse to try and neuter things meant for adults (by which I mean people in their late teens onward) just because kids might happen to be exposed to them.




Also, kids will hear a fair amount of swearing at school.  If your book contains the f-word, don't worry, she's already heard it from a classmate.


----------



## ssampier (Jun 23, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Bwah?
> 
> Neither Tolkien (from which, arguably, almost all modern fantasy evolved), nor his pulp-era precursors (Conan, etc.), nor his semi-modern successors (i.e. Moorcock), were aimed at children. The notion of fantasy being aimed at kids is a combination of misinterpretations (sometimes deliberate ones, made by the "high-brow elite" in response to Tolkien), and of authors then proceeding to build upon said misinterpretations.




My understanding is that The Hobbit was made for children, but the later Lord of the Rings was not.


----------



## ssampier (Jun 23, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Fo'shizzle.




Will the Real Iuz the Evil please stand up?!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> My understanding is that The Hobbit was made for children, but the later Lord of the Rings was not.




True, I believe. But I'd argue that it's _LotR_, and not the _Hobbit_, that truly forms the foundation for so much of modern fantasy.


----------



## delericho (Jun 23, 2007)

I don't mind if the characters use obscenities or not, provided it is consistent with the tone the author is trying to convey.

I generally find it inappropriate more often than not... but that may just be the nature of the books I read.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 23, 2007)

Gritty language belongs with gritty plots. George R. R. Martin uses vulgar language perfectly, yet that is because the world of his novels is as dirty as the language.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 23, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> I find that so many are complaining about 'modern' English swear words being translations from fantasy languages hilarious. They've been around pretty much since English was invented! There is *nothing* _modern_ about them!




Well yes and no.

I did some research a while ago and most of the evidence is that prior to the 1800s the word was not seen as entirely offensive. So although not a modern word the way it is currently used and phrased is modern slang.
Admittedly it possibly started to be used as a vulgarity around the 16th Century (and thus later than the Medievil period DnD emulates).

Prior to 1500 the word may have been a variant of Fulcher meaning soldier and to be derived from the word meaning "to strike, to penetrate" and seems to have the same root as pug~ as in pugilist

_non sunt in coeli, quia *fvccant* vvivys of heli_


----------



## Squire James (Jun 23, 2007)

Some stories work better with vulgarity than others.  Many fantasy stories are escapist in nature and actively strive to be different from "the real world", while other stories attempt to be "like the real world but with a twist".  In short, the use of vulgarity in a story is generally a sign of realism more than a sign of "modern times".  Many fantasy themes go out of their way NOT to be realistic, though, and vulgarity is out of place in them.


----------



## Swoop109 (Jun 23, 2007)

I don't have a problem with swearing and crude language in fantasy, as long as it fits both the characters and setting.
I doubt that preist or nobles would result to such words the majority of the time and having them use such would be a bit jarring when it does happen. However, I would expect such language from warriors, theives, and others from the more 'street' level.

I do have a problem with the use of modern words to represent the more used swearing in such settings.

Back in the 70's and 80's there were a number of fantasy novels where the wtiters made the attempt to create explectives around the cultures and settings in which their stories were set. 

While it would not be, to me, a shock to see, "God f**king damn!", used by a fighter in a fantasy story. I belive that something like, "Phallas of Mars!",  would make more sense if the story was set in a fantasy version of the  Roman Empire. It might be a bit stilted to hear, but it makes sense in the setting.

Creating words to take place of more modern was, imo, best used in the series _Farscape_. Each character had their own combinations of words and the situations in which they would use them. Which is something that authors need to keep in mind if they are having characters coming from different parts of their world.
As Tonguez mentioned about his own language. Sometimes the swearing in a different tongue makes no sense to those hearing it if they come from a different culture. that opens up whole possiblities for writers if they are willing to take the time to create a rich and diverse setting.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 23, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> If you were reading a fantasy novel and someone used the same sorts of swear words we use in our everyday life, what would you think? (Assume that the curses are being used in a reasonable way, and not in some Tarantino-esque marathon of obscenities.)




I don't like it and I'd ditch that author. I don't like hearing or reading foul language. I can't do much about the former, I can do something about the latter. Is LotR any worse for not using foul language? Is Conan any worse for not using it? I don't think so.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 23, 2007)

I have no problem with it, nor do I see those words as vulgar.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 23, 2007)

Just as an aside I once had an English Professor who claimed that Shakespear never used profanities in any of plays. I've not tested the claim but it is interesting considering his audience

It is also of interest that in the Canterbury Tales the Wife of Bath freely uses the word _queynte_ which some consider the etymological precursor of *C*~t ('_vagina_')

_For, certeyn, olde dotard, by youre leve. 
Ye shul have queynte right ynogh at eve._​


----------



## Jeysie (Jun 24, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Just as an aside I once had an English Professor who claimed that Shakespear never used profanities in any of plays. I've not tested the claim but it is interesting considering his audience.




I don't recall off-hand if there's any *explicit* profanity... but I do remember The Bard used a fair share of innuendos and double entendres.

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------



## shilsen (Jun 24, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Just as an aside I once had an English Professor who claimed that Shakespear never used profanities in any of plays. I've not tested the claim but it is interesting considering his audience




As someone who's been teaching Shakespeare at the college level for the last eight years, I can say that the professor was either lying, misinformed, or had a very strange definition of profanities. Shakespeare's plays have all sorts of swearing in them, though it's often easy to miss if one isn't well-informed about English Renaissance language.

As Jeysie noted above, Shakespeare also has an incredible gift for very foul innuendo and metaphor. Which, personally, I love, and it seems so did the audiences in his time. Old Bill's primary aim when writing plays was putting bums on seats, and audiences always get a good laugh out of a little crudity. Sure, some of the audience may have really liked the "To be or not to be..." speech, but a whole lot more were probably rolling in the aisles when Ophelia complained that Hamlet was too "sharp" and he retorted, "It will cost you a groaning to take off my edge."


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 24, 2007)

Yes my professor did say there was a lot of induendo of the bawdy type but her point I think was that despite the bawdiness there was no explicit 'vulgar word' use.
Hamlet was one of the examples cited, something to do with the country between a maidens legs iirc


----------



## BadMojo (Jun 24, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Gritty language belongs with gritty plots. George R. R. Martin uses vulgar language perfectly, yet that is because the world of his novels is as dirty as the language.




Funny you should mention George R. R. Martin.  If not for "vulgar" language, "A Song of Ice & Fire" would be missing one of the best bits in the entire series (between Tyrion and his father...don't want to get in to spoilers since it's really not that relevant).

Although not fantasy, the HBO/BBC series "Rome" is a perfect illustration of language that fits perfectly with the characters.  If a character like Titus Pullo in Rome or Tyrion Lannister isn't using profanity, the character isn't going to ring true.  I'm sorry, but I'd laugh my, uh...butt off if I heard Pullo say something like "For that price she better have intimate relations like Helen of Troy with her rear on fire"; I'm pretty sure that the original version of that line works better.  Is a rough and tumble soldier supposed to speak like Lancelot?

I also find it hard to argue that a character like Conan would kill, steal, and whore around but would have some moral issue with profanity?  I enjoy reading the Conan stories, but I also realize that Howard was heavily influenced by the moral quirks of the society he lived in.  As is still the case in this country, violence is OK but no dirty words or you'll get your mouth washed out with soap.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 24, 2007)

Note that Howard wrote his stories for mass market magazines, and had to work within the parameters of said market. If he wrote Conan today, he might do it for a more segmented market, and cut loose with the swearing.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> If you're assuming the novel is "translated" into English, why is "s---" or "f---" any more jarring than "house" or "windmill"? In both cases, it's purely an issue of the author "translating" a nonexistant language into terms the reader can understand.




Well, that's more "interpreting" than "translating".  

I think context is everything.  Sure, to us, "By the nine hells!" doesn't seem particularly strong - but in context, uttered by a character who lives in a fantasy world in which the nine hells are as real and verifiable as any other location, it holds much more meaning.

Its up to the author to convey that.  A good author will leave the reader immersed in the context; "interpreting" use of the venacular into modern day usage seems lazy to me.


----------



## PaulKemp (Jun 24, 2007)

The first sentence of my story, "Confession," published in Dragon 356, elicited a similar discussion on the Paizo boards.  The first sentence went like this:

"I sloshed through sh** up to my ankles."

Some readers were (and are) offended by that sentence.  Here's my thinking on the matter (this is more or less a cut and paste from my response on the Paizo boards):

One of the primary functions of the first sentence in a piece of short fiction is to grab the reader and set the tone for the story. In this case, the mild expletive did that work (at least as far as I'm concerned). Sure, I could have written, "I sloshed through excrement/sewage/feces/take your pick, up to my ankles" but that, IMO, would not have had the same impact. It has nothing whatever to do with an attempt to shock for its own sake or the lack of a thesaurus.  The story is told in alternating first and third person limited point of view, so the sentence does the additional work of giving a glimpse into the mind and personality of the character who's narrating (and in this case, suggests something still more).

That some readers dislike and/or are offended by the word choice is unfortunate, but it's also just one of the things you deal with as a writer. My writing in general, and this story in particular, is not for everyone. I can live with that.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2007)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> Some readers were (and are) offended by that sentence.



I'm sorry, but someone upset by _that_ sentence has no business reading.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 24, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Well, that's more "interpreting" than "translating".




Fair enough, but it doesn't change my actual point. 



> I think context is everything.  Sure, to us, "By the nine hells!" doesn't seem particularly strong - but in context, uttered by a character who lives in a fantasy world in which the nine hells are as real and verifiable as any other location, it holds much more meaning.




Sure, if you're writing in such a setting. But...

A) Not every fantasy setting has such a verifiable "realm of damnation" to draw on, and

B) Even if they do, blaspheming is only one of the standard methods of cursing in most given languages.

You're still going to have people cursing through other means and methods. The use of biology in swearing is common to a great many languages, to a greater or lesser extent.



> Its up to the author to convey that.  A good author will leave the reader immersed in the context; "interpreting" use of the venacular into modern day usage seems lazy to me.




Whereas I still don't see how the use of the terms given above--which, for the record, aren't particularly modern anyway--is any different than the use of other linguistic terms. If a profanity conveys the proper meaning, and a story largely uses English to interpret the events therein, why should it be somehow changed, when 99.95% of the other words in the story have not been? It just feels utterly arbitrary to me.

I think Paul's example, above, makes the point as well as any. The use of the expletive establishes character and gets the point across in a way few, if any, other words could have done so succinctly. I don't understand how it could be considered either lazy or detracting from suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 24, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I don't like it and I'd ditch that author.




Really? Not just the book, but the _author_?   

That seems a bit of an overreaction to me. Now, if it's something the author does _all the time_, in every book, sure, that makes perfect sense. But I know that many authors, myself included, often try to write books in different styles. The heavy use of profanity in one doesn't necessarily translate to said use in others.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but it doesn't change my actual point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




it was an _example_, Ari, not an exhaustive list of... one.  





> I think Paul's example, above, makes the point as well as any. The use of the expletive establishes character and gets the point across in a way few, if any, other words could have done so succinctly. I don't understand how it could be considered either lazy or detracting from suspension of disbelief.




What can I say?  It detracts from my suspension of disbelief - as much as a fantasy character saying "Yo, dude!" would.  Unfortunately, in my experience, fantasy writers tend to be much weaker than their mainstream contemporaries (with exceptions, of course).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 24, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> it was an _example_, Ari, not an exhaustive list of... one.




Again, fair enough. 



> What can I say?  It detracts from my suspension of disbelief - as much as a fantasy character saying "Yo, dude!" would.  Unfortunately, in my experience, fantasy writers tend to be much weaker than their mainstream contemporaries (with exceptions, of course).




Huh. I just don't see it; the word, and its various permutations, are _much_ older than "Yo, dude!" (Which would, I happily agree, detract from my own suspension of disbelief.)

Please understand, my frequent posts in this thread aren't (necessarily) aimed at changing anyone's mind. I really, truly am having trouble comprehending _why_ people react to profanity in fantasy the way they do, and I'm trying to get my mind around it.


----------



## Croesus (Jun 24, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but someone upset by _that_ sentence has no business reading.




It's when I see comments this absurd that I stop reading a thread. Bye.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Again, fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's just a tonal thing for me.  And it's linked to modern casual sentence stucture.  I agree that writing in Olde Englishe is just daft, and makes for a difficult read, but having the characters speak exactly like us doesn't work for me either.

To be clear - I'm fine with the _words _ themselves being in such a novel.  It's the contemporary urban slang usage of them that doesn't resonate with me.  The words may have existed for centuries in the real world, but the usual phrases containing them and current modern speaking styles have not.

Yes, one can (and should) compriomise to make it an easier read;  but not quite _that _ much. 

It's a personal thing, sure (well, other than the fact that Ryan is writing a novel for me to publish....)


----------



## Pants (Jun 24, 2007)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> The first sentence of my story, "Confession," published in Dragon 356, elicited a similar discussion on the Paizo boards.  The first sentence went like this:
> 
> "I sloshed through sh** up to my ankles."
> 
> Some readers were (and are) offended by that sentence.  Here's my thinking on the matter (this is more or less a cut and paste from my response on the Paizo boards):



I don't get that. At all.

Using the word in this way is probably the least vulgar way you can use it (as opposed to 'You piece of sh*t!', 'Aw sh*t!' or some other usage), IMO.  I was, admittedly, a little surprised to see it in Dragon, but I wasn't offended.

Nor do I understand how someone can be _offended_ by that.  I can understand someone disliking the use of 'modern' vulgarity in their fantasy, but offended?  Please.  Go find something real to be offended about.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 24, 2007)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> The first sentence of my story, "Confession," published in Dragon 356, elicited a similar discussion on the Paizo boards.  The first sentence went like this:
> 
> "I sloshed through sh** up to my ankles."
> .




I can understand that some might be shocked and even offended - dragon was a magazine availble to the general public and its use was unexpected in that context. In a novel which I have chosen to read expecting something 'gritty' the sentence is barely even rateable. Then again crap would do the same job wouldn't it? and of course if the character was sloshing through that much crap perhaps he should have avoided the cows


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 24, 2007)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> "I sloshed through sh** up to my ankles."




This quote is interesting.  If you published that sentence in Dragon, why did you feel the need to censor it on this board?

Obviously, you censored it for a reason, and I think that reason has a lot to do with the entire topic.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 24, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> This quote is interesting.  If you published that sentence in Dragon, why did you feel the need to censor it on this board?




Because the ENWorld filters don't allow use of the actual word, maybe?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 25, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Gord the Rogue, maybe, would not be cursing...




Huh?

Saga of Old City, chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 2, has Gord cursing.

One word sooner, it would have been in the very first paragraph of the book.  And even in paragraph 2, it's still the first word we ever hear out of Gord's mouth.

-Hyp.


----------



## PaulKemp (Jun 25, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> This quote is interesting.  If you published that sentence in Dragon, why did you feel the need to censor it on this board?




There's nothing interesting about it.  The reason I censored it on these boards and not in Dragon is because the two venues have different content guidelines.  As I understand it, the language to be used here is subject to the "Eric's Grandma Rule."  The language to be used in Dragon is subject to the boundaries of a PG-13 rule.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 25, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> Saga of Old City, chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 2, has Gord cursing.
> 
> ...




I dunno. I've never read the books. I just figured it was D&D fiction, so cursing might be considered naughty. I had to Wikipedia him to even know who he was.

(Also, for some reason my mind turned Gord into _gordo_, Spanish for 'fat,' which made me think of that fat innkeeper hero from the Forgotten Realms, who was too cuddly for me to think he would curse.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 25, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I dunno. I've never read the books. I just figured it was D&D fiction, so cursing might be considered naughty.




Why not ask Gary his thoughts in the Ask Col Pladoh thread in General?  He's the one who had Gord cursing, after all...

-Hyp.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 25, 2007)

G.R.R. Martin uses them with some of his characters quite often. Sex too.  He's writing about human beings and we urinate, defecate, swear and fornicate. In fact, we do it often.  His characters do all four of those things in the world they live in.

GRRM would be my favorite fantasy author. Looking at the sales of SoIaF, I am not alone in that judgment.  He is currently _El Presidente_ of the genre. 

Still, I must say I have become so disheartened with the genre as a whole that it is rare that I bother with it these days. Historical fiction has become more my cuppa in the past few years.

And they swear in those a lot too.  *shrug*


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 25, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm curious. A discussion on another forum prompted this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was thinking about this a week ago, before this thread.  I had a rather rambunctious NPC whom was spewing off the F word. A PC spewed it back. 

My synopsis was that a fantasy world is your fantasy world. You and your pcs come up with what belongs and what doesnt.  Heck, there is no true what is right and what is wrong in fantasy because it is fantasy.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 25, 2007)

If it fits its fine, Conan would swear I think, so would Croaker or Raven from the Black Company.  If its just there for shocks sake then the author is probably a hack, a condition that afflicts the majority of fantasy writers unfortunately IME.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 25, 2007)

Darn good question, actually. I have two children at the age where they are hearing more swearing at school. But, there is no way I'd let them read Martin right now, but that is as much for the sex than the swearing.

Here's how I view swearing in general: it's lazy and easy. There are times when it is appropriate for a character(s), and there are times it is not. Frankly, it isn't actually all that polite to swear. Just as I teach my kids to chew with their mouths closed, despite the fact that others are chewing with their mouth open, I teach them not to swear. 

An occassional swear word in a book isn't going to kill a child, but constant use requires a parent to engage in a "teaching moment". Those aren't all bad, as discussions about Huck Finn demonstrate, but you don't need constant swearing. There are plenty of good books without it, and they aren't all censored, just as there are good books with it. I admit that at times I tire of it even in Martin's books, books I consider great reads. 

As for those that say that others shouldn't be offended by some language, that isn't up to you. People are free to fee offended anytime they want. They may have religious, or culutural, or just personal reasons for feeling offended. An author or speaker needs to be aware of her audience, and to make choices about theme and words based upon that audience.

All you saying you don't mind the words, just curious, do any of you have kids?


----------



## F5 (Jun 25, 2007)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> The first sentence of my story, "Confession," published in Dragon 356, elicited a similar discussion on the Paizo boards.  The first sentence went like this:
> 
> "I sloshed through sh** up to my ankles."
> 
> Some readers were (and are) offended by that sentence.




This is a really good example of the kind of profanity that doesn't bother me in a fantasy book.  As Paul said, it had a purpose, it set tone and character, and was used in-context.  

Had he toned it down; say, something like "I sloshed through crap up to my ankles", THAT would have bothered me.  This sounds like an out-of-place, modern usage to me, and takes me out of my suspension of disbelief.  

Use the same word in a different way ("No sh**, there I was, in muck up to my ankles") and it sounds like cheap hackery.

It's not about the word itself, for me, but the care the author takes in using it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 25, 2007)

My issues with it, it can become a substitute to dialog and can be a sign of lazy writing in some fantasy.  The exception to this would be if it was modern fantasy, then I could see it being part of the character's profile and the envirnoment.  

..Conan swears, it does not have to be translated to the current swear word of the week, I know what he was saying.  His swearing adds to the world myth and adds flavor to the world.  

..Dresden swears, hey, it is modern times and he is a modern wizard, he gets PCed about it.  His swearing is part of the world myth and part of the culture.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 25, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> My issues with it, it can become a substitute to dialog and can be a sign of lazy writing in some fantasy.  The exception to this would be if it was modern fantasy, then I could see it being part of the character's profile and the envirnoment.
> 
> ..Conan swears, it does not have to be translated to the current swear word of the week, I know what he was saying.  His swearing adds to the world myth and adds flavor to the world.
> 
> ..Dresden swears, hey, it is modern times and he is a modern wizard, he gets PCed about it.  His swearing is part of the world myth and part of the culture.



But in the rpg world, whose to say what is and what isn't talk in that time period.  What brought on my pondering of this was when one of my pcs called another pcs mom a real b!!!!!. In all honestly it was exactly what the character was. Could that pc have used another world, probably, but what type of role playing do we expect from pcs. Some, but certainly not the ability to write up dialogue that exceeds the normal level of roleplaying.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 25, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But in the rpg world, whose to say what is and what isn't talk in that time period.  What brought on my pondering of this was when one of my pcs called another pcs mom a real b!!!!!. In all honestly it was exactly what the character was. Could that pc have used another world, probably, but what type of role playing do we expect from pcs. Some, but certainly not the ability to write up dialogue that exceeds the normal level of roleplaying.



I do think there are unversial vulgar words, words that always have been used, but just when did bugger get replaced?  

_Funny rumor, there is a Will Smith movie coming out later this year called, The Last Man on Earth, it is a re-make of The Omega Man (1971 Charlton Heston); the rumor is that the movie got a re-name because when polled, people did not know what omega meant!  _


----------



## BadMojo (Jun 25, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> _Funny rumor, there is a Will Smith movie coming out later this year called, The Last Man on Earth, it is a re-make of The Omega Man (1971 Charlton Heston); the rumor is that the movie got a re-name because when polled, people did not know what omega meant!  _




Actually, it's Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend".  The Omega Man was a loose adaptation of that story.  I hope they keep the "I Am Legend" name for the Will Smith version.


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 25, 2007)

I distinctly remember a quote from Shakespeare, loosely paraphrased, "Let it be known that I am an a**!"  Some may consider that profanity *shrug*



> To me, swearing falls into the same mental category as slang. Both of them just seem out of place.




I agree with that.

In my mind, I am reading to escape to a fantasy world.  I'd rather not bring in gritty realism if I can avoid it.  On the other hand, I don't mind in the slightest something like,

"Conan swore under his breath and unsheathed his sword, wading into the fray..."
or
"The fair maiden cursed like a sailor and attacked him violently."

Each gets the point across without bringing in words that may not fit the fantasy world.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 25, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I have two children at the age where they are hearing more swearing at school.



This begs the question: Then why does it matter if there is profanity in some books not intended for children?



> Frankly, it isn't actually all that polite to swear.



Of course not, but literature isn't always about polite people.



> People are free to fee offended anytime they want. They may have religious, or culutural, or just personal reasons for feeling offended.



Just as I am free to look at those specific reasons and find them ridiculous.



> An author or speaker needs to be aware of her audience, and to make choices about theme and words based upon that audience.



This actually gets back to the quote in the OP: Is the fantasy readership really more sensitive when it comes to language then fans of other genre fiction, like SF, romance or espionage? If so, why, and what are the implications of that, if any?



> All you saying you don't mind the words, just curious, do any of you have kids?



My wife and I are happily childless, but I'm fairly certain that has nothing to do with my opinion about the role of profanity in literature. Besides, we know quite of few people with kids who also have personal libraries chock full of books with dirty words in them, not to mention some containing dirty _ideas_...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 25, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Each gets the point across without bringing in words that may not fit the fantasy world.



How do you decide which words 'fit' into a fantasy world? And which fantasy worlds are you talking about? Middle Earth? Narnia? The Malazan Empire? Bas-Lag? The city of Interzone?


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 25, 2007)

I have no problem with "bad language" or mature ideas in books, movies, any entertainment not meant for children. None. People should be free to write what they want. I don't think it is always used particularly effectively or within context, however. I also find the repetitive use of it, which Martin occassionally indulges in, boring.

However, many, many forms of entertainment that "aren't meant for kids" are marketed to kids anyway.

My last question wasn't accusatory, it was more of an attempt to add some information to better understand if there was a difference in opinion between those that had kids (since protecting kids is "blamed" for this type of censorship) and those that didn't. Neither group is probably correct....


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 25, 2007)

Irony?

I had to work from home today, and my sons listened to American Idiot by Green Day about 4 times today. Talk about vulgar language. We've talked about its use in those songs....


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 25, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> Had he toned it down; say, something like "I sloshed through crap up to my ankles", THAT would have bothered me.  This sounds like an out-of-place, modern usage to me, and takes me out of my suspension of disbelief.  .




Ironically Crap is a middle english word coming from the same root as Chaff and refers mainly to the dregs left after fermentation of beer (whereas chaff is the left over grain on the barn floor). Apparently its use in relation to sh!+e arose in the American colonies

Sh!+e is Old English and has cognates in Norse. It fell out of favour only because of the introduction of Latin wherein feces was consider the polite term.

Also the word ass is used freely on breakfest television here, as is the word bugger
When Shakespear used the word ass it was not as a profanity
whereas here the word fanny word be considered impolite (as it refers to a womens genitalia)


----------



## Klaus (Jun 25, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Actually, it's Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend".  The Omega Man was a loose adaptation of that story.  I hope they keep the "I Am Legend" name for the Will Smith version.



 I hope they don't, as it seems to be extremely different from the novel.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 26, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Actually, it's Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend".  The Omega Man was a loose adaptation of that story.  I hope they keep the "I Am Legend" name for the Will Smith version.



you are correct, the tag line is the last man on earth is not alone.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm curious. A discussion on another forum prompted this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Karl Edward Wagner--who was waaaay ahead of his time--wrote of this in his essay "The Once and Future Kane". Check it out:



> Probably the most noticeable thing about Kane series, if you haven't run into it before, is the dialogue. John Myers did the same thing 35 years ago, also to the confusion of many readers. Dialogue is treated as a free translation into modern idiom, vernacular, measurements, what have you. The words are intended to sound to you, the reader, as they would have sounded to a listener at the time. This bothers a lot of people somehow. I mean, obviously I can't reproduce the exact words---no typeface exists for the characters, and phonetic English equivalents ( as can be done in a crude way, say, with Chinese ) would be meaningless to anyone but Kane or myself.
> 
> Obviously trangalation is necessary, right? For some reason there seems to a grand tradition that this means transalating into over-blown pseudo-Elizabethan dialogue --- lots of absurd declaiming, like balloons in Marvel's THOR comics. Well, there are places where the New English Bible is rejected because Jesus, as we all know, spoke English-a-la-King-James, and to hell with accuracy of translation. My own thinking is that a good "translation" must translate meaning and affect from point A to point B. None in the distan t past thought at the time that he was speaking in any way other than the current mode. How'd you like to have your barroom conversation translated 3000 years from now in terms of "thees and thous"'.)
> 
> Let's take an example. Footsoldiers are notoriously an uncouth lot. Now here's Sgt. Krunk, slogging around a hot jungle back in Kane's heyday. Guy up front lets a branch fly back in his face. Got it? OK, Krunk says which may be phonetically rendered as "Raklat!". Now that doesn't translate into "Forsooth!", does it. And he didn't shout "Feces!", either, did he. Plainly the jungle echoed with a howl of "!". At least that's what it sounded like to them---and to us. And this is another one of those things that give publishers pause....


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 26, 2007)

I've never had a problem with obscenity in any venue let alone fiction.  When I write fiction I'll use obscenity as appropriate for the character and situation.

Earlier in the thread I think I spotted someone bemoan the fact that English is a poor language for vulgar expression.  This is an individual who has never known the company of a drill instructor (the most heinously vulgar person I have ever known was a retired master gunnery sergeant by the way).  Masters of vulgarity never need descend to the plebian and unsatisfying use of mere curses like s%&t or f@#$, for them even the most inoffensive word can become an obscenity fit to kill small animals and peel varnish with proper use and attention to detail


----------



## Klaus (Jun 26, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Karl Edward Wagner--who was waaaay ahead of his time--wrote of this in his essay "The Once and Future Kane". Check it out:



 Very nice, thanks!


----------



## danzig138 (Jun 26, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> All you saying you don't mind the words, just curious, do any of you have kids?



Wow. Whenever I see this question, I chuckle. Whenever I see it, the implication is almost always that if you don't have children, then you don't understand, and those with children will obviously agree with the person asking "Do you have children?". 

I'm all for swearing and cursing in fantasy works. I'm all for letting my kids read them (and watch them). Yes I have kids. Three, 1, 11, and 13. And I can pretty much guarantee they will not read anything in a book or hear anything in a movie worse than what they've heard from me, starting with the day they came out (I've found that seeing them come out really inspires the profanity). 

Children are only superfragiledelicatesnowflakeflowers if you protect them from everything. Otherwise, they tend to be pretty okay.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 26, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Wow. Whenever I see this question, I chuckle. Whenever I see it, the implication is almost always that if you don't have children, then you don't understand, and those with children will obviously agree with the person asking "Do you have children?".
> 
> I'm all for swearing and cursing in fantasy works. I'm all for letting my kids read them (and watch them). Yes I have kids. Three, 1, 11, and 13. And I can pretty much guarantee they will not read anything in a book or hear anything in a movie worse than what they've heard from me, starting with the day they came out (I've found that seeing them come out really inspires the profanity).
> 
> Children are only superfragiledelicatesnowflakeflowers if you protect them from everything. Otherwise, they tend to be pretty okay.



He he, I read this last night and had to erase my first response, but it was something like yours but more stern. 

I would let my children do anything I did as a child. I read novels, fantasy and other genres, where there was cursing, sex ...yada yada. Nothing bad happened yet. 

This isn't a universal everyone who has children does this and everyone who doesn't does this. This is however you structure your household. I know a guy who doesnt allow cursing in his house, he doesnt have any children. But when we play over there we play a more pg game.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 26, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Irony?
> 
> I had to work from home today, and my sons listened to American Idiot by Green Day about 4 times today. Talk about vulgar language. We've talked about its use in those songs....



Heh... even without kids I can sympathize. On the plus side, it _is_ a good album...

Speaking of irony, I'm seeing a wee bit of irony in my own posts to this thread, where I sound, well, offended that readers might be offended by vulgar language in fantasy fiction. So it goes. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's absurd to be offended by reading a crass term for excrement. I just don't understand how the act of reading literature, of any kind, is possible under those conditions. If common vulgarities are so offensive, what's a reader like that going to do when confronted with ideas that really unsettle them, or depictions of unpleasant people and events.

Mulling it over a little, I think I take offense because I hear a resistance to vulgarity in fantasy as a de facto call for fantasy to be a kind of children's literature. This gets exacerbated when people started bringing up their actual kids. Even when they aren't calling for child-proofing the world.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Wow. Whenever I see this question, I chuckle. Whenever I see it, the implication is almost always that if you don't have children, then you don't understand, and those with children will obviously agree with the person asking "Do you have children?".



Right, I get this a lot. It's basically a way of dismissing objective thinking, particularly when a discussion is starting to indicate that the inmates are running that particular parent's asylum. 

"Look, you must not have kids becasue you're being all reasonable. If you had kids you might be irrationally overprotective or you might be overly permissive, but you simply wouldn't go being all rational about how to rear them..."


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Very nice, thanks!



You're welcome. Just wonder who this John Myers he refers to is...


----------



## Terraism (Jun 26, 2007)

(Having only read half the thread...)

While I generally don't particularly mind obscenities in literature, I still tend to look at it a bit askance in fantasy.  Not so much because of the tone or 'vulgarity,' but for a similar reason to Croesus's comment, early on in the discussion:


			
				Croesus said:
			
		

> And to my ear, it's not so jarring - they don't sound like a co-worker at the office, or the guy at the neighborhood convenience store.



I can fully understand - and appreciate - the desire to make characters better-rounded, more realistic individuals, I don't want them to sound quite like _us_.  A translation from 'fantasy-gibberenglish' is one thing, but I _like_ that characters don't sound exactly like my neighbors, co-workers, or other folk I interact with.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 26, 2007)

Did you read my response to this the first time? It was intellectual curiosity about the demographics of those that agreed and disagreed. You can take that statement and not believe it if you want, but that is what I typed, and what I meant. 

I have also stated in this thread that I'm not sure either side is "Right". If you read my posts critically, you would see that I value intellectual and critical discussion, so I'm a little offended that you jumped to the conclusion that I didn't honor others' opinions based on this, especially since I posted it was curiosity. Oh well.


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 26, 2007)

> How do you decide which words 'fit' into a fantasy world? And which fantasy worlds are you talking about? Middle Earth? Narnia? The Malazan Empire? Bas-Lag? The city of Interzone?




I guess I should have extended my sentence.  As long as it fit the fantasy world in that particular piece of literature.  If I'm reading a book set in the Middle Ages of Earth, I would not have a problem with "bugger" or another word from that time period.  I would, however, have a problem with someone calling someone else a "f'ing c."  It doesn't fit the period of that particular fantasy setting.

Likewise I have no problem with the characters of "Farscape" hollering "Frell!" at each other.  It's a curse word that suits and fits their particular society.

Curse words are just for shock value anyway, which if I'm reading a fantasy story, gratuitous cursing just takes away from my immersion.  If I'm reading a gritty crime drama, I expect it - not so much with the sorcerers and fairies.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 26, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I would, however, have a problem with someone calling someone else a "f'ing c."  It doesn't fit the period of that particular fantasy setting.



No, but I'd bet there's an analogous phrase in Middle English. Can anyone help me out here? 



> Likewise I have no problem with the characters of "Farscape" hollering "Frell!" at each other.  It's a curse word that suits and fits their particular society.



I think the cussing on Farscape worked so well because the words used were so transparently _our_ contemporary expletives. It wasn't an exploration of alien linguistics, it was a wink and a nod at an English-speaking audience and a clever dodge of the censors.   



> Curse words are just for shock value anyway...



This is true for some books, it's patently false for others. Vulgarities are handy when depicting people who really speak that way.



> -not so much with the sorcerers and fairies.



Why not? Aren't they people too?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I think the cussing on Farscape worked so well because the words used were so transparently _our_ contemporary expletives. It wasn't an exploration of alien linguistics, it was a wink and a nod at an English-speaking audience and a clever dodge of the censors.




I'm partial to Firefly's solution, myself 

-Hyp.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 26, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm partial to Firefly's solution, myself
> -Hyp.



That was cool too, but harder on the actors, not to mention viewers that spoke Chinese.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 26, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Masters of vulgarity never need descend to the plebian and unsatisfying use of mere curses like s%&t or f@#$, for them even the most inoffensive word can become an obscenity fit to kill small animals and peel varnish with proper use and attention to detail




*Master of Vulgarity* - theres a Bard PrC in that!
The Master of Vulgarity has the supernatural ability to turn even the most inoffensive word into an obscenity that can kill small animals and peel varnish


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 27, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> *Master of Vulgarity* - theres a Bard PrC in that!
> The Master of Vulgarity has the supernatural ability to turn even the most inoffensive word into an obscenity that can kill small animals and peel varnish




The killing small animals is actually a reference to an incident at a training unit.  Two of the drill sergeants(let their names be omitted) had a platoon(second platoon, not mine) down in the sandpit and were really pouring it on.  Just as they reached the high point of their tirade a bird perched on the sign post next to where they was standing keeled over dead.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 27, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Heh... even without kids I can sympathize. On the plus side, it _is_ a good album...
> 
> Speaking of irony, I'm seeing a wee bit of irony in my own posts to this thread, where I sound, well, offended that readers might be offended by vulgar language in fantasy fiction. So it goes. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's absurd to be offended by reading a crass term for excrement. I just don't understand how the act of reading literature, of any kind, is possible under those conditions. If common vulgarities are so offensive, what's a reader like that going to do when confronted with ideas that really unsettle them, or depictions of unpleasant people and events.
> 
> Mulling it over a little, I think I take offense because I hear a resistance to vulgarity in fantasy as a de facto call for fantasy to be a kind of children's literature. This gets exacerbated when people started bringing up their actual kids. Even when they aren't calling for child-proofing the world.




I dunno man, I think people are allowed to be offended at anything they want. The difference is in how they react to it; a vocal minority starting a crusade to censor fantasy literature over the f-bomb would be stupid, but people choosing not to buy something that features material they find offensive is just fine IMO. Personally it takes much more than a little vulgarity to offend me (considering how many obscenities I like to toss around), but we all have our limits. I'm guessing there is someone out there who would be amazed at what offends you.

As far as children go, I certainly will monitor and censor what my son (2 years old) is exposed to. I'll do my best to ensure I talk to him and explain the realities of life when he is old enough, and I'm guessing he'll be slowly exposed to them as he grows. But the fact is children aren't able to fully understand consequences and responsibility, so I feel it is my duty to introduce my son to the harsher concepts of life in a way that he can properly process them. Or am I an over-protective father for allowing my boy to watch _Go Diego Go_ while keeping away _The Family Guy_ until he's older?

As far as fantasy literature is concerned, I find that the viability of real-world vulgarity is directly dependent on the quality of the author.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 27, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Or am I an over-protective father for allowing my boy to watch _Go Diego Go_ while keeping away _The Family Guy_ until he's older?




Not at all. My son is 7, he wanted to watch Jackass, I switched the channel back to Higglytown Heroes


----------



## Redrobes (Jun 28, 2007)

I think that if I could pick up the book in 50 years time, read it, and it would not sound jarring and out of place then I think that the text including the profanity would not present an issue. Sometimes I think that even though specific words like f & s are not 21st century, the use, especially the quantity of them, make the text sound fashionably dated to our time. When you can date the text modern then it does not fit in with a fantasy styled world.

Tonight we were discussing the recent BBC Robin Hood and how the clothing, style and make up used were out of place. Romeo & Juliet with DiCaprio & Danes. Some people liked it but I didn't. Thats the same way I feel about the use of language.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 28, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Well yes and no.
> 
> I did some research a while ago and most of the evidence is that prior to the 1800s the word was not seen as entirely offensive. So although not a modern word the way it is currently used and phrased is modern slang.
> Admittedly it possibly started to be used as a vulgarity around the 16th Century (and thus later than the Medievil period DnD emulates).
> ...



I believe the modern version of the word may even have had its roots in the slang of the soldiers.  But I also understand there is some evidence of older usage among the Saxons.  But I'm hardly an expert on etymology.

That said, as far as I can tel from history I have access tol, it initially became a "bad" word because it was a word of the lower class, not because of its actual meaning.  Same thing, as you mentioned, with the "s" word, while its literal synonym "feces" is fine for general consumption.

With the growth of the middle class, in trying to ape aristocratic norms to distance themselves from their poor (financially) peers, they rejected all that nice, earthy language.  We inherited their biases.  I wouldn't want my kids wandering around swearing like sailors, but at the end of the day, words are words, and we're just passing down social norms inherited from people who were trying to pretend their parents weren't poor laborers, and that they were just as refined as the old money.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 29, 2007)

Has anyone here seen _Deadwood_? The dialog is often vulgar, even very vulgar. And that is  genre program (a Western) even if it is not the genre discussed here (fantasy). The use of profanity can be appropriate, depending on the goal of the writer. It would have been out of place coming from Strider in LotR, but works well enough in most FR novels.


----------



## PaulKemp (Jun 29, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Has anyone here seen _Deadwood_? The dialog is often vulgar, even very vulgar. And that is  genre program (a Western) even if it is not the genre discussed here (fantasy). The use of profanity can be appropriate, depending on the goal of the writer. It would have been out of place coming from Strider in LotR, but works well enough in most FR novels.




Deadwood's dialogue is like Shakespeare crossed with George Carlin.  Love the show.  Just started Season 3 on Netflix.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 10, 2007)

*re*

Completely depends on the character as far as I'm concerned. A high brow Aristocrat raised in gentile society shouldn't be tossing out vulgarities like a Viking. 

The characters should seem real. There have been various periods where vulgarity was acceptable and those that weren't. So the author should set the table, and then make sure to build a palatable meal for his readers that is easy to digest. If the makes bad characters, that likes bad food  that doesn't go down well.

It's the same the thing with vulgar language. Having a church knight raised in a very strict religious household tossing out profanities wouldn't fit in the same way I don't want a nomad barbarian speaking as though he was educated in the finest schools in England. 

I find the inclusion of graphic sexual material more abrupt and unnecessary than vulgar language. Some of these authors just throw in graphic sexual material akin to a porno movie without bothering to consider how it disrupts the story. It's like their some geeky, sweaty freak who just finished watching a porn movie and decided to write about a character in their story they've been fantasizing about. That kind of gratuituous and unnecessary sexual material I could do without.

It's one of the reason I stopped reading Ed Greenwood's novels. I've found that Guy Gavriel Kay likes to toss such material into his novel even if it makes the romance in them seem like _Days of our Lives_.


----------



## JustinA (Jul 12, 2007)

Croesus said:
			
		

> Yep, that works for me too. Which makes me suspect a significant part of my dislike for vulgarity in novels is based on how I was raised. If the characters don't use our "bad" words, it's somehow easier to overlook. And to my ear, it's not so jarring - they don't sound like a co-worker at the office, or the guy at the neighborhood convenience store.




Swear words, like any other slang, are actually quite fluid and easily dated. The way people swore in 2000 is quite different from how they swore in 1900 or 1800 or 1700.

So when fantasy characters use modern swear words, it's essentially equivalent to using modern slang. Since people attach a specific feeling of time and place to a particular type of slang, this inappropriately connects the fantasy milieu to the modern world.

Similarly, I don't like it when fantasy characters use a faux-Medieval dialect filled with "forsooths" and "thous". The fantasy characters don't live in the Middle Ages and they don't live in the modern world, so it feels jarring to have them connected to those eras.

(There are some exceptions to this. For example, "god" and "damn" and their variants have a long lineage and, thus, have less of a tie to a particular era. But "god" and "damn" are also closely tied to a particular theology, so some consideration must be taken about evoking real world theologies in your fantasy milieu.)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Aug 3, 2007)

I have no problem with swear words and other vulgarity in fantasy or sci-fi books and stories. If it fits the setting the author's using, go for it.  I'd expect a blacksmith who cuts his finger to belt out something more colorful than "Darn" or the like to save the innocent eyes of the reader.

Screw that. If it's a vulgar world, let's hear it. Someone will be offended, but that's life, innit?


----------



## Felon (Aug 3, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> Swear words, like any other slang, are actually quite fluid and easily dated. The way people swore in 2000 is quite different from how they swore in 1900 or 1800 or 1700.
> 
> So when fantasy characters use modern swear words, it's essentially equivalent to using modern slang. Since people attach a specific feeling of time and place to a particular type of slang, this inappropriately connects the fantasy milieu to the modern world.



 ???  

An entire language changes over the course of 2000 years, not just the slang. Two people from two millenia apart could hardly converse at all if you put them in the same room. The passage I presented from Karl E Wagner's essay already addressed this fallacy. It's quite obvius that when you're reading dialogue that takes place in a place that's on another plane of existence altogether that you're reading a translation, not a transcript. Yet, we feel fine seeing words like "hypnosis" and "mesmerism" in fantasy, even though in the context of the world there had never been a mythological character called Hypnos or Mesmer.

And the actual content of "how" people swear really doesn't change that much. I suspect you'd find that the references remain pretty similar: various taboo body parts, sexual acts, and excrement would be pretty much the basis just about anywhere.


----------



## werk (Aug 3, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but someone upset by _that_ sentence has no business reading.




I think the obvious choice is to burn every copy of that magazine we can get our hands on and send the morality police to apprehend the author, editor, and publishers.

Think of the children...


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 3, 2007)

Modern fantasy derives from the medieval romance, which was aimed at courtly ladies, so it should come as no surprise that it lacks vulgar language, the language of the common folk.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 3, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Modern fantasy derives from the medieval romance...




Well, goll dern.

How much cotton pickin' cursun' do yew wont anyhow?


----------



## Elephant (Aug 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> An entire language changes over the course of 2000 years, not just the slang. Two people from two millenia apart could hardly converse at all if you put them in the same room. The passage I presented from Karl E Wagner's essay already addressed this fallacy. It's quite obvius that when you're reading dialogue that takes place in a place that's on another plane of existence altogether that you're reading a translation, not a transcript. Yet, we feel fine seeing words like "hypnosis" and "mesmerism" in fantasy, even though in the context of the world there had never been a mythological character called Hypnos or Mesmer.
> 
> And the actual content of "how" people swear really doesn't change that much. I suspect you'd find that the references remain pretty similar: various taboo body parts, sexual acts, and excrement would be pretty much the basis just about anywhere.




Actually, as I understand it, it depends on the language.  For instance, I recall reading that French cursing from the late 1800s and early 1900s centered around references to Christian symbols, not around copulation and excretion.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> It's quite obvius that when you're reading dialogue that takes place in a place that's on another plane of existence altogether that you're reading a translation, not a transcript.




Bingo. 

That is _exactly_ how I see it, both in fantasy literature and RPGs. Once you've accepted the fact that what you're reading is an English "translation," then everything but truly modern slang becomes not only acceptable, but--one could argue--more realistic than deliberate attempts to sound "old-fashioned."

This is also, BTW, why I have no objection to puns and word puzzles in fantasy and RPGs. Okay, so maybe in the Common tongue of Greyhawk, or the language of Steven Brust's Dragaeran Empire, "live" isn't an anagram for "evil," and "right" doesn't mean both "correct" and "the opposite of left." But those languages no doubt have their _own_ homonyms and synonyms for use in such puzzles. So I simply assume that the puzzle that makes sense in English is standing in for one that makes sense in Common (or whatever), and move on. There _has to be_ an element of suspension of disbelief for _any_ fiction that takes place in an alien environment, and this sort of thing, IMO--in terms of puns, word games, and profanity/swearing/reasonable amounts of slang--falls squarely into that category.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 5, 2007)

I once went to this Renn Faire and saw this guy dressed as a fighter type (I say fighter type as what he did wasn't very knightly) verbally abuse this other person dressed up.  Not once did his use a modernized curse word, but some of things he said were pretty bad (and funny).

I wish I could remember some of the things, but this was years ago.  I just remember standing there laughing, waiting for the f word to slip out, but it didn't...


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 5, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> What do you think? I mean, people swear in real life, and few of them go to the effort to come up with creative but non-vulgar curses, so why is it so rare to see vulgar language in fantasy compared to other genres? Sure, the occasional "By Crom!" is fair, but I think Conan had to have some word in his vocabulary for situations when we would just exclaim, "Holy s***!" or "We are so f***ed."



When you talk about this subject you've got two competing drives.  On one hand, because it's a fantasy world, you don't want everything that's said, and the WAY it's said, to be ported directly over from MODERN English.  So it's not surprising that we would want to hear both older and entirely newly fabricated words.

On the other hand, because WE LIVE in a modern English world older words that might have been used for cursing just DO NOT have the same impact as they once might have.  Language changes, and not just by aging but also from place to place.  You can use words in Britain that have solid impact and are recognized as "cursing" to one degree or another that have no connotations whatsoever in America.  And, what Shakespeare might have thought of as a vulgar curse no longer sounds to OUR modern ears as anything REMOTELY like a vulgar curse because we just don't talk like he did and haven't for HUNDREDS of years.

You get a similar problem if you're making up NEW curses and vulgarities - they don't hold the same impact as s... d... and f... do for us even if you want them to for your characters.  Points made about fantasy being percieved as a childrens genre are certainly not to be discounted though I think it's less of a factor than the above.


> If you were reading a fantasy novel and someone used the same sorts of swear words we use in our everyday life, what would you think? (Assume that the curses are being used in a reasonable way, and not in some Tarantino-esque marathon of obscenities.)



Tarantino relies a LOT on the f-word but at least its usage "fits" the characters who use it most.  I think when you introduce curses and vulgarities into your fiction you've got several avenues to take but it's all a matter of choosing the least of the perceived evils.  Go with modern curses and you risk breaking the verisimilitude, but the curses retain their modern impacts.  Go with old curses and you hold on tighter to verisimilitude but the curses actually sound weak because of age.  Go with entirely new fabricated curses and you can actually build greater verisimilitude but have to work hard to build and retain a frame of reference for them.

I think Firefly/Serenity had an excellent approach that was well-implemented, using something like "gorram" as a slurred and future-ised version of g...d..n, new slang like "shiny", and of course using Chinese phrases liberally throughout where most viewers had absolutely no knowledge of the exact translation but it was ALWAYS clear and emotionally impactful based on the context it was being used in.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 5, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I think Firefly/Serenity had an excellent approach that was well-implemented, using something like "gorram" as a slurred and future-ised version of g...d..n, new slang like "shiny", and of course using Chinese phrases liberally throughout where most viewers had absolutely no knowledge of the exact translation but it was ALWAYS clear and emotionally impactful based on the context it was being used in.




Maybe it's just me, but I really couldn't follow it. Sure, I got the general idea that there was some word that was supposed to have some meaning, but I'm totally unfamiliar with (Mandarin?) Chinese. It was just gibberish to me, which was a bit jarring. I had less problem with "gorram," since I could parse what it was substituting for, just like _Farscape_'s "frell" or _Galactica_'s "frack."


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 5, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but I really couldn't follow it. Sure, I got the general idea that there was some word that was supposed to have some meaning, but I'm totally unfamiliar with (Mandarin?) Chinese. It was just gibberish to me, which was a bit jarring. I had less problem with "gorram," since I could parse what it was substituting for, just like _Farscape_'s "frell" or _Galactica_'s "frack."



To each his own.    "Frack" still sounds straight-up childish to my ears, since it's such an obvious attempt to be "naughty" without getting the censors all up in your face.  At least the Chinese sounds genuine, even if we can't determine the precise meaning... and is STILL an attempt to be naughty without the censors pitching a fit   Just a somewhat more refined way of doing it, IMO.  YMMV, and all that jazz.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 5, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> And the actual content of "how" people swear really doesn't change that much. I suspect you'd find that the references remain pretty similar: various taboo body parts, sexual acts, and excrement would be pretty much the basis just about anywhere.




Actually no. As I said earlier, in my culture references to body parts, sex and even excrement aren't traditionally considered vulgar (there is even a much beloved elder whose nickname meant 'excrement' (long story behind that)).

In my culture all the offensive words had to do with cannibalism things like "Your Brains" and "Your Boiled-Head"

I actually used them as inspiration for DnD curses so Orcs howl "Your Brains will fill my pot" and the worst Gnollish Curse means "I will eat the contents of your stomach"


----------



## shilsen (Aug 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Bingo.
> 
> That is _exactly_ how I see it, both in fantasy literature and RPGs. Once you've accepted the fact that what you're reading is an English "translation," then everything but truly modern slang becomes not only acceptable, but--one could argue--more realistic than deliberate attempts to sound "old-fashioned."
> 
> This is also, BTW, why I have no objection to puns and word puzzles in fantasy and RPGs. Okay, so maybe in the Common tongue of Greyhawk, or the language of Steven Brust's Dragaeran Empire, "live" isn't an anagram for "evil," and "right" doesn't mean both "correct" and "the opposite of left." But those languages no doubt have their _own_ homonyms and synonyms for use in such puzzles. So I simply assume that the puzzle that makes sense in English is standing in for one that makes sense in Common (or whatever), and move on. There _has to be_ an element of suspension of disbelief for _any_ fiction that takes place in an alien environment, and this sort of thing, IMO--in terms of puns, word games, and profanity/swearing/reasonable amounts of slang--falls squarely into that category.



 Get ... out ... of ... my ... HEAD!


----------



## Felon (Aug 7, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Actually no. As I said earlier, in my culture references to body parts, sex and even excrement aren't traditionally considered vulgar (there is even a much beloved elder whose nickname meant 'excrement' (long story behind that)).
> 
> In my culture all the offensive words had to do with cannibalism things like "Your Brains" and "Your Boiled-Head"
> 
> I actually used them as inspiration for DnD curses so Orcs howl "Your Brains will fill my pot" and the worst Gnollish Curse means "I will eat the contents of your stomach"



Care to share that culture you're referring to?


----------



## Felon (Aug 7, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This is also, BTW, why I have no objection to puns and word puzzles in fantasy and RPGs. Okay, so maybe in the Common tongue of Greyhawk, or the language of Steven Brust's Dragaeran Empire, "live" isn't an anagram for "evil," and "right" doesn't mean both "correct" and "the opposite of left." But those languages no doubt have their _own_ homonyms and synonyms for use in such puzzles. So I simply assume that the puzzle that makes sense in English is standing in for one that makes sense in Common (or whatever), and move on.



Hmm. Interesting line of thought. I have often avoided puzzles for this very reason.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 7, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Care to share that culture you're referring to?




Tuwharetoa a subgroup of the New Zealand Polynesian (often called Maori)

the same people that brought 'the _Haka_' to Rugby


----------

