I recently had an interview booked on a radio show with a host who was looking forward to chatting about Island Girl. The book had been sent to her months before, the bio had been forwarded and the questionnaire answered. We had communicated by e-mail a few times, and it was all systems go for the interview. So imagine my surprise when I received another e-mail only days before the date, informing me that it was with “mixed emotions” that she was forced to cancel.
The reason? Profanity. Turned out she hadn’t read the book until the week before, and has very strong feelings about the issue. To cut to the chase, she couldn’t possibly endorse a book, even one she enjoyed, if it contained profanity.
Now I admit that one character, Liz, swears a lot. In fact a quick count of the F-bomb alone puts her use of the word at well over two dozen. Still, I was shocked to discover that in 2011 in North America, the use of profanity in an adult novel could still get you banned in some places.
I’m not saying the radio host was wrong. She has the right to choose which books she reads and which guests she has on her show. But it was her admission that she had mixed emotions about cancelling the interview that intrigued me.
Despite the profanity, she had found something to like in the book, something to give her pause, to make her hesitate, if only for a moment before cancelling. Of course, to my mind, it would have been better to forge ahead, to have a heated discussion about the issue, to engage the audience and challenge established ideals and values. But not everyone likes heated discussion, something I appreciate but will never understand, but that is an issue for another day.
The point today is that her e-mail got me to thinking: Could I have written that character without dropping a single F-bomb on the reader? Would she have have been less believable, less realistic, if her language had been more genteel?
I’m not the first to think about this issue. There are no shortage of essays and blogs written on the subject, most from the point-of-view that profanity is never necessary. The proponents of gentle speech routinely trot out the popularity of Jane Austen, Ernest Hemingway and, more recently, Stephanie Meyers as proof that one need not use crude language in order to create compelling fiction.
That’s all well and good, but both Austen and Hemingway wrote in bygone eras when social rules were stricter and censorship harsher. And Meyers writes contemporary fiction in a genre where careful speech is appreciated, which makes sense I suppose since young minds are at stake, but that too is a topic for another day.
My novel, Island Girl, is written for adults, and I couldn`t help wondering if my character would have worked as well as she does, had she been more circumspect in her speech. Let me be clear up front – not every reader likes Liz. Some actively hate her. She’s an alcoholic, after all, and self -destructive, so she’s not always on her best behaviour. She’s purposely shocking in both dress and lifestyle, so again, not someone who’s going to worry about offending people, not someone you would necessarily want for a friend. But does that mean profanity has to form part of her character?
When I was a kid, my mother always told me that nice girls don’t swear because it marks them not only as crude, but also semi-literate. Lacking the words to express themselves properly, the poor unfortunates had no choice but to fall back on the shock value of profanity. I, on the other hand, was one of the lucky girls, equipped with a plethora of words all balanced neatly on the tip of my tongue, just waiting to be set loose in a fabulous tribute to the English language. In short, there was no need for me to stoop to such low speech.
A fart could become a gaseous expulsion. Shit, a malodorous discharge. And of course, there are the old standbys of penis as member and ass as bottom. Mom was right. The alternatives are endless if one only tries. As for cursing, my character could have said gosh darn instead of God damn and heck instead of hell, so honestly, does anyone ever need to drop an F-Bomb on anyone?
After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that the answer is yes – sometimes an F-bomb is essential to the realistic portrayal of a character. Liz would never have said Gosh Darn, unless she was trying to be a smart ass. Or should I say, a clever rascal. Except she’s not a rascal. A rascal implies an impish quality, a playfulness, even a certain innocence, which in no way describes Liz. Had I gone that route with her speech, she would have become someone else. A woman who liked herself, who wasn’t a danger to herself. A plucky character everyone could like, and that is not who she is. I honestly believe that not only Liz, but the story as a whole would have been weakened with the use of gentle language for her character.
So I stand by my F-bombs, knowing there will be fallout. And again, I ask, what think you?
About Lynda
Connections
View all »







pleasing everyone
When I was in third grade, my teacher read us the story of the father and son who went to town with their donkey. At first the son was riding and the father walking, but a passer by said "Look at that lazy boy riding while his father walks!" So they switched and the father rode, and a different onlooker found the father abusive. Neither rode the donkey: they were called stupid for both walking. Both rode the donkey and an animal rightest found fault with that arrangement.
The moral, as Mrs. Sorrentino informed us, is "You can't please everyone and you shouldn't even try."
Cormac McCarthy has famously refused to lessen the graphic violence in his novels in order to appeal to a wider audience. The original printing of BLOOD MERIDIAN sold less than 1000 copies although it's now considered one of the greatest western novels ever written. Would it have achieved that level of greatness if McCarthy had bowed to the popular taste? Probably not.
The only critic an author should answer to is him or herself. If a writer caters to the taste of others, artistic vision will eventually be destroyed.
Well said!
Thanks Louise.
This think I
I used to write a lot of that kind of dialogue but I don't anymore. I've even made an effort not to swear when speaking, and was pleased when someone noticed recently and asked me why. I do say gosh, darn, bless it, goodness, etc. Why do people feel the need to yelp something fiercely when they stub their toes?
First of all many, maybe most would not take my attitude and not worry too much about swearing in works of fiction. Limiting oneself can be freeing, but writers should feel free to use whatever means they can to tell the story they want to tell.
However, in stories, I think this kind of verisimilitude of dialogue is not that big a deal; the main thing is whether it's a good yarn and the reader is into it, and readers will let a writer get away with quite a bit if they are into the story. Dialogue, as I read somewhere recently, is seldom exactly the way people talk in real life anyway. From what you've said I think your character Liz would never have asked the deity Gosh to do a spot of darning for her after stubbing her toe/rubbing her foe, but if you'd wanted to write her dialogue sans swearing there would have been a way around it.
There's always a way
to make things neater. But it would have been like changing the title of the T&A song in the musical Chorus Line to Bosoms and Bottoms. Suddenly, it would have been transformed into a Monty Python skit. While I love Monty Python, that wasn't at all what the creator of Chorus Line had in mind. Word choice makes all the difference.
As soon as you mentioned
As soon as you mentioned Monty Python, the song 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life' sprang to mind, supporting both our points of view. In 'Life of Brian' it's silly and crazy, and in 'As Good As It Gets', it's sweet and perfect. Context, scene, all that are important to how the audience will take something. However, in AGAIG they took out the 'shit', which was sensible. Eric Idle could have left it out of his original version up there on the hill at Calvary, and would have got as many laughs, but the word choice was spot on for that scene.
I'm also reminded of Johnny Cash's cover of Nine Inch Nails' 'Hurt', which likewise deleted the one 'shit'. This was also a sensible choice in my opinion, given Cash's age and high esteem. Now is it me, or did Cash, despite his editing job, nail the tone and sentiment of that song better than the original author Trent Reznor did? That one's debatable, I suppose.
I'm racking my brains here, but did the TV series 'Prime Suspect', which is one of the most hardboiled things I've seen, have swearing?
Not unless it was on HBO
I might just be drawing a blank, but I can't think of a show on network television that had colourful language.