# Bleep instead of F?



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

How about this?  Are readers who dislike explicit cursing also offended or annoyed by implicit or bleeped cursing?

I'm thinking about a writer I know of (not a Kindleboard author!) who makes a big deal about how she "never uses curse words in real life or in her writing.  Ever!!!"  But her books are filled with the word "bleep" in place of what would normally be a curse word.  Personally, I find that more annoying or offensive than just using a "real" curse word.

Is it the actual string of characters in a certain order that bother people?  That author would say that's all it is.  To me, defining one's own curse words isn't much different than using the standard ones.  

edit: it may not have been "bleep" but there was a single or small group of made up words that were used as curse words.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

It's pretentious to use "bleep" instead of an expletive.  If your character curses, he/she/it curses.  If you don't want cursing, then don't have your character curse.  And a string of characters instead of a curse only works in comic books.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I would be put off by that.  It would take me out of the flow of reading.

If it's a character and situation where swearing is believable, then it should be there.  If it's bleeped out, or fake swear words are used (and it's not a fantasy/sci fi book) it's going to put me off and probably cause me to not finish the book or buy any more books by that author as I don't care to support people who choose to censor themselves for fear of offending people who get upset about words.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

That's really bizarre and I've never heard of it before. If you don't want swear words in your book, just exclude it altogether. What is the point of replacing them with the word "bleep"? It would be like a singer using a "bleep" on the actual album rather then just the radio edit.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I would find it a little odd to be reading something and come across the word "bleep" being used as a curse word. I would much rather see freaking or even fudge than bleep.

There are so many other words out there besides curse words that an author can use that it just seems silly to actually use bleep, not to mention slightly strange.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I find it hypocritical, somehow, that she is "against" certain curse words but not others (including the ones she makes up).

Maybe cursing is cursing regardless of what word one uses.  I'm not opposed to it myself, but man up about it (sorry for the sexism).


----------



## KatieKlein (Dec 19, 2010)

(lol) What's the point? As the writer, you've already thought of the word that goes there, and the reader is going to (at first) wrack his brain trying to figure it out. . . . This does more "damage," imo. Say it or leave it out. If you have characters who curse, let them own it.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I would stop reading that kind of book. That would totally turn me off. I get enough bleeping all over TV that peeves me off. Try watching BBC America the Inbetweeners, it drives me insane. Its just words. Argh.

I am not a child, I don't need censoring. 

I don't think I have ever come across that in a book, I think I would remember that. I do stay away from openly advertised "clean" books so I don't know if its used there or not. 

I agree with Scarlet, its pretentious. Total turn off.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

daveconifer said:


> I find it hypocritical, somehow, that she is "against" certain curse words but not others (including the ones she makes up).
> 
> Maybe cursing is cursing regardless of what word one uses. I'm not opposed to it myself, but man up about it (sorry for the sexism).


Hrrrm. I don't mind made-up curse words. I mean, I'll often say son of a biscuit instead of the more traditional SOB just because I find it humorous. I often say the real thing, too  And I sometimes say friggin' instead of... well, you know. But, I can (and sometimes do) cuss like a sailor, too. So, no, the made-up words wouldn't offend me, but "bleep"? What the bleep? That's just bleepin' stupid. And, no, I probably wouldn't read anything else by her. Dyin' to know who it is


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

If the character swears, the character swears. When I read, I don't presume that I am reading a Mary Sue story, I don't presume that the characters are an extension of the author.  If I read a murder mystery, I don't presume the author is a murderer!

Either don't write the sort of characters who would swear, or let them swear. Putting BLEEP in just gets the author in the way of the story.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I would not only stop reading the story, I would probably leave a craptastic review... filled with all of the bleeps.


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

daveconifer said:


> How about this? Are readers who dislike explicit cursing also offended or annoyed by implicit or bleeped cursing?
> 
> I'm thinking about a writer I know of (not a Kindleboard author!) who makes a big deal about how she "never uses curse words in real life or in her writing. Ever!!!" But her books are filled with the word "bleep" in place of what would normally be a curse word. Personally, I find that more annoying or offensive than just using a "real" curse word.
> 
> Is it the actual string of characters in a certain order that bother people? That author would say that's all it is. To me, defining one's own curse words isn't much different than using the standard ones.


You're serious? There is a published writer out there who uses the word "bleep" in place of a profane word in her books? That's -- different. Hmm . . .


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Folks, I really wouldn't feel comfortable naming somebody.  Let's say for the purposes of this thread that my example is hypothetical


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

To quote myself: words carry the weight of intention...

If she's using "bleep" instead of dropping an f-bomb or any other 4 letter word, the intent is the same, so she might as well use the actual word. I would consider "bleep" to be an insult to my intelligence as a reader--unless it totally worked for the book. It could be bizarrely funny, but I get the impression that it wasn't...


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Bleekness said:


> Once was out drinking with a bunch of people and there was this guy who didn't like swearing-okay, fine--but he drove the rest of us nuts because he would actually say *bleep* during a conversation. "Oh he's a bleep." "I don't give a bleep."
> Can you imagine putting up with that for an evening? Funny at first, pretentious later, then just sad.


My god that would drive me nuts. I'm fine if people don't want to swear (as long as they don't nag me about my swearing--it's their choice to hang out with someone different than them), but if you're not going to swear, don't swear.

As other's said, it's the intent that matters. Otherwise they're just words. Saying "bleep you!" or "screw you!" is just as rude as saying "eff you" to someone.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Personally, I'd rather be


Spoiler



f'ed


 then


Spoiler



bleeped


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

scarlet said:


> Personally, I'd rather be
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Personally, I'd rather be
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


This offends me.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Zell said:


> This offends me.


then don't read the black barred stuff.


----------



## WestofMars (Sep 16, 2009)

Yeah, I don't see the point, either. Even to do it as a joke, or because there are small children around (not that I've EVER had that problem. Nope. Not me.) -- well, like others have said, once is funny. To do it all the time shows a pretty limited imagination -- which might work for a character, but even then, as others have said, it's got to be done sparingly -- this is one instance where a little bit will go a long way.

(Says the woman whose novel opens with the infamous 11-letter word that ends with a rhyme of Trucker.)


----------



## ValeriGail (Jan 21, 2010)

Omgosh, this is too funny.   

I'm not sure how I would react if I stumbled into a book that used bleep instead of actual curse words.  It would totally kill the flow and authenticity of the story.  I'm pretty sure it would p*ss me off if I had paid for the book, or if I had invested a good amount of time reading it before the dreaded bleep bomb was dropped. 

I love made up swear words though.  I find myself using them quite often. My favorite is "God bless america" in place of God D*#* it.  I've used it since I was a teen, and the first time I heard one of my kids utter it with the intent of a swear word just like momma, I about fell over in shock and then laughter.  Was a wake up call that even though I was trying to disguise my cursing, the intent was there for all to see, learn and mimic.  The words themselves only play a small part of the whole.  


The only made up swear word I loath is Frackin.  I can not tell you how much my skin crawls every time I hear it.  Don't ask me why, cause I don't even know.  Maybe for me its right there with Bleep.


----------



## WestofMars (Sep 16, 2009)

The Bleep Bomb!

  

I've GOT to use that in a book... it might even make a good band name...Hmm.....


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

On the other hand, it would be quite useful to have a bleep-out function on the Web, or even on Kindle, for those of us who don't want to encounter bad words. Of course you can say "don't read books or sites that use them" - and I don't. But sometimes they get in places where you weren't expecting them.

As for substitutes, I have a few friends who will say things like "oh swear" but they don't actually curse. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. I agree that it would get annoying if it were done a lot, but fortunately I don't know anyone banal enough to do it a lot.

As for collections of characters - %$*#@! and such - I have always found them rather fun, but then I don't really think of them as cuss-words but as a sort of surreal shout that only exists in written form. But that is just me.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Frankly, all this hypothetical bleep doesn't really help. I'd need to see the actual book and how it was bleeping used. It might make sense in some situations, but be bleeping stupid in others. As this was a loaded question to begin with, answers here are going to be slanted against her most likely.

Personally, I am not as offended as many people here seem to be by self-censorship. I have read some books in the past -- a few by the great Roger Zelazny come to mind -- where they had underscores for obvious profanities ("s___" or "f___" or something like that). It really didn't bother me at all, and I have no idea if Mr. Zelazny typed it that way or if the publisher changed it, and frankly I don't care that much: I knew what was going on, and the librarians were able to lend the books to teenagers, so it was a win/win for all.

Then there is the intentionally silly thing Terry Pratchett* did in _The Truth_, where the thug Mr. Tulip constantly uses "-ing" in his dialogue, and you eventually find out that's exactly what he says: the dash is a silence followed by "ing". 
______________
* who uses very, very little profanity and never the "f-bomb", but that's probably easier to rationalize in a fantasy setting, where you can use made up curse words or take made up gods' names in vain.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

It isn't really about one particular author and I wish I hadn't mentioned that I had a specific example in mind.

My question is simply this. Hypothetically speaking, is there any difference between

1) "Swear you!"
2) "[the real f-word] you!"

I'm saying that is to have no "cursing" (and I don't really care either way) I don't think it should have either of these. I was just wondering what everybody else thought.

edit: Yes, I see a difference, but I think that if somebody uses the first and then claims to have a book with swearing in it, they're being somewhat hypocritical.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

daveconifer said:


> It isn't really about one particular author and I wish I hadn't mentioned that I had a specific example in mind.
> 
> My question is simply this. Hypothetically speaking, is there any difference between
> 
> ...


If it is dialogue where it is believable that the character would talk that way, I would not mind. But if the intention is that the character was in actuality using some "real" curse word and the author is just sticking in some generic, non-specific replacement, then I would prefer to either see the real word or an obvious [self-] censorship "s***", "f___", "___ing", etc. Substituting a generic "bleep" type of word would most likely sound silly to me, whereas the censored version at least lets me fill in the blank if I'm so inclined.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

NogDog said:


> If it is dialogue where it is believable that the character would talk that way, I would not mind. But if the intention is that the character was in actuality using some "real" curse word and the author is just sticking in some generic, non-specific replacement, then I would prefer to either see the real word or an obvious [self-] censorship "s***", "f___", "___ing", etc. Substituting a generic "bleep" type of word would most likely sound silly to me, whereas the censored version at least lets me fill in the blank if I'm so inclined.


We're in full agreement, Nog. Actually I think just about everybody in this thread is.

By the way, I have three YA books and there's not a "curse" in any of them. I wrote the dialogue carefully enough that I didn't need them, nor any substitutes. Rated G!


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

All this raises interesting questions about what curse words are and why they are disturbing (whether painfully or - I suppose - in some cases pleasantly). Clearly it isn't the subject-matter itself, as most of it can be referred to with non-obscene alternatives. Personally I believe that words in themselves invoke various kinds of power (which is why I do not use or expose myself to these particular ones, which I believe contain a very negative and indeed defiling power).

Incidentally, I have been sketching out scenes in a future novel in which a people that does not have cursing as a social phenomenon encounters one that does and communicates via instant cybernetic translation. One character finds that terms like "procreating" and "defacating" are interspersed in sentences that have no connexion with such subjects and believes her translator to be malfunctioning.


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

Sounds pretty goofy. I think a writer should either choose to write clean or use profanity. One or the other might determine your market.  As a writer, I shy away from F-bombs.  There's much milder swearing that accomplish the same thing, IMO.  I


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

It annoys me in written format and IRL.  IMO, it is the intent of the word or phrase that is "bad" not the actual word.  If you are going to imply a curse word, you might as well just go ahead and use the actual curse word.

The only time I see making up a cutesy faux curse word as being acceptable is if you are around a young child and you don't want them to hear the word.  But even then the kid is still going to pick up the intent of the word and it is probably not going to take them very long to figure out what word you actually meant.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Has no one else read _For Whom the Bell Tolls_? Papa wrote the book with soldiers swearing like soldiers do, however, American publishers at the time had this thing about not allowing swear words in print and told him he'd have to take out the offending words. I'm not sure if it was his idea, or his editors, but instead of rewriting the swearing out of the dialogue, the bad words were replaced with "obscenity". So you might read something along these lines: (roughly paraphrased)

"What the obscenity just happened to the obscenity bridge?"

"Don't obscenity know."

"Why the obscenity not?"

"Go obscenity in the milk of your mother's obscenity, you obscenity."

Maybe not that, _artless_, but it was clear form all the obscenities that Hemingway's soldiers had obscenity potty mouths.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Annalinde, that's an interesting idea -- I've read that every human language has obscene words, and that they predictably fall into a few categories (scatology, sex, slurs for outside groups, blasphemy). Also that swearing activates a different part of the brain than regular speech does -- which might be why people with Tourette's often swear as a tic but rarely tic on "regular words," and some stroke patients who lose speech can still swear. 

My only concern with swearing is that you can cause your favored obscenities to lose their power. Then there's nowhere to go when you're REALLY upset! Otherwise, I'm just not particularly sensitive to it and find that "dirty words" are another arrow in the quiver of communication. I like how inventive a lot of curses and insults are.


----------



## 13500 (Apr 22, 2010)

IMHO, if you think the characters swear, then have the balls to write them swearing. If you are uncomfortable with that, think of something else they could say. Fake swear words are annoying.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I love the fake swearwords from the movie Johnny Dangerously, though. Farging! Bastages!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Geemont said:


> Maybe not that, _artless_, but it was clear form all the obscenities that Hemingway's soldiers had obscenity potty mouths.


Anyone who's ever been to basic training can attest to that - cursing is raised to an art form in the military


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Thalia the Muse said:


> My only concern with swearing is that you can cause your favored obscenities to lose their power. Then there's nowhere to go when you're REALLY upset! Otherwise, I'm just not particularly sensitive to it and find that "dirty words" are another arrow in the quiver of communication. I like how inventive a lot of curses and insults are.


I think that's true to an extent in written communication (be it fiction or personal correspondence like e-mail, Facebook message, text messages, IMs etc.)

But in verbal conversations your tone, whether you're yelling etc. is more than sufficient to convey emotion. Even more so if in person as you have facial expressions added in to convey emotion. So I don't think my frequent swearing around friends and family makes it hard for them to know I'm really pissed off. My saying "that's f'ing hilarious" or other innocuous use of swear words doesn't lessen the impact of telling someone to "go f' themselves!" etc.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

I find bleeping rather silly in all situations it is used. The reader (listener, etc.) still knows what the word is, and isn't the problem the mindset/attitude of the person/character that believes swearing is okay (if one disagrees with that) rather than seeing/hearing the word itself?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am Bavarian, I'll never run out of curse words  .


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

> Annalinde, that's an interesting idea -- I've read that every human language has obscene words, and that they predictably fall into a few categories (scatology, sex, slurs for outside groups, blasphemy). Also that swearing activates a different part of the brain than regular speech does -- which might be why people with Tourette's often swear as a tic but rarely tic on "regular words," and some stroke patients who lose speech can still swear.


Thank you. Of course the people who did not understand swearing were non-human (like myself - though I have, of course, had occasion to learn what it is).

What you say is interesting, and really gives the answer to the argument put forward here that "substitute swearing" and actual swearing are essentially the same thing. They aren't. They have very different effects. I would say different metaphysical effects, but that they activate a different part of the brain is sufficient for our purposes here.

Reading a swear-word and reading a substitution create very different effects. A writer may want the effect of the actual word to be produced on the reader or she may not. To denigrate substitution across the board would be to deny writers the use of a particular kind of effect - one that tells the reader that the speaker is being profane without producing the effect on her that actual profanity produces.

It is not an effect I would normally want myself, but it is part of the toolbox that is language.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Actually, I don't know whether "substitute swear words" work more like real ones, or like regular words, in terms of brain processing -- if I had to guess, I would suspect they're more like swearing. They're filling that same function linguistically. WHAT words we view as obscene is totally arbitrary, as long as we have something that will fit the bill. And I suspect the fact that swear words are a human universal argues that we need them, they serve a valuable purpose.


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

I suspect the answer to that question depends on how far the reader "reads in" the actual words. I don't do that at all, so "substitutes" have no "swear" effect on me at all - but then I'm just some weird alien, so maybe that is nothing to go by.

As for the character substitution, as I mentioned before, I actually like things like #@*%#! I never for a moment read them as an actual "swear" but as a kind of surreal expostulation that cannot be pronounced and yet, somehow, is being pronounced.

But your point is interesting. I wonder how far different people are affected by substitutes in the same way as by the actual words. It possibly depends in part on how specific the substitution is. For example if it supplies the first letter of the word it may make many people fill in the word automatically. I suppose that depends on how far the word is part of one's active (used or unused) vocabulary. I would tend to just pronounce it in my mind as the letter - "dee" or whatever - but I can see that a lot of people would automatically think the word.

On the other hand if you read #@&%! do you actually "experience" a swear word? Did you just then? If you did that raises another interesting point, because I wasn't thinking one at all when I wrote it!

Edit



> WHAT words we view as obscene is totally arbitrary, as long as we have something that will fit the bill. And I suspect the fact that swear words are a human universal argues that we need them, they serve a valuable purpose.


Actually I don't think it is totally arbitrary, but I'll leave that one for now since it opens a whole nother can of worms.

But as for human universals - this does raise another thought. It has been pretty much a _literary_ universal that swear words are _not_ used in literature. Not just the supposedly-prudish Victorians but almost every era (with a few infrequent and debatable exceptions).

Which leaves us to consider whether just about every literary culture before the last half-century was made up of fools who did not understand what the world understands now, or whether, in fact the current world has forgotten something that they instinctively knew.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

It depends on context?  If it's "*(&! You!"  I read it as "F you" as it's pretty obvious that that is the intent.

If it's "What the %&*! ?" It's more ambiguous as it could be f*** or s***.  I more likely will read it as WTF? as that's a common expression of mine and I pretty much never say "what the hell?"  Someone who does say it more in real life might interpret it that way.

I'd guess you're pretty damn unique in reading it as some unpronounceable yet pronounceable string though!


----------



## Belle2Be (Aug 29, 2010)

Annalinde Matichei said:


> Thank you. Of course the people who did not understand swearing were non-human (like myself - though I have, of course, had occasion to learn what it is).
> 
> What you say is interesting, and really gives the answer to the argument put forward here that "substitute swearing" and actual swearing are essentially the same thing. They aren't. They have very different effects. I would say different metaphysical effects, but that they activate a different part of the brain is sufficient for our purposes here.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between character building and using "substitute" curse words, vs actually typing &^%$ which clearly most if not all humans would say in a Swearing situation. Like "Holy Dollar Sign Percent And Dollar sign! My car is stolen!" Yeah not so much. I can see the character says Bleep because he or she is a "holier than thou" or whatever type a person, but I didn't take it that is what the OP was talking about.
As for creating a different effect, when I was younger, I used to say "Screwed" instead of "F'd". It made my mom just as mad


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> It depends on context? If it's "*(&! You!" I read it as "F you" as it's pretty obvious that that is the intent.
> 
> If it's "What the %&*! ?" It's more ambiguous as it could be f*** or s***. I more likely will read it as WTF? as that's a common expression of mine and I pretty much never say "what the hell?" Someone who does say it more in real life might interpret it that way.
> 
> I'd guess you're pretty d*mn unique in reading it as some unpronounceable yet pronounceable string though!


This is interesting, and in a way perhaps helps to make a case for substitution (not that I am a "substitutionist" myself). Because what seems to be emerging is that the more these words are a part of one's accepted vocabulary (and are therefore likely not to upset one) the more one is likely to "read" the substitutions as specific words, and _vice versa_. So one could argue that substitution might keep everyone happy. Then again from the tone of this thread I don't see the happiness bursting out on every branch at the approach of a swear-surrogate - so that may be a silly idea!

Incidentally, while I don't think of the words even when first letters are used (I think what goes nano-secondarily through my brain is "Oh yes, know what that is, not interesting enough to translate") I did become clearly aware of the intended words when Conrad refers to - I think - a ship (actually he is reporting a character's assessment of it) as "a sanguiniary female dog". In that case, the words register because one is presented with a little "puzzle" that one can't help solving, rather than a well-worn glyph that one automatically tosses out before it reaches the portal of inward enunciation.

And yes that did amuse me - not the implied words themselves, but the impudently elegant circumlocution.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

The "Myth Busters" show did a test of whether or not profanity increased a person's capacity for pain. Each test participant was tested by immersing an arm in an ice water bath and timed for how long they could stand it. In one test run, they were given a list of "substitute" swear words they could say, but were not allowed to say any "real" swear words. In the other test run, they were encouraged to use "real" swear words. The results were significantly in favor of the hypothesis, with the average times being something like 30% longer when using "real" swear words. This would seem to reinforce the idea that swearing does have some specific effect on your brain if you consider what you are saying to be swearing, while "substitute swearing" does not have the same effect.

Now, whether or not you and I consider an given word to be a "real" swear word is another question. Certain words you use all the time may not have the same impact for you as they do for me, assuming it's one I consider to be a "real" swear word. And I have no idea if repeated use of a given swear word desensitizes one to its effects, and thus you would need to find new swear words to get the "beneficial" effects?


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Actually, I didn't mean that what words are "dirty" is arbitrary, so much as that the particular sounds/combinations of letters that upset people are arbitrary. The concepts themselves are pretty universal -- sex, esp. taboo sex/slurs on other groups/blasphemy/scatology. 

And I go read [email protected]%&%, in context, as the word that would most likely be used there. The human brain is pretty much wired to fill in gaps with a logical connector!


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

It would be interesting also to know if habitual cussers get the same relief as people who have an inward "barrier" against the words - and if habitual cussers used words they found genuinely offensive (such as racial slurs, perhaps) would they give more relief (assuming standard swear words didn't).

In other words is it a sense of barrier-breaking that relieves (or possibly counter-irritates) pain?


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

FWIW, I think I know the book in question. It's not on my top ten or anything, but in this case, the "bleep" actually WORKS because there's a rhyme and reason behind it. Normally, I'd say "bleep" is a lame cop-out, but here's the situation in the book:

For starters, it's YA, which all by itself rules out a lot of language, depending on the publisher.

BUT it's also a character/plot situation. Two characters are great friends. One is another species and communicates through a translator machine. The adults in charge of the translator won't let it say bad words, so the machine bleeps anytime the friend swears--which is frequently.

As a result, "bleep" becomes a total inside joke between them, and when the girl who CAN swear uses "bleep," we know it's largely because a) she's used to hearing it from her friend and b) it's totally tongue-in-cheek. It's actually pretty funny and it _works_.

I'm sure the rest of the series will continue to use "bleep," but I highly doubt the author will use "bleep" in another one. I'm sure she knows it won't work twice.

But I'm also curious as to why it's a bad thing for someone to not want to swear in their writing.

I get that making a serial killer say, "oh, golly darn" totally doesn't work, but I've also seen books where swearing is little more than a cop-out, massively lazy writing. Sometimes it's clearly for the shock factor.

One example of lazy writing was a work where every character used the f-bomb regularly. It worked for the drugged-out prostitute. It worked with the hardened cop. And it worked for several other characters.

But then the sweet retired man with the sick wife used it. Totally pulled me from the story. I felt like it was the writer speaking, and that he didn't have a clue how to express emotion or show character without swearing. It's like sitcoms throwing in a sex joke because it's an easy laugh.

_The Maze Runner_ is another example of having a lot of fake swearing, to the point that fans print up t-shirts with the words on them. I don't hear many people complaining about that.


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

daveconifer said:


> By the way, I have three YA books and there's not a "curse" in any of them. I wrote the dialogue carefully enough that I didn't need them, nor any substitutes. Rated G!


By the way--I love this. Shows that a careful writer like yourself doesn't necessarily need swear words.

One interesting bit I've noticed about myself is that I react stronger to a swear word when I'm listening to a book than when I'm reading one. Maybe it's because I can mentally scan over the word and not really register it, but with audio, I'm forced into hearing it. I don't know.


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

AnnetteL said:


> But I'm also curious as to why it's a bad thing for someone to not want to swear in their writing.


I have no problem with a person who doesn't want to use swear words in their writing; I have read hundreds if not thousands of books that do not contain a single swear word and they have been really good reads.

I just have a problem with the people who don't want to use swear words but then have a character in the book that uses swearing, so they make up some cutesy word to imply the swear word. IMO (emphasis on MO) the cutesy words are just stupid, either use the swear words or do not have characters that swear.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

AnnetteL said:


> FWIW, I think I know the book in question. It's not on my top ten or anything, but in this case, the "bleep" actually WORKS because there's a rhyme and reason behind it.


Yeah, I know the one you're knowin' and it wasn't the one I was thinking of. You're right -- she made it work. There was a logical reason for it.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

I remember reading those Left Behind books a few years ago. I don't have them, but I remember they never cursed either. Sometimes it seemed a little prudish. But mostly it would be something like:

He hit his finger with the hammer and cursed. Sucking his throbbing appendage, he wondered how he could possibly finish building the structure in time.


I think it's much easier to deal with when the people don't actually say anything. Now, in my own books, I do swear, but try to keep it in character.


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

kindlegrl81 said:


> I have no problem with a person who doesn't want to use swear words in their writing; I have read hundreds if not thousands of books that do not contain a single swear word and they have been really good reads.
> 
> I just have a problem with the people who don't want to use swear words but then have a character in the book that uses swearing, so they make up some cutesy word to imply the swear word. IMO (emphasis on MO) the cutesy words are just stupid, either use the swear words or do not have characters that swear.


I definitely see this point - it can be seen as a "cop-out" _both_ ways.

On the one hand "If you want swearing characters, why hide the swearing?"

On the other hand "If you are writing a book with no swearing, why drag it in anyway?"



> I get that making a serial killer say, "oh, golly darn" totally doesn't work,


But interestingly both words are cuss-substitutes. Which is another interesting point about cuss-avoidance - there are so many words like golly, gosh, heck etc. which have become words in their own right with their own character, implications and _nuances_. I think very few people think about their origins as nearly-curses.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Belle2Be said:


> There is a difference between character building and using "substitute" curse words, vs actually typing &^%$ which clearly most if not all humans would say in a Swearing situation. Like "Holy Dollar Sign Percent And Dollar sign! My car is stolen!" Yeah not so much. I can see the character says Bleep because he or she is a "holier than thou" or whatever type a person, but I didn't take it that is what the OP was talking about.
> As for creating a different effect, when I was younger, I used to say "Screwed" instead of "F'd". It made my mom just as mad


I actually do use the phrase "star, asterisk, dollar sign!" in conversation. Not as actual curse words, though, but as an allusion to them. Example: "I was so frustrated with this document, today, I could get it to cooperate to save my life. I finally just said star, asterisk, dollar sign and moved on to a different project." or "Man, that's infuriating. Makes you just want to say star, asterisk, dollar sign." *shrug* I think it's cute, so if nobody else does... eff 'em


----------



## Annalinde Matichei (Jan 23, 2011)

Arkali said:


> I actually do use the phrase "star, asterisk, dollar sign!" in conversation. Not as actual curse words, though, but as an allusion to them. Example: "I was so frustrated with this document, today, I could get it to cooperate to save my life. I finally just said star, asterisk, dollar sign and moved on to a different project." or "Man, that's infuriating. Makes you just want to say star, asterisk, dollar sign." *shrug* I think it's cute, so if nobody else does... eff 'em


I do too! I have a friend who, when she is really annoyed will say:

"Horribly bad, foul, disgusting words."

Or

"Foul language that peels the wallpaper."

Actually, after that any existing swear-words would be a bit of an anticlimax, wouldn't they?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Annalinde Matichei said:


> It would be interesting also to know if habitual cussers get the same relief as people who have an inward "barrier" against the words - and if habitual cussers used words they found genuinely offensive (such as racial slurs, perhaps) would they give more relief (assuming standard swear words didn't).
> 
> In other words is it a sense of barrier-breaking that relieves (or possibly counter-irritates) pain?


I don't think it matters. There's still degrees. If I'm mildly annoyed I'll just say "Dammit!" or something pretty innocuous as far as swearing goes. If I'm really irate and totally blow my top (which happens more than I like to admit as I have a terrible temper) I'll launch into a absurdly long string of obscenities at the top of my lungs. 



AnnetteL said:


> But I'm also curious as to why it's a bad thing for someone to not want to swear in their writing.
> 
> I get that making a serial killer say, "oh, golly darn" totally doesn't work, but I've also seen books where swearing is little more than a cop-out, massively lazy writing. Sometimes it's clearly for the shock factor.
> 
> ...


I think most people are on the same page as you.

There's nothing wrong with not swearing--but not there's also no point in using fake swear words or *bleep* in most cases either. If there isn't a need for swearing, then keep it out altogether.

The only other time I get bothered at lack of swearing is if it is a character who in real life would be swearing a ton, but doesn't in the book. Like your examples of the hardened cop, criminals etc. These people swear a ton in real life (I can vouch as I work in the CJ field) and it's unrealistic if they aren't swearing a good bit in books, movies etc.

At the same time, I don't think it's out of place for the "sweet old man" to drop an F'bomb. I'm a professor, I'm quite formal and proper and polite in public settings for the most part. But I swear like a sailor in my private life around my friends, parents, siblings etc. As do most of my colleagues etc. Most everyone swears with at least some regularity in private, unless they were raised very religiously or conservatively or just in a very anti swearing household etc. and those values stuck into adulthood in my experience. And that sticking seems much less common among younger generations as swearing seems much more prevalent among 30 somethings and under than in the older generations--based on my social circles anyway.

So I do think many instances of people like you finding a character swearing out of place is just not realizing that people like you who pretty much never swear tend to be a minority in real life. Even among older generations most are still dropping a swear word when they whack their thumb with a hammer etc., even if they're not dropping it in casual private conversations.

It's fine to be offended by swearing. But unless it's a character that's clearly very conservative/religious/proper/former (or otherwise someone unlikely to swear much), then swearing isn't really out of character as most everyone at least swears occasionally. Especially if it happened during a context that a normal person would swear. I mean just think in your own life of how many people you've been around on a personal basis (not just acquaintances you only talk to at work or in public) and how many (if any) you can think of that have NEVER uttered a swear word in your presence.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I'll say one thing - I was horrified - HORRIFIED - when my sweet mother-in-law who's in her sixties said the TW word re: women's lower bits.  I wasn't offended, but... shocked?!?  That's just not something that women say (at least that's how I was brought up) and she hardly ever curses to begin with.  Maybe the occasional damn, hell or s-word.  So when she said that I was just gobsmacked.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'll say one thing - I was horrified - HORRIFIED - when my sweet mother-in-law who's in her sixties said the TW word re: women's lower bits. I wasn't offended, but... shocked?!? That's just not something that women say (at least that's how I was brought up) and she hardly ever curses to begin with. Maybe the occasional d*mn, hell or s-word. So when she said that I was just gobsmacked.


Great example of what I was getting at. I seldom thing swearing is out of character in books or movies as I can't count how many times I have had someone like one of my grandmothers or an old aunt or great aunt who are very conservative, church going proper types say some swear word that just shocked the living hell out of me to here.

Hardly anyone out there truly never swears. Now where things can get unrealistic with swearing in books is a very reserved person who swears all the time or something. But it doesn't jar me if say a priest in a book drops an f-bomb once under duress or something as I've had too many times where some very proper person drops an f-bomb or some other obscenity that I never thought they'd utter.

But honestly, a lot of that is we're just not often around aunts, grand mothers, mother in laws etc. outside of family gatherings where people are more reserved. So maybe they swear a lot more than we think when alone with their spouses and close friends etc.

I will say, getting to your comment again, the tw word isn't something that younger women don't say these days. All the way through high school (mid to late 90s) and college to follow that was pretty prevalent--especially as insults at other girls. "She's a tw**" or "What a cu**!" were, and still are pretty common phrases among say the 30 somethings and under I hang around--as well as overhear at the bar etc. So that's probably just your upbringing or region or social circles or something.  I actually have one grad school female friend that regularly uses both words in facebook posts.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> I will say, getting to your comment again, the tw word isn't something that younger women don't say these days. All the way through high school (mid to late 90s) and college to follow that was pretty prevalent--especially as insults at other girls. "She's a tw**" or "What a cu**!" were, and still are pretty common phrases among say the 30 somethings and under I hang around--as well as overhear at the bar etc. So that's probably just your upbringing or region or social circles or something.  I actually have one grad school female friend that regularly uses both words in facebook posts.


Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm 37, actually, but my daddy just turned 90, so I was kind of raised as though I was a generation older (at least). No offense to anyone out there, but it always strikes me as incredibly vulgar and crude when a woman says something like that (the tw** or cu**) word. Just something I was raised that ladies don't say and most especially they don't say them in mixed company. Cursing in general doesn't bother me (situation depending) and if it did, the military would have knocked it out  Those words, though... yeah. Loathe. I seriously have an almost primal reaction to them, and not in a good way.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm 37, actually, but my daddy just turned 90, so I was kind of raised as though I was a generation older (at least). No offense to anyone out there, but it always strikes me as incredibly vulgar and crude when a woman says something like that (the tw** or cu**) word. Just something I was raised that ladies don't say and most especially they don't say them in mixed company. Cursing in general doesn't bother me (situation depending) and if it did, the military would have knocked it out  Those words, though... yeah. Loathe. I seriously have an almost primal reaction to them, and not in a good way.


Yeah, it's just all how you're raised. I'm a bit younger (32) and my parents are long younger (late 50s/early 60s) so I was raised by parents who came of age in the 60s etc. But the mixed company thing still holds. Even those girls, and myself, are generally being very proper and not swearing in mixed company (the facebook example as an exception!)

The words don't bother me. I actually tend to be more attracted to women that are a bit vulgar in language and overt about sex etc. But that's just me. I know plenty of guys who are very turned off by that kind of stuff. But I've never been much attracted to women who are very traditionally feminine and proper etc. I've dated a handful and it just never works out since I'm too crass and perverted etc. I'm not a traditional family values guys (atheist, don't want kids, don't care about marriage, casual about sex etc.) so I just don't get along with the traditional "ladylike" types.

It's kind of what I got flamed for in the other thread on the F word in King's writing. Ones views on profanity can be a window into a person's personality. The girl that says tw** or cu** is much less likely to get offended by my vulgarities than one who's offended by swearing obviously. And (in my experience) they are also more likely to be as kinky as I am, rather than reserved about sex like the easily offended types tend to be.

But whew!, we're getting way off topic again.  I just find it interesting discussing people's views on profanity, how it makes them think of others, how they judge people (both positively and negatively) based on their uses etc. Just an interesting highlight of the differences across people. Some are very turned off and offended by usage of certain words, while others are amused by it and attracted to people who swear.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Nah, it's a pretty interesting conversation. Honestly, it would never occur to me to assume that just because someone didn't curse or talk about sex in public meant that they were reserved. There's a reason for the expression lady in public, [bleep] behind closed doors


----------



## Reena Jacobs (Jan 14, 2011)

I find that quite amusing. Thanks for offering a new way to annoy my husband. haha I'm totally going to bleep at him tomorrow.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Nah, it's a pretty interesting conversation. Honestly, it would never occur to me to assume that just because someone didn't curse or talk about sex in public meant that they were reserved. There's a reason for the expression lady in public, [bleep] behind closed doors


Oh I don't mean that. Notice I said that someone who is easily offended by swearing tends to be reserved. Not just that they don't swear in public. 

Though I've found in my experience that people who don't also swear behind closed doors amongst close friends etc. (even if they don't get noticeably offended by hearing swearing) tend to be reserved. But you can't judge based on not swearing in public--as again even us foul mouths usually watch what we say in public.

I will say the correlation is stronger the other direction though. I've not been with anyone who swore a good bit, was open talking about sex etc. in private, amongst friends etc. who ended up being reserved and boring sexually. They may not be the type of person one would want to settle down and raise a family with etc. but the swearers tend to be good choices for hookups and casual dating.  And as I don't want kids and don't care about settling down any time soon, that's the type I tend to be drawn toward.

The non-swearers are a mixed bag in my experience, some are great, some are reserved. The few who not only don't swear themselves, but who are also super easily offended by others swearing have all been way too reserved for me. If they're not no sex until marriage (or at least a LONG time of dating) types, they're very boring. I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but I'd not found any and have given up trying with those types as there are no shortage of the other types.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm 37, actually, but my daddy just turned 90, so I was kind of raised as though I was a generation older (at least). No offense to anyone out there, but it always strikes me as incredibly vulgar and crude when a woman says something like that (the tw** or cu**) word. Just something I was raised that ladies don't say and most especially they don't say them in mixed company. Cursing in general doesn't bother me (situation depending) and if it did, the military would have knocked it out  Those words, though... yeah. Loathe. I seriously have an almost primal reaction to them, and not in a good way.


I wouldn't use them in mixed company, I'm respectful of others, but when I'm with people I know are okay with it or even on my own, I freely use the C and TW words. Personally, I think a word is only as powerful as you make it and logically, I see no reason why the curse words for females genitals should be any more offensive than those for the male genitals. I think it suggests there is something more offensive about female genitals than male genitals so women who don't use the female words but do use the male words are actually doing feminism more harm than good - they're basically encouraging that taboo attached to all things to do with the vagina (which is not a bad word!)

I have been saying recently that my language is atrocious though and I need to curb it a little bit - not because I'm ashamed by it but because I've become so comfortable using foul language, I'm afraid I'm going to slip up when I'm around the wrong people.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

history_lover said:


> Personally, I think a word is only as powerful as you make it and logically, I see no reason why the curse words for females genitals should be any more offensive than those for the male genitals. I think it suggests there is something more offensive about female genitals than male genitals so women who don't use the female words but do use the male words are actually doing feminism more harm than good - they're basically encouraging that taboo attached to all things to do with the vagina (which is not a bad word!)


I think you're reading too much into it  I don't think it's particularly nice to say the various slang terms for a guy's junk, either. I can assure you that my aversion to the C and T words has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with some sort of perception that there's something bad or dirty about female genitalia. Thinking that a word is crude or vulgar doesn't necessarily mean that you think the object represented by the word is crude or vulgar.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I think you're reading too much into it


I don't know, I think refusing to use the words is also reading too much into it by making it a bigger deal than it is - it's just a word and like I said, it's only as powerful as you make it.



> I don't think it's particularly nice to say the various slang terms for a guy's junk, either.


No it's not but society usually views the C word as more offensive than any word for the penis. Even more so than the F word. Why? There must be a reason and I'm not the only one to consider what it might be. Just google "why is the c word so offensive?" and you'll get dozens of results.



> I can assure you that my aversion to the C and T words has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with some sort of perception that there's something bad or dirty about female genitalia.


I don't mean on an individual level. I mean that _society_ has placed the offensive of the words higher because they've also placed this taboo on anything to do with the vagina. Even "vagina" is sometimes considered a "bad word" which I don't understand. Ever watch Scrubs? They had some good jokes relating to the fact that Elliot couldn't bring herself to say the word vagina. She had all different names for it. Funny stuff but based in reality and it's something that has always puzzled me.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

history_lover said:


> I don't know, I think refusing to use the words is also reading too much into it by making it a bigger deal than it is - it's just a word and like I said, it's only as powerful as you make it.
> 
> No it's not but society usually views the C word as more offensive than any word for the penis. Even more so than the F word. Why? There must be a reason and I'm not the only one to consider what it might be. Just google "why is the c word so offensive?" and you'll get dozens of results.
> 
> I don't mean on an individual level. I mean that _society_ has placed the offensive of the words higher because they've also placed this taboo on anything to do with the vagina. Even "vagina" is sometimes considered a "bad word" which I don't understand. Ever watch Scrubs? They had some good jokes relating to the fact that Elliot couldn't bring herself to say the word vagina. She had all different names for it. Funny stuff but based in reality and it's something that has always puzzled me.


I'll agree with some of that. On a personal level, it just comes from how I was raised and that is that you don't talk about sex on a personal level in public. I'm pretty sure my daddy's logic is that it's advertising, and he's absolutely right about that. It's advertising that you would be open to having sex with the person you're discussing it with (much as Mooshie has asserted). And there's nothing wrong with that. However, you shouldn't necessarily be surprised if that's ALL the guy you're talking to sees you as. What constantly amazes me, though, is that women are surprised, hurt and confused that guys keep using them as nothing more than a quick tumble. It's not rocket science.


----------



## jhanel (Dec 22, 2010)

You also have to be aware of your editor/audience.

When I originally wrote DHAN, Brodie used a few choice words. He had a habit of it. When I sent it to editors, they said that Brodie's use of words could be replaced (and they were right) because that wouldn't impact the storyline, and would allow the book to reach a wider audience.

While I don't (obviously) have a problem with curse words, some people do. We should be mindful of that and respectful of that _when possible._


----------



## Chris Barraclough (Jan 25, 2011)

jhanel said:


> While I don't (obviously) have a problem with curse words, some people do. We should be mindful of that and respectful of that _when possible._


Very good point. It's too easy to assume you won't offend other people because you yourself aren't offended.

I had this problem too, with my first book 'Bat Boy'. There's some 'gritty' characters in situations where harsh language is to be expected, but I wanted to avoid cursing so younger audiences weren't excluded. The story's narrated by a 13-year-old kid, so I made him unwilling to repeat the bad language. Instead, he substituted it with alternative words, which worked well - and added some humour to otherwise tense scenes


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'll agree with some of that. On a personal level, it just comes from how I was raised and that is that you don't talk about sex on a personal level in public. I'm pretty sure my daddy's logic is that it's advertising, and he's absolutely right about that. It's advertising that you would be open to having sex with the person you're discussing it with (much as Mooshie has asserted). And there's nothing wrong with that. However, you shouldn't necessarily be surprised if that's ALL the guy you're talking to sees you as. What constantly amazes me, though, is that women are surprised, hurt and confused that guys keep using them as nothing more than a quick tumble. It's not rocket science.


Well, to clarify, I don't take someone using those words or discussing sex with a group of friends in the bar as being interested in me etc. I mean if a group of friends is just chatting it up and swearing and talking about sex some, why would anyone in the group interpret that as anyone being interested in them? Now if it's a one on one chat with an opposite sex acquaintance, then your point makes more sense. Not the swearing so much, but talking openly about sex could be construed as being interested.

In a group setting I see them talking about sex (and to a lesser extent swearing) as just a sign that they're comfortable with sex and much less likely to be reserved and boring at it compared to some who is very offended by such things (again not just people who don't talk about it, but those who are offended by it).

So I guess if one IS reserved about sex, and isn't at all looking for dating or sex then maybe it's better not to be open about such things--even if it isn't necessarily being interpreted as you being interested in a specific it can be interpreted as having liberal views about sex which may not be the impression you want to give.

Also that stuff doesn't cause me to only see them as sex objects. It's a turn on, but even if I'm looking for even casual dating I have to also be interested in their personality etc. on top of any attraction. But maybe people just looking for one night stands are more likely to get that impression?


----------



## Aidan (Jan 26, 2011)

A bleep rather than the expletive in a book would seriously put me off, at the end of the day if your character is structered in a way where the scene or his personality is reflected by a curse word being used then it should be used. When TV films edit swearing, an example being the Die Hard films in the UK I switch off. The man has no shoes on while running across broken glass being chased by German terrorists...I think the moment calls for a curse word.

Thats not so say all books or characters need it, scenes and character drive that requirement, if its not necessary then it shouldn't be added.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Well, to clarify, I don't take someone using those words or discussing sex with a group of friends in the bar as being interested in me etc. I mean if a group of friends is just chatting it up and swearing and talking about sex some, why would anyone in the group interpret that as anyone being interested in them? *Now if it's a one on one chat with an opposite sex acquaintance, then your point makes more sense. Not the swearing so much, but talking openly about sex could be construed as being interested.*


That's exactly what I was talking about.



mooshie78 said:


> In a group setting I see them talking about sex (and to a lesser extent swearing) as just a sign that they're comfortable with sex and much less likely to be reserved and boring at it compared to some who is very offended by such things (again not just people who don't talk about it, but those who are offended by it).
> 
> So I guess if one IS reserved about sex, and isn't at all looking for dating or sex then maybe it's better not to be open about such things--even if it isn't necessarily being interpreted as you being interested in a specific it can be interpreted as having liberal views about sex which may not be the impression you want to give.
> 
> Also that stuff doesn't cause me to only see them as sex objects. It's a turn on, but even if I'm looking for even casual dating I have to also be interested in their personality etc. on top of any attraction. But maybe people just looking for one night stands are more likely to get that impression?


You pretty much got my point. As for the sex object thing - well, an example: I walked into a pack-a-sack (convenience store to non-Southerners ) and the girl at the register had on skin-tight jeans, and a skin-tight shirt. The shirt had something like "Sexy" or "Hottie" or "Juicy" written on it, and there was also something written across her butt - both sides, of the same vein - and her earrings also spelled out something proclaiming her attractions. And she was pretty, don't get me wrong. But I had to wonder to myself if she ever talked to her friends and wondered why guys are only interested in one thing.

It's like a shop where you have a display window. If you're a book store but you put vacuum cleaners in the display window, why are you surprised when 99% of the people who come in want vacuum cleaners?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Aidan said:


> The man has no shoes on while running across broken glass being chased by German terrorists...I think the moment calls for a curse word.


  I think I'd have a choice word or three, personally.

Sometimes they do the editing very skillfully, though. I was watching An Officer and a Gentleman the other night and Foley says "I'll rip out your eyeballs and eat them for breakfast!" and it actually sounded okay. If you didn't know any better I don't think you'd know the difference. But, umm, yeah. That's SO not what he said originally


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> But I had to wonder to myself if she ever talked to her friends and wondered why guys are only interested in one thing.


Well, she's likely aware of the effect of her appearance etc. and is deliberately doing it. Not everyone wants to find love, get married, kids etc. at their current point in life (if ever) and just like the attention and want to date around and sleep around. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

Unfortunately we have double standards in society and women with that attitude get negatively labeled to a much greater extent for living such lifestyles.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

kindlegrl81 said:


> I just have a problem with the people who don't want to use swear words but then have a character in the book that uses swearing, so they make up some cutesy word to imply the swear word. IMO (emphasis on MO) the cutesy words are just stupid, either use the swear words or do not have characters that swear.


Using a replacement word for a swear word or phrase I find to be annoying and hypocritical - and I hear them all the time .... If one says "God Bless America" through clenched teeth when one is angry, everyone knows what's really being said (including god) so IMO, one still both swore and blasphemed. As others have said, if you don't want swearing, then don't swear - but don't be cute about it.

In a completely different vein, if one replaces swear words with other words to make fun of censors or otherwise be amusing (a la Orbit Gum or Chelsea Lately), then that's funny and I can laugh along with the best of them ...


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

WestofMars said:


> (Says the woman whose novel opens with the infamous 11-letter word that ends with a rhyme of Trucker.)


I can think of a 12-letter word like that, but not an 11-letter word...it's making me crazy. 

Otherwise, if you had a character who was annoying as heck and pretentious, but all means use "bleep". Or if they had a neat kind of sense of humor (IMO) have them use made-up words. I love "oh swear" or "God bless America", thanks for the suggestions.

However, the bleeps within the book, to substitute for the real thing, makes the language lose its teeth.


----------



## M.S. Verish (Feb 26, 2010)

We write fantasy, so we have the ability to use a particular character who curses in his native tongue. You get the general idea when you see the words.   We do, however, have another character who is inclined to drop naughty words, but our series is geared more toward young teens up through adults. We're trying to decide how vulgar we should get. Should be fun!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Well, she's likely aware of the effect of her appearance etc. and is deliberately doing it. Not everyone wants to find love, get married, kids etc. at their current point in life (if ever) and just like the attention and want to date around and sleep around. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
> 
> Unfortunately we have double standards in society and women with that attitude get negatively labeled to a much greater extent for living such lifestyles.


This particular girl probably did (don't know her, couldn't say) but I knew LOADS of girls in college who engaged in what I would call "false advertising" or maybe a "bait and switch" would be a better description. They would put themselves out there as if they were interested in picking up a guy, and guys would definitely be interested and they'd often do the deed but then be shocked and dismayed when the guy didn't call them back ('cept for maybe a bootie call) and certainly had no interest in dating them. In fairness, I also knew some guys who were shocked to their very cores when the girl, having gotten what she wanted, threw them out of her dorm room while wishing them a good night. 
"Can I call you?" 
"I really wish you wouldn't!"


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> This particular girl probably did (don't know her, couldn't say) but I knew LOADS of girls in college who engaged in what I would call "false advertising" or maybe a "bait and switch" would be a better description. They would put themselves out there as if they were interested in picking up a guy, and guys would definitely be interested and they'd often do the deed but then be shocked and dismayed when the guy didn't call them back ('cept for maybe a bootie call) and certainly had no interest in dating them. In fairness, I also knew some guys who were shocked to their very cores when the girl, having gotten what she wanted, threw them out of her dorm room while wishing them a good night.
> "Can I call you?"
> "I really wish you wouldn't!"


Oh for sure. It definitely happens. Probably not in a extreme case like the girl you mentioned at the register, but it does happen.

What baffles me more is guys and guys who pick up someone (or get picked up) at a bar and get disappointed when it's not more than a one night stand. What do they expect? People willing to go sleep with someone they just met usually aren't looking for anyone to date! If one's looking for more serious relationships, bars are a terrible place to meet someone in general. And you definitely can't expect much from someone who wants to hook up that night! Maybe if you have a great chat and exchange numbers/set up a date etc. you'd have better odds I suppose.

People are just naive sometimes I guess.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> People are just naive sometimes I guess.


That, and... I don't know about up north, but around here back when I was in high school and college there was this perception that girls had that if a guy had sex with them, he must care about them, right? Right?!

And yes, people are naive, in a lot of ways. I often say that nobody can lie to you half as effectively as you can lie to yourself.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> That, and... I don't know about up north, but around here back when I was in high school and college there was this perception that girls had that if a guy had sex with them, he must care about them, right? Right?!


Yeah, it wasn't that way up north. Not that many didn't think that, but it wasn't the dominant belief--especially at college. The dating/bar scene was all about casual hookups.

And it's definitely much lessened among generations younger than us which are even more about hook up. Sex is treated much more casually among 20 somethings (and probably below) than us 30 somethings and above in my experience. Still plenty of people who want relationships, marriage, kids etc., but the number of people of both gender that just want casual relationships and hooks has definitely increased. I think it's a good thing myself, but others think it will destroy society etc.!


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm a columnist up in Maine. When I published my first novel, roughly 80 people showed up at a book store buy a copy and have it signed. Great day. But I later learned one gentleman returned the book and expressed his disgust at the foul language he found inside. It was only one reader, but it troubled me. I still use profanity where it feels right, but I have three editors on each book ready to call me out if it gets louder than it needs to be.


----------



## Cathymw (May 27, 2010)

I would rather see this:

He cursed. "I can't believe that she did that!"

than:

"Bleep!" he said. "I can't believe that she did that!"

If you don't want the actual curse word, there is a way around it with that trick. However, if it's done too much, that would be annoying as well. But "Bleep?"  Doesn't work for me.


Now, the most annoying thing I've ever seen was not the author's fault.  I bought a secondhand book years ago by Nora Roberts (sorry, Nora) and the previous owner had taken a pen and SCRATCHED out every word she (I assume) felt was a curse word.  It drove me nuts. I'd hold the book at a certain angle to see what word was scratched out.  Some made sense, but others were religious epithets... and sorry, I can't believe that "pissed" was scratchout-worthy.

The sex scenes, however, she left completely alone.


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

Cathymw said:


> I would rather see this:
> 
> He cursed. "I can't believe that she did that!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Belle2Be (Aug 29, 2010)

Cathymw said:


> I would rather see this:
> 
> He cursed. "I can't believe that she did that!"
> 
> ...


Not to mention its completely distracting. From "Bleep!" My mind thinks, ok, is he a robot? Or a mistype, is he Bleating like a sheep?
And creative cursing is fine, if it's in character. I don't curse anymore because I have a almost 2 and 3 year old, so we say things like F cheese or A hat (a$$ hat) or D bag, we tried pig-Latin for awhile until my 3 year old un-Latin'd the pig-Latin (fortunately it was just "stupid" that we said!).


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

Do some writers actually use 'bleep?' I've never seen it done.


----------

