She has a poll on the bottom of the entry, because she does a lot of editing, and is wondering which words she should be red-lining as possibly offensive to Christian readers. I voted, and then wrote this comment:
. . . the words you mentioned don’t necessarily bother me. I put foul language in two categories: profanity and vulgarity. Profanity (using sacred words, usually one of God’s names, as swears) bothers me greatly. Vulgarity doesn’t bother me much at all, though its overuse does. I mean, the great difference between “bowel movement” and “sh**” is that one is fancy and one is common. It’s not a value difference, it’s a class difference. (It’s interesting, btw, to study our words for bodily functions and see which derive from French – i.e., came over with the aristocratic Normans – and which have Saxon origins – i.e., became lower-class words when the Saxons became a conquered people.)
I think it’s wrong to use foul language in order to offend someone. It’s wrong to cuss someone out. I think it’s wrong to use the name of Jesus to curse. I think it’s sad if you use vulgarities because you don’t have a rich enough vocabulary to use anything else. But I think that it’s appropriate to use it sometimes (e.g., when you hit your thumb with a hammer? it’s appropriate to say something less than pleasant!).But I might be wrong! The problem with words is that you can't be sure that your understand of their meaning is the same understanding held by the person you're talking to. Maybe when you say "sh**", you're thinking, "this situation is as disgusting to me as a bowel movement" - in other words, you're making an analogy. But perhaps the person who hears it doesn't think of the literal meaning of the word, perhaps when they hear you they think about the social meaning - about how using that kind of language means that you're someone who doesn't care about the strictures of polite society, you're someone who doesn't care about the rules, you're a scofflaw, a care-for-nothing.
You've got to think about connotation, not just denotation. That's what makes it such an interesting subject: language has layers. There's the dictionary meaning, and there's the meaning-in-context.
What do you think?
Peace of Christ to you,
Jessica Snell
I agree about the difference between dictionary meaning and meaning in context. I think this difference is heightened when so-called vulgar words are used *merely* as interjections, with no shred of dictionary meaning or grammatical function left, which emphasizes that the utterance is purely emotive. Depending on the context and the audience, such an interjection may come across as no more or less than "I was angry and wanted to say the most offensive thing I could." This seems (at least) inefficient, and may potentially cause collateral damage.
ReplyDeleteBias disclosure: it is possible that I am a posteriori justifying a sentiment ingrained in me from earliest childhood. :-) I don't like vulgarity. But I think the argument is still valid: when a word is separated from its semantic and syntactic content, it is more likely to be used solely because it is offensive, and that use seems much less justifiable.
Profanity bothers me very much. I cringe when someone uses the Lord's name in vain. Four letter words -- I don't use them myself, but it really depends on context whether I think their use is effective or not. Usually not, but sometimes (like in some books where the characters are talking) it seems to make a point in a way that can't be made with euphemisms.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's the writer in me, but I tend to think that words have meanings, and if you use them in ways that align with their meanings then there's nothing wrong or offensive going on. Thus, "Jesus Christ" is the Son of God, not something you scream when someone cuts you off in traffic. Similarly, s**t is something you can say when things are going . . . well, s**tty (it's not, by the way, an appropriate interjection. "Um" works perfectly well for that).
ReplyDeleteI do think that the whole connotation and denotation thing is difficult to navigate sometimes, but I think that's why we can talk to each other, why we can converse about these things. There's always the risk that I'm going to smash my finger, say s**t!, and someone will make assumptions about my social status, intelligence, or love for Jesus that aren't true. But if that person talks to me, I'll happily explain why I chose that word (well, maybe not happily if they ask me before I treat my finger . . . ).
I'd be fascinated to read about the origins of the different words. Did you get that info from anywhere in particular?
I hate swearing in writing, it always feels like they are attacking me. I do strongly associate it with anger, belligerence, etc. It is actually very difficult to find books without any swearing. I'm always grateful for people who write "he swore" rather than having the character say "*" in the book. That way, the words themselves don't get stuck in my head, but obviously you still know the character is angry/hurt/ what have you. Often it is just lazy writing, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteIt also seems like it has rapidly gone downhill from the occasional shite to words I did not know until I was over 25, put in for effect; "See what a jerk this character is! She swears like a trooper!" Sheltered? Perhaps, but why should we put up with it? If one can't get your point across without swearing, maybe a new line of work is in order? :P
Lasselanta - I think what we're talking about, in the end, is culture. Because if vulgar language is what someone grew up with, and they use it for that reason, well, it might be in poor taste, but they're probably not using it to offend. Language like that is called "salty" - and yes, probably because sailors used it, but it's also sometimes the language used by the folks we used to call "salt-of-the-earth types".
ReplyDeleteI also kind of wonder if you're more likely to use vulgarities if you have a profession that deals with the subject of the vulgarities - if you handle bodily waste, say, or animals, or something like that.
Willa, I'm with you on profanities.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Sarah, this: "if you use them in ways that align with their meanings then there's nothing wrong or offensive going on" tends to be my view too. But I'm not sure non-word-nerds are always so likely to being saying exactly what they mean!
Anonymous - I appreciate your view, although whether or not it's lazy writing depends on what kind of literature it is, I think.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that putting a whole category of words out of bounds to writers is like putting a whole color out of bounds to painters. "No blue, or you're lazy!"
It CAN be a cheap and lazy way out, I'll give you that. Much like violence and sex, foul language has easy shock value, and people do use it just to get their readers' adrenaline up. If that's what you're talking about, then I agree: that's lazy.
But if we say these words should *never* be used, that's saying one of two things:
1) They don't actually describe any part of reality, i.e., they're worthless as words qua words.
2) They describe a part of reality that is so evil it should never be named.
I hesitate to say that either of those options is true. Maybe that the words require great care and discretion in use. But not that they lack a definition that corresponds to reality. And not that they describe a part of reality that has no place, ever, in literature.