# Stephen King's use of the F-word



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

Right now I'm about half way through The Stand.  Last fall I read Under the Done and then Salem's Lot during the month of October -- for Halloween.  After reading these books I have one complaint about Stephen King's writing style: his excessive use of the F-word.

I've heard and read the F-word quite a bit in professional and personal situations throughout the years, however I have never heard or been a party to a conversation/dialog where the F-word was used as extensively as King's characters use the word in his books.

It's got to be one of his favorite words because out of all the other four-letter words out there on planet earth, he uses that one word more than any of the others in his books.  Usually he uses the word in character dialog but there is also a fair amount of it in his narrations -- which isn't necessary, in my opinion.  Like I say, over the years in my real-world experiences so far, I just don't hear the F-bomb anywhere near as much as it's portrayed in one of King's books.  

Obviously, I don't like the word and it just wrecks the story for me when I see it over and over again.  Am I the only one who reads Stephen King books and cringes seeing the F-word printed multiple times on one page?  Such a waste of space.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

While I don't curse much myself, I don't mind reading the "f-word" (or any curse word) when it's used appropriately.

Consider King's Dark Tower novels.  Roland doesn't curse.  He speaks in archaic, formal language.  That's because he's a gunslinger from an older, nobler time.  Eddie, however, curses nonstop.  That's because he's a punk kid from New York.  If Eddie didn't curse, Stephen King wouldn't be doing his job as an author.  He lets Eddie speak the way a punk junkie would.

There's a lovely scene in the Dark Tower Book Three, where the companions approach the city of Lud.  Eddie stares at the city, and imagines a wise council of elves in ancient halls, who could offer the companions rest and advice ala Elrond from Lord of the Rings.  If I recall correctly, Eddie proceeds to hopelessly confuse his companions by calling out:  "Bring on those wise f**** elves!"

That's a perfect use of the word -- comical and suited to Eddie's character.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I use it regularly in casual conversation, so no, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I think it's used appropriately in The Stand. I've read other books (not King's books) where I think the word is overused. Just my opinion, though. 



pidgeon92 said:


> I use it regularly in casual conversation, so no, it doesn't bother me.


Me too. Maybe that's what makes the difference.


----------



## Lori P (Jan 6, 2011)

doesn't bother me, but i am a coona** from louisiana....


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

There are people who speak like that, you probably don't hang around with them much. Neither do I. But these characters aren't necessarily people that we would hang out with.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

It's a difficult balancing act, and one where you can never please all of the people all of the time.

Personally, I'm from a fairly middle class Midwestern upbringing where profanity in general was frowned upon, and use of it by a man in the presence of a woman was even worse. I find that when reading, if it is used sparingly by characters for whom it seems a reasonable part of their vocabulary, I can deal with it. When it gets used beyond a certain amount, it loses its value for emphasis and becomes a numbing assault on my brain, potentially ruining what could be a good story.

Other people obviously do not consider such language to be as egregious. I worked for awhile where a lady in an adjacent cubicle and another lady from elsewhere in the cubicle farm would use the f-word repeatedly and non-stop when talking to each other. They were from a different part of the country than I, a different ethnicity, and so forth; and for them it was just another adjective/noun/verb/whatever. I came close a couple times to complaining to management about them, but did not.

I'm not claiming to be some sort of angel who never swears, but when I do, it's usually the result of strong emotion, very strong emotion if I say it in the presence of someone else, and extremely, almost never happens emotion (or pain?) if I use it in the presence of a woman. And a woman using the f-word especially and other profanity to a somewhat lesser extent is a real turn-off for me. It's just the way I've been wired by my upbringing and experiences in life: not better or worse than anyone with a higher tolerance for such language -- just different.

So, long-winded rambling almost over, I generally prefer authors who might use it a bit where appropriate for the situation and characters, but I'd prefer it not be used relentlessly as just another word. Besides the fact that it becomes annoying, it also becomes repetitive and boring and loses the strong impact it can otherwise have, and that is where I think an author may often sacrifice effective writing in the name of supposed verisimilitude.


----------



## Jon King (Sep 10, 2010)

If it fits the character, it should be used, in excess or otherwise.  If your book has Queen Elizabeth as a character, maybe dial it down to he occasional "bollocks" for her.

I'm not a flagrant swearer, but it enters my vocabulary in appropriate doses and venues.  Doesn't bother me in the slightest to see it in print.  It doesn't go on my blog, but I try to keep that accessible to pretty much anyone.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I rarely use profanity. When I do, it's a sign I feel _very_ strongly about something.

I've never bought into the argument that its use in books/movies/etc. makes the dialogue somehow more "authentic."

Mike


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> There are people who speak like that, you probably don't hang around with them much. Neither do I. But these characters aren't necessarily people that we would hang out with.


I see your point. A lot the characters in King's books are fairly loathsome or deadbeat folks who probably grew up using the F-word even in religious conversations . I guess I can understand it being in his books as part of character development and maintenance, but what makes me cringe is how liberal King is in using the F-word. It gets to a point where it's flat-out over-kill for a character to keep saying it over and over as "The Kid" does in The Stand. Also, it isn't just one of the words used in character dialog, but also King himself uses it in his narration in different places.

To each his own, I guess.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

I find other words much more offensive and off putting personally.


----------



## ElementR (Jan 11, 2011)

i don't mind it a word is just a word...


----------



## crash86 (Oct 8, 2010)

I have read just about every Stephen King book and this doesn't bother me at all.  I do swear here and there, and to be honest there are other words in the world worse than the F-word. A writer gets 'into' character to write a novel and some language or mannerisms that doesn't bother the majority of people may upset some.  For some the use of swear words isn't a issue but maybe graphic violence is.  My  advice is that if it bothers you that much switch to other types of reading material, there is plenty of works out there that are wholesome and don't use profanity.  You can't please everybody.


----------



## Daniel Pyle (Aug 13, 2010)

I love the f-ing f word!

Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all, although I'm not really a curser myself.  I've always thought SK used it realistically.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Daniel Pyle said:


> I love the f-ing f word!
> 
> Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all, although I'm not really a curser myself. I've always thought SK used it realistically.


Just to play Devil's advocate a bit: realistic does not _always_ equate to good. Realistically, many people use the word "um" a lot when speaking, and many others use the phrase "you know" a lot. If you wrote dialogue that way, um, it would, you know, get, um, pretty f-ing boring after, um, awhile and, you know, kind of a, um, pain in the, um, you know, a** to read.

If you sprinkle in a _few_ ums and/or you-knows here and there, it might give the desired pacing and sound you want for the character in question, but when done at what is a realistic level for quite a few people in actual conversations, it becomes overkill. Likewise, for my personal tastes, when every other word out of a character's mouth is the f-word (or whatever word you don't like), it becomes overkill and detracts from the story-telling, _regardless of how realistic it may or may not be._.

That may be deviating from what the OP was referring to, but is more where I'm coming from -- just because it's realistic does not necessarily make it effective in all cases (IMHO, and repressive Midwest upbringing's viewpoint, of course  ).


----------



## Daniel Pyle (Aug 13, 2010)

NogDog said:


> Just to play Devil's advocate a bit: realistic does not _always_ equate to good. Realistically, many people use the word "um" a lot when speaking, and many others use the phrase "you know" a lot. If you wrote dialogue that way, um, it would, you know, get, um, pretty f-ing boring after, um, awhile and, you know, kind of a, um, pain in the, um, you know, a** to read.
> 
> If you sprinkle in a _few_ ums and/or you-knows here and there, it might give the desired pacing and sound you want for the character in question, but when done at what is a realistic level for quite a few people in actual conversations, it becomes overkill. Likewise, for my personal tastes, when every other word out of a character's mouth is the f-word (or whatever word you don't like), it becomes overkill and detracts from the story-telling, _regardless of how realistic it may or may not be._.
> 
> That may be deviating from what the OP was referring to, but is more where I'm coming from -- just because it's realistic does not necessarily make it effective in all cases (IMHO, and repressive Midwest upbringing's viewpoint, of course  ).


True. _Realistically_ was a poor word choice. How about: I've always thought SK used the word effectively.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Daniel Pyle said:


> True. _Realistically_ was a poor word choice. How about: I've always thought SK used the word effectively.


And I must admit that as far as Mr. King goes, I just plain don't care for his books on a number of levels, so I don't even recall that much about the word usage in the handful of his books I've tried to read; so I'm not even really ranting about his writing.


----------



## J.K. Arauz (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't mind the word, but if it's in the narration, it better be in first person. If an omniscient narrator curses, the book becomes funny for all the wrong reasons. I suppose because I regularly think of an omniscient narrator as a god and why would he/she curse? Why? LOL


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

J.K. Arauz said:


> I don't mind the word, but if it's in the narration, it better be in first person. If an omniscient narrator curses, the book becomes funny for all the wrong reasons. I suppose because I regularly think of an omniscient narrator as a god and why would he/she curse? Why? LOL


That's an interesting point. I can't remember encountering a book in which a third person omniscient narrator cursed. Doesn't mean I haven't encountered it...just that I don't remember having done so. I can't imagine trying it myself, but there must be instances of it somewhere, because pretty much everything has been done by this point.


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

crash86 said:


> My advice is that if it bothers you that much switch to other types of reading material, there is plenty of works out there that are wholesome and don't use profanity. You can't please everybody.


Stephen King is too good of a writer to give up reading his books. I do read other material but his novels have the most liberal use of the F-word of any others that I've read. So, as far as S. King's books, I just suck it up and read on.


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

NogDog said:


> If you sprinkle in a _few_ ums and/or you-knows here and there, it might give the desired pacing and sound you want for the character in question, but when done at what is a realistic level for quite a few people in actual conversations, it becomes overkill. Likewise, for my personal tastes, when every other word out of a character's mouth is the f-word (or whatever word you don't like), it becomes overkill and detracts from the story-telling, _regardless of how realistic it may or may not be._.
> 
> That may be deviating from what the OP was referring to, but is more where I'm coming from -- just because it's realistic does not necessarily make it effective in all cases (IMHO, and repressive Midwest upbringing's viewpoint, of course  ).


I agree. As I say, I've read a lot of other fiction out there and, hands down, King uses the F-word way more than any other author I've read. His F-bombs detract from the story with its liberal use. It's just not necessary and I don't know if it's realistic. I know and have worked with a lot of people similar in nature and character as King's fictionalized characters, and none of them use the F-word on a daily basis anywhere near as much as King's characters do. It's over the top usage and King himself must be fascinated with the word for some reason.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Zell said:


> It gets to a point where it's flat-out over-kill for a character to keep saying it over and over as "The Kid" does in The Stand.


See, I thought this was a perfect use. The Kid is a fraud who thinks he's a bigger deal than he is. His constant cursing is part of his attempt to pretend he's a big shot, but the vast overuse just illustrates that he's not what he's trying to portray. The character is supposed to be an unlikable douche, and his excessive (by almost anyone's standards) cursing reinforces this.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

J.K. Arauz said:


> I don't mind the word, but if it's in the narration, it better be in first person. If an omniscient narrator curses, the book becomes funny for all the wrong reasons. I suppose because I regularly think of an omniscient narrator as a god and why would he/she curse? Why? LOL


I don't think 3rd person narration is meant to be from the point of view of anyone, god or otherwise, although the use of the word "omniscient" in some references to it clouds the issue somewhat... If o.narration was meant to be literally from god, then why would he be narrating and who to are more troublesome questions than his choice of words...!

Re. the f-word, to me it's a word like any other. To be used as the writer sees fit.


----------



## J.K. Arauz (Jan 10, 2011)

James Everington said:


> I don't think 3rd person narration is meant to be from the point of view of anyone, god or otherwise, although the use of the word "omniscient" in some references to it clouds the issue somewhat... If o.narration was meant to be literally from god, then why would he be narrating and who to are more troublesome questions than his choice of words...!


A god, an observer, a voice, who/whatever, doesn't matter. Trying to decipher who an omniscient narrator really is and what its purpose is for telling the story would be a different subject matter. I'm saying that this omniscient narrator, I think, shouldn't be cursing unless it's important to the narrative. It ends up giving the O.N. a different voice.


----------



## MeloniePhillips (Jan 13, 2011)

I enjoy Stephen King very much, I can't recall the "F" word in his novels, but I am sure they are there.  I think some are becoming desynthesized because of how casual it is being tossed around these days.  I honestly try not to use it to much myself, but hearing it and reading it just doesn't bother me anymore.  Ok maybe hearing it does make me cringe at times.


----------



## Daniel Pyle (Aug 13, 2010)

Third-person narration comes in many different forms, just one of which is truly omniscient.  These days, you're much more likely to find third-person-limited narration, in which case you as a reader are seeing things from the character's point of view and the use of curse word depends (in my opinion) on that character.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

Daniel Pyle said:


> Third-person narration comes in many different forms, just one of which is truly omniscient. These days, you're much more likely to find third-person-limited narration, in which case you as a reader are seeing things from the character's point of view and the use of curse word depends (in my opinion) on that character.


Sorry if this is going off topic, but there's another side to this argument. As well as the character-based 3rd person, you can equally well have an implied narrator. Like you're being told a story round a campfire - even if the narrator never mentions himself personally the word-choices etc. reflect him/her. This isn't the same as the author-voice or 'true' omniscient narration, but equally well could use swear words etc. Conrad uses this technique on occasion (although not with the f-word!)

Sorry for the digression. Back to the cussing.


----------



## Joel Arnold (May 3, 2010)

I've read a lot of King, and I must not mind it, since I can't remember it ever being a bone of contention with me.  Now my brother-in-law -- every other word out of his mouth is the F-word. Yikes! Seriously, he has trouble getting through a single sentence without throwing it in a couple times...


----------



## LRGiles (Apr 28, 2010)

I rarely curse, but I can't say the word bothers me too much if it fits the character.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2011)

Zell said:


> Right now I'm about half way through The Stand. Last fall I read Under the Done and then Salem's Lot during the month of October -- for Halloween. After reading these books I have one complaint about Stephen King's writing style: his excessive use of the F-word.


If I was one of the last survivors on Earth after a superflu killed off 99% of the population and had to face ultimate evil on a daily basis to survive, I suspect I would drop the f-bomb a bit more than I do currently.

Just saying...


----------



## ChrisPhilbrook (Jan 18, 2011)

Honestly it's all in what the author is trying to say.  Using specific words, or phrasings, can indicate a state of mind, or educational level, or to show emotional excitement.

I know some of King's books are laced with profanity, and some aren't.  I think in his case, he's trying to use the word(s) for the above mentioned effects.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If I was one of the last survivors on Earth after a superflu killed off 99% of the population and had to face ultimate evil on a daily basis to survive, I suspect I would drop the f-bomb a bit more than I do currently.


Good point!


----------



## theaatkinson (Sep 22, 2010)

hmm. great discussion. My characters will use it, although I never do personally. In my little town, the f-bomb is about llike the word 'the' it's an extension of it almost, as in get the 'fing' book from the f'ing shelf. 

we're pretty rural. Fishing community and all. grin


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

There's a big difference between King using the f-word and his characters using the F-word. If you look, each character is consistent with the use--some NEVER curse, so clearly it's not King who cusses, it's the characters, whether in dialogue or in the third-person viewpoint.

I've written books where I don't have a single f-word, and deliberately so, and others where it would be forced to not do it. In general, though, you can get around it if you wish, but if you are writing mainstream adult fiction, it's almost a necessity.

Scott


----------



## James Roy Daley (Dec 10, 2010)

I've never found the f-bombs in his stories distracting.


----------



## Dee_DeTarsio (Oct 26, 2010)

Stephen King can do no wrong! I really have no problem reading f-bombs, as long as they sail along harmlessly!!


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

I don't swear much in reality, nor do I ever hear anyone else swear. Ever, it seems. And I don't think it's necessary to use vulgar language to make certain characters more authentic. In fact, it almost feels like a short-hand or cop-out to just swear instead of using any other sort of regional idiom or exclamation. 

But I tend to gloss over curse words when I read them in books. I guess I've come to expect them and don't think anything of them.

With that said, I do use curse words in my own books, but very sparingly. Only for effect. Not to establish a character as a certain type of person, or to create an overall tone for the entire book. Again, that feels overly simplistic to me.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

King and Joe R. Lansdale both get into the heads of a certain type of character, salty and wickedly funny, and do it so smoothly the profanity rarely seems out of place. Odd how some authors can do that and then some seem to simply have no other vocabulary options available. Crude language pops up in my horror work, often for humorous effect.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Zell said:


> It's over the top usage and King himself must be fascinated with the word for some reason.


*WARNING: Sore spot hit*

Now this is the sort of 'logic' that drives me batty. The book contains far more swearing than I like, therefore it contains far more swearing than is necessary, therefore the author put it in due to some weird obsession of his/her own. What the HECK? People say similar things in reviews of one of my books, and I think it's a ridiculous assumption to make.

How about this instead: The book contains far more swearing than I like, and I don't understand why the author felt it necessary, therefore I won't read another of his/her books. Simple, huh?

FWIW, some of my books contain a lot of swearing because, well, that's how the character sounded in my head. *shrug* I thoroughly understand some people not liking it, and I DON'T make assumptions about the unhappy reader's fascinations, obsessions or repressions.


----------



## BigAl (Jul 9, 2010)

Zell said:


> I agree. As I say, I've read a lot of other fiction out there and, hands down, King uses the F-word way more than any other author I've read. His F-bombs detract from the story with its liberal use. It's just not necessary and I don't know if it's realistic. I know and have worked with a lot of people similar in nature and character as King's fictionalized characters, and none of them use the F-word on a daily basis anywhere near as much as King's characters do. It's over the top usage and King himself must be fascinated with the word for some reason.


Is it possible that your experience might be limited? I couldn't help but notice your location is Utah. Has it always been? I lived in Utah for 25 years, roughly half my life, split evenly between school years and as an adult. From my experience the word is used much less there by people of all persuasions than it is in many places.


----------



## Jimbo72 (Dec 31, 2010)

I am currently reading Salem's Lot and do not recall an instance of the F word as of yet.  Not saying it is not in the book, just have not noticed it being there so most likely it goes with the flow of the story to me.


----------



## 3pointers (Jan 8, 2010)

I'll be honest; it bothers me.  Just like Eddie Murphy's constant use of the f-bomb bothers me in a lot of  his movies.  

It's not necessary and I think it's crass.  Other authors are able to write well-written stories with interesting characters without using vulgarity.  I actually got tired of his excessive use of the word and did quit reading his books.

I don't think he used it as much in his earlier books, which is why you may not have noticed it in Salem's Lot.  It's been a long time since I read that book, but I don't recall it being used, or if it was, being excessive.


----------



## Daniel Pyle (Aug 13, 2010)

3pointers said:


> I don't think he used it as much in his earlier books, which is why you may not have noticed it in Salem's Lot. It's been a long time since I read that book, but I don't recall it being used, or if it was, being excessive.


Actually, it seems to me like he uses it less often in later works, or maybe I'm just more desensitized now than I was when I read his earlier stuff.

I guess I could check the books I have loaded on my Kindle&#8230;

Okay, King uses the f-word 38 times in _The Shining_, 50 times in _Cujo_, 54 times in _Misery_, 30 times in _Full Dark, No Stars_, and only twice in _UR_, so (with the exception of _UR_) it looks like he uses it about as much as he ever did. Anyway, at most that's&#8230;what&#8230;one usage every five to ten pages or so? In my opinion, that's hardly excessive. Especially when people are getting attacked by ghosts, rabid dogs, or axe-wielding, number-one fans.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

It depends on the context for me, but I'd prefer not to see it.  It's not that I'm offended, but it doesn't do anything for the writing.  I was raised not to ever use 4-letter words.  Then off to college in the south and I started using it a lot.  I got sick of hearing it at work (in various offices), so I stopped using it myself, except when I'm alone when vexed (and early in the AM when I'm stumbling around) -- just out of habit.  Bad habit though.  Most people use it out of habit, and I think it limits one's vocabulary.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

mlewis78 said:


> Bad habit though. Most people use it out of habit, and I think it limits one's vocabulary.


Now that's one argument that really annoys me... people who swear don't have a limited vocabulary. I am happy to admit I swear on occasion - I can use all the words that anyone else can, plus three or four more that non-swearers won't...

They are just words, many of which have a history and etymology going back hundreds of years. I just can't understand the logic behind deciding one group of letters is 'bad' and one isn't?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I don't mind swearing, either in books or in person. However, I don't normally drop F bombs unless I'm really angry or in a lot of pain. (banging my kneecap into a corner is sure to wring several F bombs out of me!) 

Btw, there was a study done that shows swearing helps allieviate pain.   It studied physical pain, but I wonder if it does the same for stress or mental anguish? Granted, used casually in general conversation ,it's not a pain reliever, but I thought it was interesting. 

Sorry for typos, I don't have my contacts in yet.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

It doesn't bother me, being someone who swears like sailor most of the time myself.

And I've known plenty of people who swear just as much as the characters in books like the Stand.  Just a matter of who you're around.  If you're always in professional settings, and most of your friends and family are the religious type or just otherwise hate swearing, then you wont' hear it much.  A lot of my friends swear as much or more than I do, so it's a constant stream of f-bombs on nights out etc.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

Dee_DeTarsio said:


> Stephen King can do no wrong! I really have no problem reading f-bombs, as long as they sail along harmlessly!!


I guess you haven't tried to suffer through _Insomnia._


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

James Everington said:


> They are just words, many of which have a history and etymology going back hundreds of years. I just can't understand the logic behind deciding one group of letters is 'bad' and one isn't?


Agree 100% . Words are words. What matters is intent. Saying "F*** you!" to someone is rude as you're directly insulting them. But it it really any worse than saying "Screw you!" or any other expression with similar intent? And why is saying "That was f'ing awesome!" wrong? It's just a word.

But oh well, the notion of "bad" words does have societal use. It's a good way of screening people you meet. For instance, I know anyone I get to know a bit who doesn't swear, and especially is very offended by swearing, isn't someone I'm likely to get along with as they're probably far more prudish and reserved than I am etc. Similar, people offended by swearing will no pretty readily that I'm probably not the type they'd get along with as a close friend, romantic partner etc.


----------



## MaxMunro (Nov 12, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> anyone I get to know a bit who doesn't swear, and especially is very offended by swearing, isn't someone I'm likely to get along with as they're probably far more prudish and reserved than I am


Same here. I can understand people not liking swear words, but people swear all the time, and censoring characters will only limit them.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I don't see the connection between not swearing and being prudish.  Prudishness is about sex.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

mlewis78 said:


> I don't see the connection between not swearing and being prudish. Prudishness is about sex.


Sure. And most people I've met who are very offended by swearing are also very offended by anything sexual, nudity in movies (much less porn) etc. I mean hell, if they don't swear, that also puts a real crimp on dirty talk during sex! 

My bigger point is that people who are very offended by swearing (not those who just don't swear much themselves) tend to just be very conservative and reserved across all areas of their personality and life. So seeing that some one is easily offended by swearing is a clear red flag for me since I'm pretty much the opposite conservative or reserved.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> Sure. And most people I've met who are very offended by swearing are also very offended by anything sexual, nudity in movies (much less porn) etc. I mean hell, if they don't swear, that also puts a real crimp on dirty talk during sex!
> 
> My bigger point is that people who are very offended by swearing (not those who just don't swear much themselves) tend to just be very conservative and reserved across all areas of their personality and life. So seeing that some one is easily offended by swearing is a clear red flag for me since I'm pretty much the opposite conservative or reserved.


You sure like to put people into boxes: conservatives, prudes, reserved . . .

Lots of "conservatives" swear and have sex (not necessariy at the same time). Do you really think that swearers and conservatives are mutually exclusive, or that prudes and swearers are mutualy exclusive?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

mlewis78 said:


> You sure like to put people into boxes: conservatives, prudes, reserved . . .
> 
> Lots of "conservatives" swear and have sex (not necessariy at the same time). Do you really think that swearers and conservatives are mutually exclusive, or that prudes and swearers are mutualy exclusive?


I didn't necessarily mean to do that--and I didn't mean conservative as in political sense (though I also have little interest in associating with those types either, being uber liberal myself).

Just that there's definitely a correlation between being very offended by swearing and also being offended by sex in movies (and likely pretty boring in the sack themselves--yes, everyone has sex. But reserved/easily offended people tend to be dreadfully boring at it.) and so forth. So seeing someone is readily offended by is a pretty reliable indicator that I'm not going to be very compatible with that person. Not only because I swear a ton, but also because we probably aren't going to like the same types of movies, books, music etc. Also many times such people are also religious, which is a turn off for me as a long-time atheist.

It's not a perfect correlation as these things aren't 100% mutually exclusive by any stretch. But all of them are fairly strongly correlated to an extent that I feel pretty comfortable in using things like being very offended by swearing, or nudity/sex in a movie, or being overtly religious etc. as red flags that show that I'm probably not going to have much in common with that person to bother with trying to start a relationship of any kind. Life's to short to bother trying to be friends with people who are too different, especially when you lack patience and aren't much of a people person in the first place.

In any case, I'm not really trying to classify people into groups. Just saying that people who are easily offended are generally people I'm not compatible with, as despite having a Ph D etc., I'm pretty a pretty crass and sexualized person who is going to offend people who are sensitive to swearing, view anything other than standard sex in marrage as a sin/taboo etc. etc. So someone that's terribly offended by simply swearing is someone I generally steer clear of.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

It does seem to me that extrapolating reactions to Stephen King's use of one particular vulgarity to being able to classify people into groups is making a pretty big leap.  

For me, ultimately, it comes down to believability.  Would this character have likely said/done this?  If so, fine.  If not, poor artistic choice.  Maybe it wouldn't have been MY artistic choice, but it's the author's right to choose.

Interesting discussion, and I keep thinking back to the discussion about Huck Finn we were having in another thread.  I wonder will someone, some day, want to produce expletive-deleted versions of King's books?

Betsy


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> For me, ultimately, it comes down to believability. Would this character have likely said/done this? If so, fine. If not, poor artistic choice.


Well, on that front, King is writing about evil people. And the "good" people tend to be in stressful, life threatening situations. So the swearing very much fits his characters IMO.

But even getting out of that, some people just swear a ton in daily life. I do. Many of my friends do. And we're all well educated people, college professors, doctors, etc. So who's to say whether a character should be someone who swears or not? Just because people in your social circles don't drop f-bomb's left and right doesn't mean only certain other types of people do.

So something you label as "poor artistic choice" can just be your limited view/stereotypes about what types of people swear frequently etc. Just some food for thought.


----------



## Mrs. K. (Dec 31, 2010)

I think it would be obvious only if it didn't fit a character's personality or the level of feeling that is being expressed.  I didn't notice Frannie dropping a lot of f-bombs in The Stand, but quite a number of King's characters would be a lot...LESS...than what they are without that word. "Gosh darn fiddlesticks" is NOT gonna cut it for, say, Randall Flagg.


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

Agreed. Too many F-bombs in King's  books..

Although, I could see how there would be a lot in Shawshank Redemption since it's about inmates.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Patrick Skelton said:


> Agreed. Too many F-bombs in King's books..
> 
> Although, I could see how there would be a lot in Shawshank Redemption since it's about inmates.


Only convicts swear like sailors?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

mooshie78 said:


> So something you label as "poor artistic choice" can just be your limited view/stereotypes about what types of people swear frequently etc. Just some food for thought.


Fair enough. But it could also be a poor choice. . Artists do occasionally make poor choices. Trust me, I know this.  But ultimately, it's their choice. Which is the point I was trying to make. They get to decide. We can accept it or not, as the consumer. But to say they should be limited in presenting their vision is something I would never advocate.

If we're talking about me specifically, I wouldn't base my expectations of the character on what I know in real life, but on what the character has said and done up to that point. If the character has been saying "oh, bless me!" up to that point and then suddenly let loose without any provocation, I would likely find that unbelievable.

EDIT:  Frankly, if I were basing my expectations of book characters on real life, the field would be wide open. Very little that people do in real life surprises me. 

Betsy


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Fair enough Betsy.  That all makes sense.

It just irritates me when people have views like swearing is a sign of limited vocabulary or education etc. when that's not that case at all.  Again I'm a professor, and most of my friends are professors or doctors or lawyers etc.  The vast majority of us swear like crazy!

The only thing swearing or not is related to really is one's views on swearing!  Maybe some other things correlated to that like religious beliefs etc. I suppose.  But not education, vocabulary, occupation etc.  

So like you, I go into books with no expectations of the character based on what "type" of person they are in a real world sense. And you're right that swearing all of a sudden after being very proper and reserved throughout the book up to that point can seem out of place unless there's good reason for it (a very stressful situation, they're personality has been slowly changing etc.).


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I know a lot of different kinds of people, of all ages and political beliefs, and some swear and some don't.  And some don't swear around me but probably swear in other situations.  Truth in advertising, my husband and I both use the f-bomb at home, particularly when watching the evening news or working on cars (or a quilt) but rarely in public.  Most people would probably assume I don't swear.    So I seldom make those kinds of judgments about other people. 

Swearing is just one of any number of possible actions for a character that can either be believable, or not, depending on the art of the author.  And there's no doubt that reader expectations feed into that believability, too.  I get into those discussions with my brother quite often--he finds character actions unbelievable but I don't.  He's led such a sheltered life, LOL!

Betsy


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

I don't mind any word if it's consistent with the character and the situation.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And there's no doubt that reader expectations feed into that believability, too. I get into those discussions with my brother quite often--he finds character actions unbelievable but I don't. He's led such a sheltered life, LOL!


Oh no doubt. And a lot of it isn't caring whether it's believable or not. Some people just are very offended by swearing or sex or violence etc. and want to lead sheltered lives and are just very put off when they read something that offends their sensibilities.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. I don't care how other's choose to lead their lives. I just take exception when they go the extra mile to try to promote banning books or censoring things that offend them, rather than simply choosing not to expose themselves to it.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I guess the one thing that continues to bother me in this discussion is the viewpoint that "since this word does not bother me, it should not bother you," or, "since this word bothers me, it should bother you, too." I'm all for authors writing whatever they truly feel they need to write, whether it's f-words, n-words, graphic sex and/or violence, or even science fiction. But when some readers are turned off by those things, don't insult them by saying there must be something wrong with them (even the sci-fi fans). I would therefore suggest that authors simply think about it and weigh the pros and cons first rather than just using it willy-nilly because it's convenient/easy to do so. If it seems to be the only way to tell your story, then so be it, but be willing to turn away -- without complaint -- some potential readers. And, of course, if you're only writing to be a literary artist and don't care about sales, by all means do whatever you want. 

PS: As I mentioned earlier, I have no specific viewpoint on Mr. King's usage, as I simply find his writing totally uninteresting to begin with, and have never gotten past the first couple chapters of the 4 or 5 books I've tried. (I keep trying because so many people love him, so I keep thinking I must be missing something.)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, I think for the most part, people are reponding to Zell's question:  "Am I the only one bothered by King's use of the f-word.". Some are, some aren't.  I don't think anyone is actually advocating banning or censoring books, mooshie. 

But good point, NogDog; it's a choice the author makes and he or she has to accept that some will like it and some won't.

Betsy


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Well, like I said, that's the only time I have a problem with people's views--when they act like everyone should have the same view as theirs, suggest that writer's should change their language to suit their tastes etc.

In my view, all writers should be going for art and writing the way they want to write.  Success either comes or doesn't.  I'd have little respect for someone who wrote books based manly on formulas of what tended to sell well.  Be it in terms of plots, characters, length, or language.  If I every wrote any fiction (highly unlikely as I'm just not that imaginative) it would have a lot of swearing and sex etc. as I swear all the time in my daily life and I'm quite sexualized etc.  It would be disingenuous of me to make any type of art that didn't reflect myself.  Just like it would be disingenuous of someone who never swears, has prudish views of sex etc. to write a Stephen King style novel etc.  If the writer isn't being true to themselves, the chance of creating something worth being read is pretty low I'd think.

I'm all for trying to make money and be successful.  But not to the extent of censoring yourself and thus removing the uniqueness you can bring to a genre etc.  But yes people, including authors, shouldn't insult people who are offended etc.  They should just say "I guess my writing is just not for you." and leave it at that.  You can't please everyone.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

J.K. Arauz said:


> I don't mind the word, but if it's in the narration, it better be in first person. If an omniscient narrator curses, the book becomes funny for all the wrong reasons. I suppose because I regularly think of an omniscient narrator as a god and why would he/she curse? Why? LOL


Since King does not normally write in 3rd omni, that is a non-issue. He does write in 3rd close (or limited-whichever one prefers). 3rd close is normally has narration written in the voice of the Main Character.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I wasn't referring to political conservatives either in my posts.  But when you start putting social conservatives into a box (and I don't think I'm socially conservative) and say they are probably boring in bed, don't swear, are prudes, etc. your're making a judgment based on what you perceive those conservatives to be.  You likely don't even know them.  The world is not really made up of all social conservatives and social liberals.  That's too simple.

If an author sprinkles the F word all over the place numerous times (and I don't know about King, since I have read the book in question), the author is limiting their vocabulary to that word in all of the places it is used.  Couldn't he at least use a thesaurus if he/she can't think of a different way of saying it?  Or is the vocabulary limited to the F word?  "Simply swearing" is one thing and swearing all the time is another.

And, as I mentioned earlier, it depends on the context and of the character who is using the word.

I have worked with people who constantly used f'n this and f'n that at work (in the past).  These are people who I was subordinate to, and I could have been fired for using the same words in speaking to them.  You'd think they'd broaden their vocabulary a little.  I haven't seen it as much in recent years, because these bullies don't want lawsuits brought against them.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

I think the key with the use of the F-word or anything else in writing--does it ring true? Is it there authentically or is it gratuitious---some people use it way too much in real life...I speak it more than I like and it shows up in my writing. 

I spend a lot of time in boxing gyms and bars where it is a frequently used adjective.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

mlewis78 said:


> And, as I mentioned earlier, it depends on the context and of the character who is using the word.
> 
> I have worked with people who constantly used f'n this and f'n that at work (in the past). These are people who I was subordinate to, and I could have been fired for using the same words in speaking to them. You'd think they'd broaden their vocabulary a little. I haven't seen it as much in recent years, because these bullies don't want lawsuits brought against them.


I agree--it depends entirely on the character(s) using the word. I've also noticed that some part of the country tend to use it more, even in general conversation--e.g. big cities and areas around the Northeast. If a southern guy was using it in front of women in a novel, I'd think the writer didn't know much about the South (or at least the Southeast where I live) because men tend not to swear in front of women. Although I suspect they swear just fine when they're alone or with other men.

There does seem to be a geographic "distribution" to the use of swearing, particularly in mixed company. Just my observation and obviously a generality.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> It just irritates me when people have views like swearing is a sign of limited vocabulary or education etc.


In some cases, it is. There is a difference between the realistic use of swear words for effect, and the blatant use of them for shock value. In _The Stand_, the use of the words is believable because of the nature of the characters and the situation. But then I reject plenty of stories that get submitted to the journal simply because the author uses swear words as a crutch. It almost becomes code for "this is the bad guy" instead of actually doing the work to develop the bad guy's character.

The primary difference with King and the typical writer is that King knows when to curse and when not to. Not all of his characters swear. But the ones that do, the swearing makes sense in the context. If every single character in a story swears, then you do have to wonder if the author is simply replicating his/her own speech and doesn't really know how to use dialogue effectively.

All joking aside, I struggled with the use of the f-word in _A Game of Blood_. The hero has a serious case of potty mouth, but when I went back to edit, it just didn't feel right to clean up his vocabulary. It is part of his coping mechanism. If I told him he couldn't curse, the poor guy would probably blow up from the pressure.  Though other characters in the book are constantly trying to clean up his language (including the bad guy...which just makes Mitch curse mor to spite him).


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Amy Corwin said:


> I agree--it depends entirely on the character(s) using the word. I've also noticed that some part of the country tend to use it more, even in general conversation--e.g. big cities and areas around the Northeast. If a southern guy was using it in front of women in a novel, I'd think the writer didn't know much about the South (or at least the Southeast where I live) because men tend not to swear in front of women. Although I suspect they swear just fine when they're alone or with other men.
> 
> There does seem to be a geographic "distribution" to the use of swearing, particularly in mixed company. Just my observation and obviously a generality.


I can semi-vouch for that being a north easterner who now lives in Atlanta for work. Swearing isn't as prevalent down here. Thankfully I live and work in the city, so that helps since it's a younger crowd and it seems a majority of people I run into aren't from around here anyway.

But it's definitely not my scene and I hope to find a job back in the North soon so I can get the eff out of here and back to where I fit in better!  Dating isn't easy down here being a 30-something, liberal, foul-mouthed, atheist who can't stand kids stuck in the middle of the bible bout/family values center of the country!



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In some cases, it is. There is a difference between the realistic use of swear words for effect, and the blatant use of them for shock value.


I just think that's an overly simplistic view. I don't swear for shock value or anything. I've just always swore a lot, my parents swear a lot, most of my friends (who are again pretty much all fellow college professors with Ph Ds, or doctors or dentists or lawyers etc.) swear regularly as well. It's just the way we talk.

Yet if someone like you read a book with a set of characters like myself and my social circles (i.e. upper middle class and above, highly educated, in respected professions) and the dialogue matched the way we talk to each other, you'd probably think it unrealistic and that the author was just going for shock value.

I find that kind of close-minded and a case of people projecting their own world view/social circles on to what is normal or realistic lifestyles, vocabularies etc.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> I find that kind of close-minded and a case of people projecting their own world view/social circles on to what is normal or realistic lifestyles, vocabularies etc.


I don't think it's close-minded, it's just that different people look at things differently. A book isn't completed until someone reads it, and even then it becomes something different to each person who does so _because _they bring "their own world view/social circles on to what is normal or realistic lifestyles, vocabularies etc." with them. It's part of being in the author business, and something we have to accept - and I say that as an author whose book is frequently slammed in reviews for its foul language.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

RJ Keller said:


> I don't think it's close-minded, it's just that different people look at things differently. A book isn't completed until someone reads it, and even then it becomes something different to each person who does so _because _they bring "their own world view/social circles on to what is normal or realistic lifestyles, vocabularies etc." with them. It's part of being in the author business, and something we have to accept - and I say that as an author whose book is frequently slammed in reviews for its foul language.


Oh, I'm not saying people can't be offended by it.

I'm just saying it's close-minded to think that it's *unrealistic* that certain types of characters would swear--or that highly educated people like professors, doctors, etc. wouldn't swear a ton in real life etc.

Everyone has their own standards and things that offend them. And that's fine. I think it goes to far when people try to imply that "good" people, or "educated" people don't talk like that. As that gets into being judgmental and condescending toward people with different personalities, lifestyles, vocabularies etc. rather than simply being offended and choosing not to use such words yourself.

It's fine to be offended, avoid authors who use foul language and fine to choose not to associate with people who swear etc. (just like I avoid easily offended people, prudes, and social conservatives like the plague--part of swearing a lot in public at bars etc. is to be upfront and drive such people away) etc. But one doesn't have to make silly generalizations like people who are educated or intelligent or have good vocabularies don't swear.

Just because someone doesn't fit your standards doesn't mean they aren't good people, or highly intelligent or have great vocabularies etc. It just means they don't care about swear words. Nothing more, nothing less. It's fine to be offended, but don't go being stereotypical and make generalizations about people, authors etc. who use foul language.

I mean I choose not to socialize much with people who are easily offended or prudish or very religious or socially or politically conservative etc. But I'm not condescending toward them. I just acknowledge that they are very different from me and life is too short to be wasting time butting heads with people who are completely different than you vs. socializing with people with similar personalities and worldviews. Which at the end of the day is what we all do. Many just go to far and get into being judgmental and condescending toward people different than them. Rather than just acknowledging that not everyone is the same as them, and that there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

Just watched "The King's Speech" - not Stephen King, but King George VI and _he_ says the f-word in it...

If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

I don't like  reading  or  hearing  the "F-Word" - guess its my  age and the  way I was raised..  But - unless it is used inappropriately or so often  that it  takes away from a book  -  I try to ignore them.  I  would not  stop  reading King over them.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Ryne Douglas Pearson said:


> That said, I did have a friend comment to me that, when she came to an F-bomb in one of my books, she stopped for a second and had a hard time believing I would use language like that. I think that was a compliment.


This is kind of a scary thing to me, too. I usually work pretty clean, but in my newest book there's one character who drops a ton of f-bombs (and other types too). I've thought about counting them using Microsoft Word, but it's still too scary.

I really feel like I need it for this character. For him, cursing is a crutch. He's a weak guy and he ignores or dismisses things by cursing (doesn't work, but he never stops trying). It's just how he talks. I've known many people like that and I think everybody else does, too.

I do worry that people are surprised or offended by the language whenever he does this. It just wouldn't be the same, though, if he was saying "heck" or "dang." I tried that.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

My older sisters will stop  reading a book due to the language.  I think its a generational  thing.  I'm  more used to it but I don't like it either.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

bordercollielady said:


> My older sisters will stop reading a book due to the language. I think its a generational thing. I'm more used to it but I don't like it either.


It's really a tough call for me. My f-bombing character is a guy that your sisters would probably hate right off the bat, and that's who he's supposed to be. On the other hand, I don't want to be the *author* that your sisters hate for using the word. I don't use much bad language in real life but I know people who do, and my character is like some of them.

Tough call.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

You just have to be true to your art and make your characters the way they should be.

You can't worry about offending some people, because the truth is you can't please everyone anyway.  Write a book with characters doing bad things but not swearing, and it's going to seem odd and put off reader's like me who see it as unrealistic and the author censoring themselves to keep the easily offended happy.

All a writer can do is tell the stories they want to tell, with the characters who fit them and act the way they think they should.  A work just isn't going to turn out well if the writer is spending too much time worrying about trying not to offend anyone and maximize sells etc. vs. just telling the story the best they can.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

daveconifer said:


> It's really a tough call for me. My f-bombing character is a guy that your sisters would probably hate right off the bat, and that's who he's supposed to be. On the other hand, I don't want to be the *author* that your sisters hate for using the word. I don't use much bad language in real life but I know people who do, and my character is like some of them.
> 
> Tough call.


You are probably right.. I'm struggling getting my sisters past the sex in the Stieg Larssen books. I keep telling them to keep reading.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

bordercollielady said:


> You are probably right.. I'm struggling getting my sisters past the sex in the Stieg Larssen books. I keep telling them to keep reading.


Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Those scenes in the Larssen books didn't quite rise to the level of bothering me, but I sometimes wondered why they were there. My wife swears that they were crucial in defining this and that, blah blah blah. What do I know? She's smarter than me.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, I didn't find any of the sex scenes in the Larsson books gratuitous and thought they were all very relevant to the characters.  Be it the abuse helping shape Lisbeth in to who she was.  Or Blomkvists open sex life being a part of his free spirit and personality etc.

I can see it all being a shock to people who are very conservative, no sex out of marriage types etc.  And that's fine.  But the book isn't remotely about those sorts of people, and the sex fit the situations and personalities of the characters.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

mooshie78 said:


> I can see it all being a shock to people who are very conservative, no sex out of marriage types etc.


I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not someone is conservative or not. My sisters are not conservative at all. Just that they grew up in the 40's and came from a very different world - think June Allison.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

bordercollielady said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not someone is conservative or not. My sisters are not conservative at all. Just that they grew up in the 40's and came from a very different world - think June Allison.


I mean conservative in the social sense. If you're offended by sex in novels etc., that's a conservative personality trait for sure. Doesn't mean they're conservative politically etc.

Older generations were much more conservative sexually--if not in their own sex lives (but likely there as well) at least in thinking it's a taboo topic and shouldn't be discussed or included in books, movies etc. As are many social conservatives, very religious folk etc. today as there is no doubt some correlation between being religious and/or politically conservative and conservative about sex etc. (i.e. pre-martial sex being a sin etc.). Social conservative values tend to be pretty close tied to fundamental religious beliefs etc.

It's not a 1 to 1 thing. I know plenty of religious people who are very timid or easily offended about sex or swearing, but also plenty who are not and even have no problems with pre-marital sex, marriage etc. But of my non-religious friends, I can' think of any who aren't pretty casual about sex and talking about it etc., where as that's definitely a minority of my religious friends and family.

It's not meant as an insult. There's nothing wrong with being conservative about such things. Anyway, that's getting a bit off topic and risks offending when I don't intend. Just different strokes for different folks. As long as they aren't going around trying to censor and ban things I couldn't care less how people choose to live their lives.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

mooshie78 said:


> I mean conservative in the social sense. If you're offended by sex in novels etc., that's a conservative personality trait for sure. Doesn't mean they're conservative politically etc.


Don't want to get this thread off-topic (this is my last response) but I really don't think you can generalize. Individuals are a composite of many viewpoints - which derive from many factors including their upbringing, the environments in their past and current life. Some of those viewpoints are more liberal, some are more conservative. I am more socially conservative than my sisters in some ways but it depends on the issue. I am an Oberlin grad and some of my world views came from that influence but not all of them.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

bordercollielady said:


> Don't want to get this thread off-topic (this is my last response) but I really don't think you can generalize. Individuals are a composite of many viewpoints - which derive from many factors including their upbringing, the environments in their past and current life. Some of those viewpoints are more liberal, some are more conservative. I am more socially conservative than my sisters in some ways but it depends on the issue. I am an Oberlin grad and some of my world views came from that influence but not all of them.


Oh I agree. Generalization is always a tricky thing to do. I can't help it though, as I'm a social scientist so my whole career is based on generalizing findings from relatively small samples to make policy recommendations etc. 

And to clarify, that's why I keep saying "correlated" as that doesn't mean to imply any kind of of perfect causality. In negotiating the social world we have to take cues and read things into them. For instance, if I'm on a first date and the person is clearly offended at some mild swear word I work in (and I'll work them in as a test) I can be pretty sure that's not a person I'm going to be compatible with. Same if they're talking about their religion on the first date etc. If nothing else we'd but heads over my heavy swearing and being an atheist. We probably have very different values--I don't want kids and couldn't care less about marriage, e.g. And in my experience along the way, I don't tend to be sexual compatible with such people as I've yet to find someone that was easily offended by swearing or mention of sex, nor who was VERY religious who was any where near as open/kinky about sex as I am.

So while generalizations are tricky and tend to offend, the honest fact is we all do it every day in making first impressions about people and deciding who to associate with, who deserves a 2nd date and so on. We're always making decisions on limited data and partial impressions etc. And as Malcolm Gladwell writes about in his book Blink, we're pretty damn good at doing it accurately!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Zell said:


> I see your point. A lot the characters in King's books are fairly loathsome or deadbeat folks who probably grew up using the F-word even in religious conversations . I guess I can understand it being in his books as part of character development and maintenance, but what makes me cringe is how liberal King is in using the F-word. It gets to a point where it's flat-out over-kill for a character to keep saying it over and over as "The Kid" does in The Stand. Also, it isn't just one of the words used in character dialog, but also King himself uses it in his narration in different places.
> 
> To each his own, I guess.


I don't read much King. Haven't in years in years. But... errrm. Why would you use any cursing in third-person narration?


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I don't read much King. Haven't in years in years. But... errrm. Why would you use any cursing in third-person narration?


Good question.

King is a very good writer but has his own way of doing things. In Under the Dome, King gets kind of funky in his writing style that's very unique and is something that only he can get away with. I really like it.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

daveconifer said:


> My wife swears that they were crucial in defining this and that, blah blah blah. What do I know? She's smarter than me.


Is she reading this forum, Dave?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> I mean conservative in the social sense. If you're offended by sex in novels etc., that's a conservative personality trait for sure. Doesn't mean they're conservative politically etc.
> 
> Older generations were much more conservative sexually--if not in their own sex lives (but likely there as well) at least in thinking it's a taboo topic and shouldn't be discussed or included in books, movies etc. As are many social conservatives, very religious folk etc. today as there is no doubt some correlation between being religious and/or politically conservative and conservative about sex etc. (i.e. pre-martial sex being a sin etc.). Social conservative values tend to be pretty close tied to fundamental religious beliefs etc.
> 
> ...


Honestly, Mooshie, and I'm not trying to slam you, but... you're smoking crack, I think. Sure, what you're saying would apply just fine to some folks who are ultra-religious, etc. but there are others who you're WAY off-base about. This may be a Southern thing, but, generally speaking, you don't say / talk about some things in mixed company, in public, etc. That includes cursing. When you hear someone cursing up a storm at a restaurant, the theater, etc. the general consensus is that they're trashy. Sorry, that's just where it is. It's not the cursing that's offensive, per se, it's the venue. Same goes for discussing sex or any other bodily functions. You just don't. If you want to talk about it with friends or family, fine, but you don't subject others to what they probably don't want to hear.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Honestly, Mooshie, and I'm not trying to slam you, but... you're smoking crack, I think. Sure, what you're saying would apply just fine to some folks who are ultra-religious, etc. but there are others who you're WAY off-base about. This may be a Southern thing, but, generally speaking, you don't say / talk about some things in mixed company, in public, etc. That includes cursing. When you hear someone cursing up a storm at a restaurant, the theater, etc. the general consensus is that they're trashy. Sorry, that's just where it is. It's not the cursing that's offensive, per se, it's the venue. Same goes for discussing sex or any other bodily functions. You just don't. If you want to talk about it with friends or family, fine, but you don't subject others to what they probably don't want to hear.


Oh I'm talking about how people talk in small setting with friends and family etc. Not public gatherings around strangers, kids etc. as of course you have to adhere to social norms about swearing, sex etc. when in public places with others around, or dreaded family gatherings etc.

I'm talking about say a night out of drinking at the bar with friends and acquaintances, or a person on a first date who can't stop talking about her church etc., or how people act around a group of friends in general etc. Or people who go online and complain about curse words in books, etc. Situations that give a clearer indication of a person's personality, beliefs etc.

Not general social situations where we can't be ourselves and say whatever we want. You can't judge people in those settings as we all have to at least try to reign ourselves in and adhere to social norms.

But if someone's out for a night at the bar with me and other friends and is offended by swearing or our oogling ladies or general crude sex talk etc. then they clearly don't fit our group's social standards and should find other people to hang out with. Or if I'm on a date and the girl is offended by swearing or sex in the movie we saw etc. Those are where you get signs of whether a person is too conservative (or too liberal, crude, brash, sexualized etc.--it goes both ways) for you, and that it's generally a waste of time to pursue any kind of relationship or friendship as you're just too different.

Public settings around random people, yeah I try to reign in the swearing some. I don't always succeed, and for instance probably swear more when teaching than I should (though it's yet to come up on my teaching evaluations). But most everyone tries to not blatantly offend random people. But not in our own peer groups. I have no interest in spending time with "friends" who I can't be myself around.

And yep, it's definitely much worse in the south than say the northeast. I have to be on my guard more in public as people seem to get offended much more easily down here than say in NYC or Boston or DC where I've lived before. One of many reasons I'm trying hard to find a job back up there somewhere.

But anyway, to get this slightly back on topic, all I really started to say as I can be reasonably confident that someone that stops reading a book because they're terribly offended is someone I wouldn't have much interest in getting to know, befriend or date as that would be a huge flag that they have a VERY different value system than mine. Just the same as someone offended that I swear amongst friends, or who brings up religion all the time etc. We all make use of social cues like these in forming impressions of people, and they're generally pretty accurate.

I'll follow the other person's lead and make that my last post on the topic though. It's not too terribly off topic since views on swearing, people offended by swearing etc. is related to the thread topic, but I think we're going in circles now and I don't have much more to add. Everyone has their own standards and chooses social circles that match them and entertainment options that fit their tastes. It's really as simple as that.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

(Realize this is rather off topic from the initial discussion about f-word in books.)

I started hearing swearing and then swearing myself while I was a college student in Greensboro, NC.  Grew up in Long Branch, NJ in the 60s, and was taught not to swear.  Didn't hear it much either.  We learn from hearing, especially at a young age.  Kids say what their parents and peers say.  My parents didn't swear.

There is a public high school across the street from me.  On the street, I hear the kids talking every other word f this and f that.  They say what they hear.  I still say they have limited vocab, but I realize that at that age they don't care.

There are some places where it's inappropriate IMHO.  Spouting out F word at work (frequently), on these boards, in public speeches, in dealing with strangers in public, even here in the Northeast, is uncalled for.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

I don't mind if it is used effectively, and not just thrown out in a cheap fashion.


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

For the most part, I think there's milder swearing, that such as "damn" or "hell" that will accomplish the same thing.  I'd never use the F-word in my writing.


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

I use the F-word a lot. Like, a _lot_. Sounds good, feels good. Strange to see that it's a topic that gets so many people going. Thought i was in 1956 for a few moments there 

It's funny that some readers are fine with murder but not filthy language. That's why I call CSI the "new cozy"--full of gore, but relatively clean language, even when talking about sex.

Anyway, I'm glad there are so many choices out there in the reading world. Some with "fuck", some without.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

docnoir said:


> It's funny that some readers are fine with murder but not filthy language. That's why I call CSI the "new cozy"--full of gore, but relatively clean language, even when talking about sex.


Yeah, I've always found that part of societies' morals or standards (whatever you want to call them) to be seemingly bass ackwards.

Many seem to get way more upset over swearing or nudity/sex than they do over violence. Swearing is just words, nudity and sex is natural and part of life (not saying it's appropriate everywhere, but I don't see the big deal in appropriately rated movies etc.). Where as violence is an evil.

That said, it's of course not universal. From what I've seen in some other countries sex and nudity is on TV in some countries, but there's much less violent programming. So a lot of it is a cultural thing. Which makes sense. Some of Europe and South America is more open about sex than the US. At the same time, the US is obviously much more open about it than middle eastern society.

Anyway, getting off topic again. Just kind of a fascinating cultural topic to me as a social scientist in thinking about why people in some societies are offended more by certain things than others, and how it varies across countries, and even subcultures with in countries and across generations etc.


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

I've heard that Japan has very violent television, but a mostly peaceful society. Interesting. But that's just what I heard.

Funny, but in my post I just put that F*** right in there, and it got switched to "[Expletive]". Ha. But it's okay to say "The F-word", which has the exact same effect, right? It forces you to think of the actual word you're trying not to say!


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I read about murder mysteries.  They contain violence.  It doesn't make me support violence.  It's a very popular genre.  Most people who like to read murder mysteries/thrillers find them engaging.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

I don't think you'll get a lot of agreement from social scientists about whether reading and watching things increases your chance of actually doing things. i know folks have been arguing that point for years about reading , movies, video games and porn.

Repeatedly viewing or reading may desensitize people to certain abhorrent things which might make them less abhorrent.

The psychological question then becomes does that desensitization make the behavior more or less likely to occur.

Wow, it's awful early to get this deep...


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

> The psychological question then becomes does that desensitization make the behavior more or less likely to occur.


Hey, Schreck,

Maybe level of realism comes into play? Cartoonish, over the top violence versus realistic violence? I don't know.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

I agree Doc...but then you'll have those that argue that determining that level of realism is next to impossible...

I wonder if we want to be in the business of legislating what amounts to imagination...


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

No, no legislating for me.  I'm all for artistic freedom. Overuse of swearing isn't a problem.  It's a virtue! (Kidding, kidding...sort of).

I mean, I saw this morning on the news where a lawmaker wants to fine people for walking and texting.  I mean, in the land of the free, right?


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

Interesting article about where the word actually comes from here: http://www.etymonline.com (I can't paste in the exact link as it will get censored!). Interesting to note how _unoffesnive_ it became in certain contexts. Apparently Sergents in WW1 used it so much that when they wanted to really emphasis an order they omitted it...!

I find it odd that people often seem to assume it's a _newish_ word, when in fact our grandfathers and great grandfathers were probably using it.... just not in front of our grandmothers and great grandmothers!

Which just goes to say what many people have been saying on here; context is all (whether in real life or writing).

James


----------

