June 14th (Roger Zelazny)
Chris Owens
Today, to mark the occasion, I bought This Immortal, which I've never
gotten around to reading. I know it isn't much of a tribute. But it
was the least I could do...
Beowulf Bolt
Heh. For my own inconsequential tribute I started an Amber DRPG
campaign, and had the first session yesterday. Hopefully some of the
players who haven't read Amber will be intrigued enough to check it out.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
alj...@hotmail.com
Long live his memory.
Personally, I decieded to read "24 Views of Mt Fuji, By Hokusai" - One
of the saddest, and best things I've ever read. hence most appropriate.
jaj...@yahoo.com
earlier today and picked up my copy of
This Immortal and thought to myself it was time
to re read this.
Really miss him.
jajd
Frank
I read the Amber books (were there more than 10---two series of 5?) and
enjoyed them greatly, though.
Wayne Throop
:: I walked by the bookcase earlier today and picked up my copy
: "Frank" <fran...@msn.com>
: I haven't read it...what is it about?
Well, it's about this immortal.
No, seriously, that's what it's about. After various disasters
and the advent of aliens rendered earth a devastated cultural backwater,
the remnants of humanity live lives of quiet desperation, and one of them
is more than he seems. The title character. He tells the story first-person.
"You'd fight your weight in anything that lives."
"Not fire ants or bumblebees."
--- Red Wig and Conrad (quote approximate)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Luke Webber
I'm not sure that "quiet desperation" is accurate. Most of the people
depicted seem to be quite comfortable, given the circumstances. Earth
has been seriously screwed up by a nuclear war (our own), and the kindly
aliens have given us the choice of staying or moving out and working on
their worlds. Most have taken the latter option, but the Returnist
Radpol have historically fought against that, wanting the ex-pop
returned to stop the Earth from dying.
Of course, the fact that the aliens use Earth as a combination brothel
and museum doesn't sit well with the Radpol. Nor would it with me.
Luke
Waldo
Luke Webber wrote:
> I'm not sure that "quiet desperation" is accurate. Most of the people
> depicted seem to be quite comfortable, given the circumstances. Earth
> has been seriously screwed up by a nuclear war (our own), and the kindly
> aliens have given us the choice of staying or moving out and working on
> their worlds.
Doing the alien equivalent of picking strawberries and washing dishes,
IMS. (Which is actually not such a bad deal, since the aliens are
pretty advanced.)
> Most have taken the latter option, but the Returnist
> Radpol have historically fought against that, wanting the ex-pop
> returned to stop the Earth from dying.
>
> Of course, the fact that the aliens use Earth as a combination brothel
> and museum doesn't sit well with the Radpol. Nor would it with me.
IIRC there were bits in that book that were oddly prescient of
post-Cold War Eastern Europe.
OTOH, there were bits that haven't aged well at all. The "Gamma World"
post-nuclear paradigm, with savage tribes of mutant humans and giant
scary monster animals /spawned by atomic radiation!!/ has pretty much
gone out of style.
Stylistically, there are some godawful kludgy bits, especially where he
was trying to do Hemingway. Other hand, there are also some gems that
are pure Zelazny. And it's a very deliberate blend of SF and fantasy
(is the faun a mutant? Or have there always been fauns in Greece?) in
a way that was shocking at the time and is still pretty nifty.
It's a journeyman work, but still worth reading.
Waldo
Frank
Amber remains one of my most favorite fantasy series...the intrigue,
the alternative universes and what is better than a guy waking up with
amnesia?
Debo
playing the one-trick pony throughout by leaving you with a cliffhanger
every 30 pages or so, thus making it impossible to put down for any
reasonable length of time. However, the whole thing sort of reeked (IMO,
of course) of being pulled out of the air as he was writing it, and
that just offends some sort of stodgy sensibility of mine.
Nonetheless, after devouring all 10 books in the space of a day and a
half, I put down the Amber collection with a feeling of enormous
satisfaction, and I knew that Zelazny had pulled a fast one on me. He had
written something that I Wasn't Supposed To Like, and gotten me
totally hooked on it.
I'd really like to go through them again one day... especially the last
book of each series, since I blew through those at a particularly
ridiculous rate.
I tried Lords of Light, and it was just a little too, erm, sci-fi-ish for
me. I couldn't get into it. I have yet to sample anything else in the
Zelazny repertoire, though, and I've decided that I'll have to remedy that
sometime soon.
Dr. Dave
>
> [THIS IMMORTAL, original title "...And Call Me Conrad", is] a
> journeyman work, but still worth reading.
One might note that the voters who caused it to tie with DUNE for the
Best Novel Hugo award (1966) probably had a somewhat higher opinion of
it than that.
David Tate
Wayne Throop
: I tried Lords of Light, and it was just a little too, erm, sci-fi-ish for
: me. I couldn't get into it. I have yet to sample anything else in the
: Zelazny repertoire, though, and I've decided that I'll have to remedy that
: sometime soon.
There was only one Lord of Light; the others were lords of other things.
If you want something considerably-less-sci-fi-ish, you might
try Creatures of Light and Darkness, which I'm fond of. I think
I'm more fond of it than others are, and it does have *some* recognizable
tech in the background, but ... well, you might like it. And it contains
the famous Possibly Proper Death Litany, and the initial fragment
of The Agnostic's Prayer; how can you go wrong?
Repeating a bit of a post from last year:
Also contains some of my favorite Long Strings of Capitalized Words
Used as Names, such as The Hammer that Smashes Suns, and the Thing that
Cries in the Night. Plus nifty characters like Thoth, Typon, Horus,
Vramin, Madrak, and (inexplicably) the Steel General. Which, by the way,
seems to be a clear indication that it's far future.
But in a larger sense, for CoLaD, I follow Bugs Bunny's advice:
"I don't ask questions... I just have *fun*!"
I mean, how can you not love a scene were a guy walks up to a
massive fortification, asks admittance, is told condescendingly
to knock the door down if he wants in.... and so he does.
It's just *fun*.
Hm. It occurs to me I should have mentioned that the doors are
king-kong sized, and the guy's a normal-sized fella...
Dr. Dave
>
> I tried Lord of Light, and it was just a little too, erm, sci-fi-ish for
> me. I couldn't get into it. I have yet to sample anything else in the
> Zelazny repertoire, though, and I've decided that I'll have to remedy that
> sometime soon.
Well, there's really nothing else quite like Amber, warts and all.
Late in his life, Zelazny wrote a true gem of a novel called A NIGHT IN
THE LONESOME OCTOBER. It's a quick read, although it has become
something of a tradition to read it one-chapter-per-day during the
month of October. It plays on lots of traditions, in ways that you
will find either amusing or annoying (or baffling, if you're not
familiar with those traditions).
Wayne Throop has already mentioned CREATURES OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS,
which is probably the most fantasy-ish of Zelazny's "wisecracking gods"
motif. The rest of Z's famous and/or acclaimed works are all more
sciencefictiony than those. He also wrote a lot of respected short
fiction, but very little of that has an Amber-like feel either.
Beware: the late collaborations with Robert Sheckley (e.g. BRING ME THE
HEAD OF PRINCE CHARMING) are utter crap. Don't touch them.
David Tate
jaj...@yahoo.com
Were there others in Wizard World? Think that's what they
were called..
jajd
Andrew Plotkin
No, just those two novels. (And an occasional compendium release which
contained both of them.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
Wayne Throop
: Well, there's really nothing else quite like Amber, warts and all.
True. Allegedly, you could try Stross' "Merchant Princes" series ("The
Family Trade", "The Hidden Family" so far). I've read several places
where it's "amber-like". On the other hand, it doesn't *feel*
amber-like to me. Not inferior; just different. It mostly has only
"family with talent to go to another universe recovers long-lost
member, and hijinks ensue" in common, so far. I suppose that's
a fair amount in common, but ... well. Feels different.
ckovacs
Amber series was (yes, there was a plan). In several interviews from
the early 1970s he stated that he had planned to write each book from a
different character's viewpoint, that being each of the different
princes. There would be a return to revisiting a particular scene
again and again so that you would gain a different perspective each
time as to what might have actually happened. He gave that idea up
when Corwin took on a life of his own, but what survived about the
perspective thing was Corwin's automobile accident which is revisited
in several of the books, each time with a new twist to what might have
truly happened.
Chris
how...@brazee.net
I wouldn't vote for it to tie with DUNE. I have a higher opinion of it
than that.
Frank
I thought Dune was great...but didn't care for any of the sequels.
raymond larsson
Dave says...
> Debo wrote:
> >
> > I tried Lord of Light, and it was just a little too, erm, sci-fi-ish for
> > me. I couldn't get into it. I have yet to sample anything else in the
> > Zelazny repertoire, though, and I've decided that I'll have to remedy that
> > sometime soon.
> Wayne Throop has already mentioned CREATURES OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS,
> which is probably the most fantasy-ish of Zelazny's "wisecracking gods"
> motif. The rest of Z's famous and/or acclaimed works are all more
> sciencefictiony than those. He also wrote a lot of respected short
> fiction, but very little of that has an Amber-like feel either.
The Changing Land(_The Bells of Shoredan_?,_Dilvish,the Damned_,_The
Changing Land_), _Roadmarks_, and Wizard World (_Madwand_/_Changeling_)
are more fantasy than sci-fi. I can't recommend WW and haven't seen tBoS
but enjoyed the others.
_Doorways in the Sand_ is ScF but feels fantasy , _Jack of Shadows_ is a
blend that felt more ScF-ish by the ragle scale.
--
rgl
"Bother!" Pooh said. "I was born with the curse of a golden voice"
Robert Hutchinson
I'm about a third of the way through _Lord of Light_ at the moment.
--
Robert Hutchinson | The Twenty is just so evil. The very name gloats
| over our suffering and powerlessness. It's a
| boot stomping on a human face for twenty minutes.
| -- Shaenon K. Garrity
Waldo
Those would be much the same voters who gave Best Novel Hugos to _Way
Station_ (1964) and _The Wanderer_ (1965).
Waldo
Chris Owens
many I stopped. While Zelazny used a word here and again, it didn't
litter every page or so. In The Family Trade obscenities seem to be
used as a crutch. Of course that writer is not the only writer that
follows that trend, but that novelists can pull out more clever word
choices from thier arsenal.
ckovacs
Family, and quite enjoyed both of them. There's shades of the Amber
series that brought me to those books in the first place, but it was
the story that kept me there reading. I plan to read the others as
they come out. In fact, I've now obtained and read all of Stross'
books and plan to keep him on my list of authors that I keep track of.
As for occasional use of swearing, I thought it was part of having
characters speak as they would in the real world (realistic dialogue).
I didn't notice anything excessive. But it's interesting that Stross
has been criticized elsewhere in a long thread about the fact that the
main character uses expressions that arguably aren't American,
reflecting perhaps that the author lives in Scotland and may not be
able to capture the "dialect" intended for the American character. For
me. having lived in Canada and the US, but mostly in Canada, I'm
surrounded by all sorts of dialects and I didn't notice anything
unusual about the character's speech except for one or two phrases.
Chris
mun dot ca not mac to reply
Dr. Dave
> I've read The Family Trade and its sequel [...]
>
> As for occasional use of swearing, I thought it was part of having
> characters speak as they would in the real world (realistic dialogue).
I suspect that various readers will have widely different personal
experiences with regard to what is 'realistic'.
For me, this may also be one of those places where too much realism is
a bad thing. I don't want 'realistic' swearing by characters of a sort
to swear vilely in every sentence (or interjection), any more than I
want the characters in my books to spend a realistic fraction of time
excreting, or picking their noses, or farting. When it's relevant to
the plot, then fine. Otherwise, either give me a sufficient sampling
to indicate that it's going on in the background, or explicitly
disclaim it[1].
I don't think of myself as any kind of prude when it comes to verbal
obscenity, and I swear myself (probably more than I should). And yet,
I was barely able to make myself sit through the recent Coen brothers
remake of "The Ladykillers". The relentless onslaught of profanity
from the Marvin Wayans(?) character was so unpleasant that it
essentially ruined the film. Now, admittedly, part of the problem was
the perversion (deliberate or not) of the original, from a "cosy" caper
flick into whatever the hell the Coens thought they were doing[2]. But
part of it was independent of context -- like being poked repeatedly.
So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
David Tate
[1]I'm thinking here of Tolkien's comment on orc speech in his
Introduction to TLotR, where he said something like "I'm not going to
reproduce it here, because we hear enough of it all around us. You
know what it's really like."
[2]Part of the point of the "cosy caper" genre is that you have to feel
a strong sympathy with the criminals, and want them to succeed even
while disapproving of what they're doing. In the Coen version of "The
Ladykillers", the audience is more likely to breathe a sigh of relief
when the crooks finally kill each other off.
Wayne Throop
: I got two-thirds into The Family Trade, but after one obscenity too
Well, whether crutch, or "cultural ambiance", or whatever the motive,
it *is* one of the reasons it doesn't "feel like" Zelazny to me.
I didn't find it offputting, but I can see why it might be.
Another difference was an admixture of nuts-and-bolts and howto. That
sort of thing is rare in Zelazny; this was more ... more ... what to
call it ... Campbellesque? Campbellesque without Kay Tarrant.
Something like that. I found that aspect to be the opposite of
offputting. Ontaking or something.
"Neither bird, nor plane, nor even frog,
It's just little old me, Underdog."
--- Underdog
David Cowie
>
> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>
I believe Alfred Hitchcock made a comment similar to "Drama is real life
with all the boring bits taken out".
If you try too hard to be realistic, you might end up leaving the boring
bits in.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13921:21
Ray Cunningham
Dr. Dave wrote:
> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
Its not that big a deal.
Ray
(my wife watched the first series of The Apprentice, and one of the
contestants, a black woman, got into an argument with another
contestant. Talking to the camera later, she complained that the other
woman had "dropped the f-bomb")
(Ulysses is famous for its descriptions of certain bodily functions. I
can't think of any other examples off the top of my head)
Carl Henderson
>: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
>: Well, there's really nothing else quite like Amber, warts and all.
> True. Allegedly, you could try Stross' "Merchant Princes" series ("The
> Family Trade", "The Hidden Family" so far). I've read several places
> where it's "amber-like". On the other hand, it doesn't *feel*
> amber-like to me. Not inferior; just different.
I loved the first two Stross "Merchant Princes" books, but I agree they
didn't have the feel of Amber (not that Stross was trying for that). The
closest thing the "look and feel" of Zelazny's Amber I've found are Brust's
Vlad Taltos novels.
--
Carl Henderson © 2005 by Carl Henderson
j...@carlhenderson.net
Luke Webber
> : "Chris Owens" <christopher...@hotmail.com>
> : I got two-thirds into The Family Trade, but after one obscenity too
> : many I stopped. While Zelazny used a word here and again, it didn't
> : litter every page or so. In The Family Trade obscenities seem to be
> : used as a crutch. Of course that writer is not the only writer that
> : follows that trend, but that novelists can pull out more clever word
> : choices from thier arsenal.
>
> Well, whether crutch, or "cultural ambiance", or whatever the motive,
> it *is* one of the reasons it doesn't "feel like" Zelazny to me.
> I didn't find it offputting, but I can see why it might be.
True. Even in Damnation Alley, which was an open invitation to
profanity-overload, Zelazny was incredibly circumspect. Yet oddly
enough, he still managed to give it the right feel. Like a master chef,
he can flavour a dish without having to dump a load of salt and pepper
into it.
Luke
alj...@hotmail.com
> _Doorways in the Sand_ is ScF but feels fantasy , _Jack of Shadows_ is a
> blend that felt more ScF-ish by the ragle scale.
To me it was pretty much the opposite: "Doorways in the Sand" was very
SciFi, and "Jack of Shadows" highly Fantasy :). Actually to me Jack of
Shadows was the closest thing to Amber. At least the Revenge theme is
just as prominent here. Theres also a short story called "Corrida"
which did the "traveling through different worlds"(Hellriding) thing
very similar to Amber.
John Schilling
Cunningham says...
>Dr. Dave wrote:
>> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
>> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
>> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
>Its not that big a deal.
If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Luke Webber
Um, I meant "could" rather than "can", of course.
Luke
Tina Hall
> I believe Alfred Hitchcock made a comment similar to "Drama is
> real life with all the boring bits taken out".
> If you try too hard to be realistic, you might end up leaving the
> boring bits in.
<digging around for glass-cutter to cut it out and hang on the wall>
You're speaking my mind (though possibly not meaning the same).
Concerning 'asthetic', my vote goes for "leave out anything that
involves exchanging body-fluids in a non-medical/necessary way".
Thus, vampires=ok, slobbery kisses=yuk.
--
Tina
No internet access.
### XP v3.40 RC3 ###
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Cunningham says...
>
> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>
> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>
> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> >Its not that big a deal.
>
> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
How big a deal is the word "the"? Or "and"?
And how useful are they to a writer?
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"Next time you die, Jazz Snob."
--Dan Wheeler, _The Last Thing I Ever Did_
http://bobopuppyhead.blogspot.com/
sharkey
> Ray Cunningham says...
> >
> > I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> > Its not that big a deal.
>
> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
Punctuation.
-----sharks
Luke Webber
Verisimilitude, more like. Though I must say I'm happier without a lot
of it. Neither a prude nor an American, but I find too much of it
distracts me.
Luke
John Schilling
>John Schilling wrote:
>> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Cunningham says...
>> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
>> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
>> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
>> >Its not that big a deal.
>> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>How big a deal is the word "the"? Or "and"?
>And how useful are they to a writer?
Very useful, in that they perform a vital function. A vital function that
does not otherwise require them to be a big deal.
It is unclear what vital, or even useful, function is performed by the use
of profanity that is not a big deal, and so I am unclear as to the relevance
of your analogy.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Ray Cunningham
John Schilling wrote:
> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Cunningham says...
>
> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>
> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>
> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> >Its not that big a deal.
>
> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
Can writers only use words that _are_ a big deal? If you agree with me
that these words are not a big deal, then why shouldn't writers use
them? Why are people upset about them?
Ray
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>
>
>John Schilling wrote:
>> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Cunningham says...
>>
>> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>>
>> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
>> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
>> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>>
>> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
>> >Its not that big a deal.
>>
>> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>
>Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
I will agree that it's how people express strong emotions.
>
>Can writers only use words that _are_ a big deal? If you agree with me
>that these words are not a big deal, then why shouldn't writers use
>them? Why are people upset about them?
>
"Pass me the fucking sandwich, asshole" is not (normally) a person
expressing strong emotion. It's a person with lazy speech habits and
no respect for others. I do not want to read about such people.
Rebecca
PS. Amusingly enough, Agent wants to change "fucking" to "ducking".
Ray Cunningham
Even if you don't want to read about a _hero_ like that, how about a
prudish hero in a foul-mouthed society? Could be a high profanity count
there.
Most fiction, most SF at any rate, involves people being thrust into
dramatic situations, where emotions are running high. So I'd expect
even more profanity than you'd get in normal conversation. (that
profanity wouldn't particularly indicate a lack of respect for others)
ray
ckovacs
1960s and 1970s editors and social norms?
Case in point:
1970, Nine Princes in Amber is published. Opening pages, Corey
(Corwin) wakes in hospital, kicks or punches the offending male
nurse/attendant in the groin, and that man falls to his knees and
utters " - - !" after a time. Corwin then demands that the man
surrender his clothes, to which the reply is " - - !" before Corwin has
to subdue the guy with a metal strut to the head in order to get the
clothing.
When I first read that as a teenager, I thought Zelazny was implying
that the man was still breathless from pain and unable to speak.
Later, at some re-reading, I realized that it was meant to represent a
two-word expletive phrase, but which one?
Flashforward 1990s. Zelazny himself records the audiobooks. In each,
the male clearly says "Damn you!" twice in response to Corwin.
(Apologies if anyone is offended by me repeating this here.)
Another example is the explictly pornographic sex scene with choice
words that Zelazny admitted to have written in Guns of Avalon, but that
the editor insisted be removed. It was done for his own amusement, he
said, and he had expected the editor to object.
I agree that Zelazny's use of expletives was mild and often inferred
rather than overt. Someone writing Nine Princes in Amber today would
probably have the male attendant use the "F" phrase instead of the "D"
phrase, or maybe even something more ripe than that.
But I think it's apparent that some choices may have been his style,
and some choices may have been dictated by the editors and social norms
for the time, and it's hard to separate them. Who knows, had Zelazny
been writing these past ten years, perhaps he would have adopted some
of the current practices of the marketplace, or perhaps he would have
stuck to his ways. I certainly recall how shocking it was when Fred
Pohl abruptly adopted the style of using choice expletives in the
critically successful and popular novel Gateway, and he continued that
afterward.
Dr. Dave
> John Schilling wrote:
> > In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > Cunningham says...
> >
> > >Dr. Dave wrote:
> >
> > >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> > >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> > >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
> >
> > >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> > >Its not that big a deal.
> >
> > If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>
> Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
We do not normally require our works of fiction to accurately portray
how (most) people look, how they eat, how they excrete, how they brush
their teeth, how they wash their hair, how their toes are misshapen and
somewhat discolored, or any of a thousand other details of their Real
Lives(tm).
Including, explicitly, how they really talk.
Have you ever read transcripts of real speech/dialog, captured in the
wild? It's *terrible* writing -- you couldn't sell it as fiction.
Realism in speech is clearly not desirable, simpliciter.
At any rate, you seem to have lost the context of my comment, which had
to do with quantity of profanity, not a bright line between "some" and
"none". I have never argued that any profanity is too much.
David Tate
Dr. Dave
> r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
> > On 17 Jun 2005 01:57:31 -0700, "Ray Cunningham" <ray...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > "Pass me the fucking sandwich, asshole" is not (normally) a person
> > expressing strong emotion. It's a person with lazy speech habits and
> > no respect for others. I do not want to read about such people.
>
> Even if you don't want to read about a _hero_ like that, how about a
> prudish hero in a foul-mouthed society? Could be a high profanity count
> there.
And just how many examples of such speech do you think it would take,
in a novel, to establish that characterization? A lot less than might
be 'realistic', almost certainly.
David Tate
David E. Siegel
it is possible, although very tricky, to write soemthing very close to
real speech as it might actually be heard, and still tell a very
engaging story. Mark Twain did it. In SF Kornbluth did a little bit of
it. More recently and more extremely, George V Higgins wrote a number
of (IMO Very good) books in which most of the plot is carried forward
by dialog, and the dialog is highly realistic - no one sample is
clearly not "caught in the wild" The wa in which what could be real
conversation is made to tell and interesting story is what makes this
artistry, of course, and if you hate digressions don't read this
author.
-DES
matman42
mm
"Waldo" <peggo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118902348....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Beowulf Bolt
Have you read Elizabeth Willey's _A Sorcerer and a Gentleman_ books?
(I'm still very disappointed that she apparently abandoned writing...)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Money
> It is unclear what vital, or even useful, function is performed by the
> use of profanity that is not a big deal, and so I am unclear as to the
> relevance of your analogy.
As with so many things in fiction, this depends on the skill and
craftsmanship of the writer. Some of the characters in "Pulp Fiction" or
"Reservoir Dogs" or even "Fargo" would seem fake without some tough talk.
It also depends on how tolerant or not a given reader is. Once upon a
time, within my lifetime, Ray Bradbury's _The Martian Chronicles_ was
banned at a school for containing the word, "Damn."
Randy M.
John Schilling
John Schilling
>> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Cunningham says...
>>
>> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
>> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
>> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
>> >Its not that big a deal.
>> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
Strong emotions are, almost by definition, a big deal. So are the
words used to express them, and expressing strong emotion is a useful
thing to do with language.
Profanity *that is not a big deal*, does not express strong emotion,
and seems to me to be entirely useless.
>Can writers only use words that _are_ a big deal?
Writers can use whatever words they want. They should only use words
that are actually useful. Which sometimes includes profanity, in cases
where profanity is a big deal. Or, perhaps, when placed in the mouth
of a character who is not, for the purpose of so indicating.
>If you agree with me that these words are not a big deal, then why
>shouldn't writers use them? Why are people upset about them?
Because we *don't* agree with you that these words are not a big deal.
Because these words are very useful, if and only if they are a big deal,
and for the sake of maximizing the utility of language as a tool for
communication we thus prefer to continue treating these words as if they
are a big deal.
Why does it surprise you that words which by your own admission are used
to express strong emotion, incite a strongly emotional response?
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
No 33 Secretary
news:d8vb2...@drn.newsguy.com:
I'm curious: what are you qualfications to determine that the _only_
legitimate use of profanity is to express strong emotion? After all,
comedians have made careers out of using profanity to express humor, for
instance. Are you claiming they were wrong to do so, despite their millions
of fans? Is it not a legitimate use of language to simply provoke a
response, regardless of the strength of emotion expressed? Profanity is
extremely effective at provoking response. You, for instance, bleat quite
satisfyingly at the mere mention of profanity.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Ray Cunningham
It wouldn't take many instances to _establish_ a pattern, I agree, any
more than you need a lot of phonetic speech to establish that a
character is Scottish*. I'd expect the speech patterns to be consistent
from that point on, of course.
Ray
* No, Welsh ... um, cockney? Cornish? From Suffolk... or maybe Sussex.
Possibly Birmingham. Okay, I give up, what was the accent in Feersum
Endjinn?
how...@brazee.net
On 16-Jun-2005, "Ray Cunningham" <ray...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> Its not that big a deal.
I'm bored by it myself. I remember reading books as a child where some
character starts talking with such creative profanity that the heroes would
stop and listen. But when times changed, and the authors were allowed to
actually tell us the profanity - this fiction stopped. Because now the
authors have to show us the creative profanity instead of the boring stuff.
how...@brazee.net
On 17-Jun-2005, r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
> PS. Amusingly enough, Agent wants to change "fucking" to "ducking".
Packman is 25 years old now. The Japanese creator was inspired when a
pizza delivery was a piece short - he named it "Puckman", but when it came
to the U.S., people didn't want it changed to "fuckman" (and kids love that
kind of name changing).
how...@brazee.net
On 17-Jun-2005, "ckovacs" <cko...@mac.com> wrote:
> Flashforward 1990s. Zelazny himself records the audiobooks. In each,
> the male clearly says "Damn you!" twice in response to Corwin.
> (Apologies if anyone is offended by me repeating this here.)
>
> Another example is the explictly pornographic sex scene with choice
> words that Zelazny admitted to have written in Guns of Avalon, but that
> the editor insisted be removed. It was done for his own amusement, he
> said, and he had expected the editor to object.
>
> I agree that Zelazny's use of expletives was mild and often inferred
> rather than overt. Someone writing Nine Princes in Amber today would
> probably have the male attendant use the "F" phrase instead of the "D"
> phrase, or maybe even something more ripe than that.
But "Damn You" and "Fuck You" aren't quite synonyms.
Wayne Throop
:: rather than overt. Someone writing Nine Princes in Amber today would
:: probably have the male attendant use the "F" phrase instead of the
:: "D" phrase, or maybe even something more ripe than that.
: how...@brazee.net
: But "Damn You" and "Fuck You" aren't quite synonyms.
"Damn your eyes!"
"Too late!"
--- Fredrick Frankenstein and Igor
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <42B22BEB...@optonline.com>, Andrew Wheeler says...
>
> >John Schilling wrote:
>
> >> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> >> Cunningham says...
>
> >> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>
> >> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> >> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> >> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>
> >> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> >> >Its not that big a deal.
>
> >> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>
> >How big a deal is the word "the"? Or "and"?
>
> >And how useful are they to a writer?
>
> Very useful, in that they perform a vital function. A vital function that
> does not otherwise require them to be a big deal.
>
> It is unclear what vital, or even useful, function is performed by the use
> of profanity that is not a big deal, and so I am unclear as to the relevance
> of your analogy.
Your original point was, apparently, that only things that are "big
deals" are important to writers. That is patently untrue, as I just showed.
Every word is of importance to a writer. Every word has a use. Some
writers are better at using words than others, but they all choose their
words *themselves* and decide how to use them.
Ray Cunningham
Dr. Dave wrote:
> Ray Cunningham wrote:
> > John Schilling wrote:
> > > In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > > Cunningham says...
> > >
> > > >Dr. Dave wrote:
> > >
> > > >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> > > >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> > > >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
> > >
> > > >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> > > >Its not that big a deal.
> > >
> > > If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
> >
> > Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
>
> We do not normally require our works of fiction to accurately portray
> how (most) people look, how they eat, how they excrete, how they brush
> their teeth, how they wash their hair, how their toes are misshapen and
> somewhat discolored, or any of a thousand other details of their Real
> Lives(tm).
When an author describes a character, they will naturally focus on the
elements of their appearance that are unusual, or particularly
revealing of character. If a character is particularly well-groomed, or
noticeably shabby, that's worth mentioning. If a character's toes are
misshapen, but none of the other characters are aware of this, and it
doesn't advance the plot in anyway, then it's probably not necessary to
mention it. Sometimes, of course, this kind of personal detail will be
mentioned, to make a character more physical, more concrete.
The problem is that the author can't write, and we can't read, all such
details for all characters. There isn't the time or the space to
develop it all. But speech? Speech is free. If the character is going
to talk at all, then their choice of words will be very revealing. And
profanity is part of that choice.
> Including, explicitly, how they really talk.
>
> Have you ever read transcripts of real speech/dialog, captured in the
> wild? It's *terrible* writing -- you couldn't sell it as fiction.
> Realism in speech is clearly not desirable, simpliciter.
Yes, I know, that occurred to me as I was writing my earlier comment.
But that's a different problem. Disconected and half-completed
sentences are hard to understand when they're written down (and it
means conversations take much longer to relate). Profanity is clear and
concise.
> At any rate, you seem to have lost the context of my comment, which had
> to do with quantity of profanity, not a bright line between "some" and
> "none". I have never argued that any profanity is too much.
Fine. I'm not saying that dialogue in novels has to have exactly as
much profanity as a similar real-world situation would. I'm just saying
I'm comfortable with a more realistic level.
Ray
Ray Cunningham
John Schilling wrote:
> In article <1118998651....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Cunningham says...
> >
> >
> >
> >John Schilling wrote:
> >> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> >> Cunningham says...
> >>
> >> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>
> >> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
> >> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
> >> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>
> >> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
> >> >Its not that big a deal.
>
> >> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>
> >Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
>
> Strong emotions are, almost by definition, a big deal. So are the
> words used to express them, and expressing strong emotion is a useful
> thing to do with language.
>
> Profanity *that is not a big deal*, does not express strong emotion,
> and seems to me to be entirely useless.
The words themselves don't have to have any particular emotional
content for them to be used to express strong emotion. My profanities
of choice tend to be "Jesus!" or "Fucking hell", though I'm not a
Christian, and don't believe in hell.
> >Can writers only use words that _are_ a big deal?
>
> Writers can use whatever words they want. They should only use words
> that are actually useful. Which sometimes includes profanity, in cases
> where profanity is a big deal. Or, perhaps, when placed in the mouth
> of a character who is not, for the purpose of so indicating.
A character who is not?
Profanity is a very common method of emphasis. Compare "What a day" to
"What a fucking day" (or "What a day. What a fucking day") The
profanity isn't a big deal there, if big deal means 'indicates a
character is about to explode', but they're usefully different
sentences. Why shouldn't an author use that difference?
> >If you agree with me that these words are not a big deal, then why
> >shouldn't writers use them? Why are people upset about them?
>
> Because we *don't* agree with you that these words are not a big deal.
> Because these words are very useful, if and only if they are a big deal,
> and for the sake of maximizing the utility of language as a tool for
> communication we thus prefer to continue treating these words as if they
> are a big deal.
Now I'm tempted to ask for a list of words that are okay, versus those
that are a big deal, and should only be used once per 100,000 words.
Profanity is used at times of high emotion, for emphasis, and as a
normal part of speech, depending on who is speaking and in what social
context. The level and variety of profanity in a character's speech is
therefore a useful indicator of that character's background, his
self-perception, his perception of his social context, his attitude to
social norms, ad a million other ways. Why should an author drop this
tool from his kit because some people are allergic to the word 'fuck'?
Ray
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>Fine. I'm not saying that dialogue in novels has to have exactly as
>much profanity as a similar real-world situation would. I'm just saying
>I'm comfortable with a more realistic level.
>
But how do you define realistic? The people I hang around with don't
swear. I don't swear (did for a bit in college, but broke myself of
the habit). The few times I do swear, it serves exactly the purpose
that I want, because it is such a rare occasion that it immediately
gets people's attention. When I or one of my friends swear, it's
because something is Seriously Wrong. Normally emotional,
interestingly enough. Serious physical hurt, in me at least, results
in near total shut down of any sort of communication.
So I think that my definition of a realistic level and your definition
would be very far apart.
Rebecca
ckovacs
it doesn't. In the spirit of George Carlin, you might find the
following enlightening...
http://www.answers.com/topic/fuck
...and eventually agree that "Damn you!" and "Fuck you!" can be similar
expressions of anger. The first phrase doesn't have to mean anything
about being sent to hell, and the other phrase doesn't have to mean
anything to do with bodily penetration. The wonders of the english
language(s)...
And to be completely realistic about this, if an english speaking man
today gets kicked in the groin and ordered to give up his clothes (as
Corwin did to the male nurse), he's probably more likely to use the
latter expression anyway (assuming he's able to gasp out any words).
In turn, someone writing the equivalent of Nine Princes in Amber in
2005 would be justified in using that expression rather than "Damn
you!" or " - - !" or even a mild "aargh." That is, if you agree that
acute orchialgia justifies more than just a mild "Damn!" ;-)
how...@brazee.net
On 17-Jun-2005, r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
> But how do you define realistic? The people I hang around with don't
> swear. I don't swear (did for a bit in college, but broke myself of
> the habit). The few times I do swear, it serves exactly the purpose
> that I want, because it is such a rare occasion that it immediately
> gets people's attention. When I or one of my friends swear, it's
> because something is Seriously Wrong. Normally emotional,
> interestingly enough. Serious physical hurt, in me at least, results
> in near total shut down of any sort of communication.
>
> So I think that my definition of a realistic level and your definition
> would be very far apart.
I don't hear swearing either. But the world isn't all like my little
community, nor, in the case of SF, is the universe.
Robert Hutchinson
I have to admit, I have a hard time picturing anyone who doesn't interact
with at least one person per day for whom swearing is as common as
breathing. These aren't the people I hang around with, and said trait is
part of the reason I'm not hanging around with them, but they
unquestionabily exist, in great numbers.
--
Robert Hutchinson | The Twenty is just so evil. The very name gloats
| over our suffering and powerlessness. It's a
| boot stomping on a human face for twenty minutes.
| -- Shaenon K. Garrity
Dr. Dave
> Dr. Dave wrote:
> > Ray Cunningham wrote:
> > >
> > > Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
> >
> > We do not normally require our works of fiction to accurately portray
> > how (most) people look, how they eat, how they excrete, how they brush
> > their teeth, how they wash their hair, how their toes are misshapen and
> > somewhat discolored, or any of a thousand other details of their Real
> > Lives(tm).
>
> When an author describes a character, they will naturally focus on the
> elements of their appearance that are unusual, or particularly
> revealing of character. If a character is particularly well-groomed, or
> noticeably shabby, that's worth mentioning.
How many times?
[...]
> The problem is that the author can't write, and we can't read, all such
> details for all characters. There isn't the time or the space to
> develop it all. But speech? Speech is free.
Huh? No, it isn't. It takes up space (mental and physical) the same
way description does. It may not be as 'expensive' as description, but
it certainly isn't free.
> If the character is going
> to talk at all, then their choice of words will be very revealing. And
> profanity is part of that choice.
If a character has a bladder problem, and that's important to the plot,
does that mean we have to take the camera into the bathroom with them
12 times a day? Can't we just establish the pattern, and take it as
read from there?
> > Including, explicitly, how they really talk.
> >
> > Have you ever read transcripts of real speech/dialog, captured in the
> > wild? It's *terrible* writing -- you couldn't sell it as fiction.
> > Realism in speech is clearly not desirable, simpliciter.
>
> Yes, I know, that occurred to me as I was writing my earlier comment.
> But that's a different problem. Disconected and half-completed
> sentences are hard to understand when they're written down (and it
> means conversations take much longer to relate). Profanity is clear and
> concise.
But that wasn't the argument. You said it was desirable *because* it's
realistic. You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is
preferable because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and
sentence fragments are not preferable, even though they're more
realistic.
And, anyway, I didn't find the degree of profanity in Wayans's "The
Ladykillers" character to be realistic. Perhaps I'm just not familiar
with some particular subculture where it is. No loss there, I'd say.
> > At any rate, you seem to have lost the context of my comment, which had
> > to do with quantity of profanity, not a bright line between "some" and
> > "none". I have never argued that any profanity is too much.
>
> Fine. I'm not saying that dialogue in novels has to have exactly as
> much profanity as a similar real-world situation would. I'm just saying
> I'm comfortable with a more realistic level.
How can you say what is "a more realistic level" without knowing how
much I'm talking about? Or did you see the movie, and find that
character to be utterly lifelike?
David Tate
Bill Westfield
Me too. Although re-reading it to my son recently, I found it a bit odd, in
retrospect, than an interstellar travel outpost would have traffic measured
in a "a couple of people" per day. Considering the crowding of a modern
airport, for instance.
BillW
Wayne Throop
: You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is preferable
: because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and sentence
: fragments are not preferable, even though they're more realistic.
Sure you can. Because of the way memory of conversations work. Unless
the hesitations and restarts are *very* noticeable, your memory edits
them out. Most times, you won't be able to say, a minute later, exactly
where the hesistations and such were. But word *choice* sticks out more.
Or rather, I should say that's how *my* memory works; don't know about
yours for sure. But in comparing on-the-fly composition hesitations
vs word choice, the two are different enough that one can legitimately
prefer one be realistic and the other not matter so much.
On the other hand, level of profanity varies so much in real life
that I don't react all that strongly to the specific level in a given
work generally. Once used to it, my mind mostly just filters it out
of consideration.
On Yet Another Hand, I'd just as soon see less as more, shrug.
Brandon
Bill Westfield wrote:
I just recently read it for the first time. On the whole, I
liked it, but the first chapter seemed odd to me. Based on
that first chapter, I expected the book to be told from the
POV of the government agent, as he slowly unraveled what was
going on in rural Wisconsin. Alternatively, Simak could
have dumped the first chapter, and let the stationkeeper
only slowly come to realize that he is being spied upon by
the government. But the way it was done, it seemed as if
Simak pulled his punch a little.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Profanity is used at times of high emotion, for emphasis, and as a
>normal part of speech, depending on who is speaking and in what social
>context. The level and variety of profanity in a character's speech is
>therefore a useful indicator of that character's background, his
>self-perception, his perception of his social context, his attitude to
>social norms, ad a million other ways.
Plus characters in novels, who tend to be leading interesting lives,
are going to have more reason for sudden profanity than the average
politeness of day to day real life.
Jaimie
--
Consultant: A tipster disguised as an oracle, especially one who
has learned to decamp at high speed in spite of the
large briefcase and heavy wallet.
- Stan Kelly-Bootle, _The Devil's DP Dictionary_
Ray Cunningham
Yes, but I don't expect all fiction to have what I would call a
realistic level of profanity. _I'm_ not the one putting books down
because of the amount of swearing.
Ray
Ray Cunningham
Dr. Dave wrote:
> Ray Cunningham wrote:
> > Dr. Dave wrote:
> > > Ray Cunningham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Its how (most) people talk. Its how people express strong emotions.
> > >
> > > We do not normally require our works of fiction to accurately portray
> > > how (most) people look, how they eat, how they excrete, how they brush
> > > their teeth, how they wash their hair, how their toes are misshapen and
> > > somewhat discolored, or any of a thousand other details of their Real
> > > Lives(tm).
> >
> > When an author describes a character, they will naturally focus on the
> > elements of their appearance that are unusual, or particularly
> > revealing of character. If a character is particularly well-groomed, or
> > noticeably shabby, that's worth mentioning.
>
> How many times?
>
> [...]
>
> > The problem is that the author can't write, and we can't read, all such
> > details for all characters. There isn't the time or the space to
> > develop it all. But speech? Speech is free.
>
> Huh? No, it isn't. It takes up space (mental and physical) the same
> way description does. It may not be as 'expensive' as description, but
> it certainly isn't free.
As I went on to say, "If the character is going to talk at all, then
their choice of words will be very revealing". I'm not suggesting
spear-carriers should be given lines, just to let them say "fuck". But
if someone is going to be talking anyway, the odd bollocks here or
there isn't going to turn a short story into a six volume roman fleuve.
>
> > If the character is going
> > to talk at all, then their choice of words will be very revealing. And
> > profanity is part of that choice.
>
> If a character has a bladder problem, and that's important to the plot,
> does that mean we have to take the camera into the bathroom with them
> 12 times a day? Can't we just establish the pattern, and take it as
> read from there?
This character must be a central figure, right? Do you think they
should start the novel saying "So I told those cunts they could fuck
right off, see, 'cos no cunt tells me what to fucking do", but after a
couple of paragraphs switch to "One really doesn't like to complain,
but one feels a protest must be registered"? Perhaps in the condensed
Pygmalion.
The comparison with endless trips to the toilet doesn't really wash,
because the character will be speaking anyway. It doesn't interrupt the
narrative to describe their speech realistically. Though if someone has
a bladder problem, and you then place him in a long dialogue scene, you
should show the scene being interrupted quite often so he can go and
piss.
> > > Including, explicitly, how they really talk.
> > >
> > > Have you ever read transcripts of real speech/dialog, captured in the
> > > wild? It's *terrible* writing -- you couldn't sell it as fiction.
> > > Realism in speech is clearly not desirable, simpliciter.
> >
> > Yes, I know, that occurred to me as I was writing my earlier comment.
> > But that's a different problem. Disconected and half-completed
> > sentences are hard to understand when they're written down (and it
> > means conversations take much longer to relate). Profanity is clear and
> > concise.
>
> But that wasn't the argument. You said it was desirable *because* it's
> realistic. You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is
> preferable because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and
> sentence fragments are not preferable, even though they're more
> realistic.
Its realistic, cost-free in a way that hesitations and disconnections
aren't, and also useful as a character element.
> And, anyway, I didn't find the degree of profanity in Wayans's "The
> Ladykillers" character to be realistic. Perhaps I'm just not familiar
> with some particular subculture where it is. No loss there, I'd say.
I haven't seen it myself. Have you seen Trainspotting? Or Jerry
Springer: The Opera?
> > > At any rate, you seem to have lost the context of my comment, which had
> > > to do with quantity of profanity, not a bright line between "some" and
> > > "none". I have never argued that any profanity is too much.
> >
> > Fine. I'm not saying that dialogue in novels has to have exactly as
> > much profanity as a similar real-world situation would. I'm just saying
> > I'm comfortable with a more realistic level.
>
> How can you say what is "a more realistic level" without knowing how
> much I'm talking about? Or did you see the movie, and find that
> character to be utterly lifelike?
The original example was Stross, and I've read some of his stuff. I
can't speak to The Ladykillers. Have you ever read James Kelman (sample
here
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385315600/ref=sib_rdr_ex/103-4494679-5130229?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S004
Ray
Luke Webber
> On 17 Jun 2005 15:30:06 -0700, "Ray Cunningham" <ray...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Profanity is used at times of high emotion, for emphasis, and as a
>>normal part of speech, depending on who is speaking and in what social
>>context. The level and variety of profanity in a character's speech is
>>therefore a useful indicator of that character's background, his
>>self-perception, his perception of his social context, his attitude to
>>social norms, ad a million other ways.
>
> Plus characters in novels, who tend to be leading interesting lives,
> are going to have more reason for sudden profanity than the average
> politeness of day to day real life.
While that's true, I tend to think that it takes away from the tough-guy
image. Rather than tough, they sound shrill and out of control.
A good example of the understated tough guy is HellBoy. When he says "Ah
crap!" he /really/ means it. Likewise the Men in Black.
Luke
Ray Cunningham
Luke Webber wrote:
> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > On 17 Jun 2005 15:30:06 -0700, "Ray Cunningham" <ray...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Profanity is used at times of high emotion, for emphasis, and as a
> >>normal part of speech, depending on who is speaking and in what social
> >>context. The level and variety of profanity in a character's speech is
> >>therefore a useful indicator of that character's background, his
> >>self-perception, his perception of his social context, his attitude to
> >>social norms, ad a million other ways.
> >
> > Plus characters in novels, who tend to be leading interesting lives,
> > are going to have more reason for sudden profanity than the average
> > politeness of day to day real life.
>
> While that's true, I tend to think that it takes away from the tough-guy
> image. Rather than tough, they sound shrill and out of control.
But
1) I think, in real life, 'tough guys' are more likely than average to
use profanity. Compare the general level of profanity in a fire
station, a barracks, or a private detectives convention, to that in an
insurance office. (Not that I've a huge amount of experience in any of
those settings...)
2) What if the novel is about an ordinary person thrust into an
extraordinary situation? Without a hardened image to maintain, aren't
they going to react to crisis with a string of shocked expletives?
Ray
David Cowie
>
> But
> 1) I think, in real life, 'tough guys' are more likely than average to
> use profanity. Compare the general level of profanity in a fire
> station, a barracks, or a private detectives convention, to that in an
> insurance office. (Not that I've a huge amount of experience in any of
> those settings...)
I work in a warehouse. It isn't a "tough guy" job, but some of my
co-workers swear all the fucking time. Some swear sometimes, and some
rarely or never.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13967:53
Carl Dershem
@privacy.net:
Asa a parallel of sorts, during my 10 years in the navy, some people used
vulgarity more than they used punctuation, while others used it rarely, if
at all, and most were somewhere in between. My personal opinion
(influenced by those years, plus 20+ years in the criminal justice system
since) is that educational level has a strong influence. Those with
smaller vocabularies and more limited mind-sets tend to use profanity and
vulgarity than those with more to say, in my experience.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Keith Morrison
>> I work in a warehouse. It isn't a "tough guy" job, but some of my
>> co-workers swear all the fucking time. Some swear sometimes, and some
>> rarely or never.
>
>Asa a parallel of sorts, during my 10 years in the navy, some people used
>vulgarity more than they used punctuation, while others used it rarely, if
>at all, and most were somewhere in between. My personal opinion
>(influenced by those years, plus 20+ years in the criminal justice system
>since) is that educational level has a strong influence. Those with
>smaller vocabularies and more limited mind-sets tend to use profanity and
>vulgarity than those with more to say, in my experience.
Although that can vary. When I was a drill instructor, there was an
interesting contrast between myself and another guy. He bellowed and
swore all the time. I didn't. However, if I raised my voice and
swore, my recruits knew they were in trouble. For him, it was *not*
swearing and speaking in a low voice that made his recruits realize
they were in for it.
--
Keith
John Schilling
>John Schilling wrote:
>> >> In article <1118957917.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> >> Cunningham says...
>> >> >Dr. Dave wrote:
>> >> >> So, other than bodily functions and profanity, what other sorts of
>> >> >> thing might fall into the category of "unaesthetic realism" -- things
>> >> >> that would be realistic, but not desirable, in fiction?
>> >> >I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be honest.
>> >> >Its not that big a deal.
>> >> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>> >How big a deal is the word "the"? Or "and"?
>> >And how useful are they to a writer?
>> Very useful, in that they perform a vital function. A vital function that
>> does not otherwise require them to be a big deal.
>> It is unclear what vital, or even useful, function is performed by the use
>> of profanity that is not a big deal, and so I am unclear as to the relevance
>> of your analogy.
>Your original point was, apparently, that only things that are "big
>deals" are important to writers. That is patently untrue, as I just showed.
That was never my original point, and you might want to brush up on your
basic reading comprehension skills if you think it was. My point, very
specific in context, was that *profanity* is only useful if it is a big
deal. I said nothing about whether other sorts of language need to be
"big deals" in order to be useful, or important, and it is wrong of you
to suggest that I did.
Not every statement is intended to be a generalization about an entire
field. If I had wanted to tell you what I thought about the importance
of language and vocabulary in general, I would have *told* you. I didn't.
If you had wanted to know what I thought about the importance of language
and vocabulary in genera, you should have *asked* me. You didn't.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Carl Dershem
news:d4m8b15lgdah10f6l...@4ax.com:
Ho, yus! Mileage varies enormously, and what works for one may not work
for another. But I've generally found that the kind that doesn't shout and
swear (The Vogon, to move closer to topic) gets more respect later on.
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>2) What if the novel is about an ordinary person thrust into an
>extraordinary situation? Without a hardened image to maintain, aren't
>they going to react to crisis with a string of shocked expletives?
If said ordinary person is me, the answer is no. In a crisis, I go
quiet... extremely quiet. Cursing just gets in the way of figuring
out what needs to be done and doing it at that point. And once you've
done whatever, then normally the emotional level has dropped to point
where cursing is just not appropriate.
This, of course, is not always a good thing. When I was taking a
self-defense course, the hardest thing for me to do was make any scary
or attention-getting sound. It's just so unnatural!
Thinking about it, about the only thing that gets me to curse in a
crisis situation is someone who is not doing whatever it is that they
need to do. Then, an appropriately placed profanity can sometimes get
them to break out of their daze and do whatever it is that you need
them to do.
But, in general, I have found that people will respond well to leashed
emotions. The last time I got really angry at work, all it took was
my turning around in my chair, glaring at the other person, and saying
"Get out of here. NOW." to convince the other person that I meant
business.
Rebecca
Andrew Wheeler
The entire post of yours that started this sub-thread said, and I quote again:
> >> >> If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
Walk away from that if you want to -- *I* don't mind.
If you don't actually believe -- and aren't actually asserting -- that
only words that are "a big deal" are of "use," then you shouldn't say so.
But you should look at the words you are actually uttering and decide if
you believe in them *before* you post.
Luna
r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2005 08:50:47 -0700, "Ray Cunningham" <ray...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >2) What if the novel is about an ordinary person thrust into an
> >extraordinary situation? Without a hardened image to maintain, aren't
> >they going to react to crisis with a string of shocked expletives?
>
> If said ordinary person is me, the answer is no. In a crisis, I go
> quiet... extremely quiet. Cursing just gets in the way of figuring
> out what needs to be done and doing it at that point. And once you've
> done whatever, then normally the emotional level has dropped to point
> where cursing is just not appropriate.
>
In fiction then, doesn't it depend on the character and the situation?
A crass, lower class character who never cussed would seem unusual to
me. Actually, what I really enjoy in futuristic science fiction is when
the author makes up their own curse words and slang, because if they're
good at it, it's just another subtle reminder that this is a different
world or a different time, and you still get the gist of what they mean
without the tired old fucks and shits.
Wayne Throop
: Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com>
: Walk away from that if you want to -- *I* don't mind.
Don't be silly. He already told you where you went wrong.
: If you don't actually believe -- and aren't actually asserting -- that
: only words that are "a big deal" are of "use," then you shouldn't say so.
And he didn't say so.
You went wrong in your interpretation of "it".
"It" did not refer to "words". "It" refered to "profanity".
Let's supply the context you just omitted:
::::: I think Americans are just hyper-sensitive to profanity, to be
::::: honest. Its not that big a deal.
:::: If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
There's only the one thing for the "it" to be refering to,
and it's not "words". It's "profanity".
If profanity is not that big a deal, what use is it?
And the answer is (for one possibility) to demonstrate that a character
is obsessive/compulsive about use of profanity. Or to demonstrate that
said character is numb to it, or oblivious of it, or has overused it,
for a few others.
On the other hand, most often these uses aren't the best way
to get my interest engaged in a story or a character.
Wayne Throop
: Although that can vary. When I was a drill instructor, there was an
: interesting contrast between myself and another guy. He bellowed and
: swore all the time. I didn't. However, if I raised my voice and
: swore, my recruits knew they were in trouble. For him, it was *not*
: swearing and speaking in a low voice that made his recruits realize
: they were in for it.
And then there's the subtle touch (though more difficult to pull off)...
illustrated by this quote from The Lost Steersman in a recent thread:
And even though Zenna didn't do a thing, not a thing different, and her
face didn't change at all -- even so, Steffie heard this voice in his head
going 'Watch Out!' and it looked like Dan heard that same voice, because
he sat right up and even moved his chair back a couple of inches.
--- Zenna reacts to somebody slighting Rowan
Or, let's see... hm, can't recall the SF it came from, but there's a
bit about somebody being very impressed that, without a single
profanity, and without repeating himself for many mintues, some (iirc)
drill seargent had given an epic verbal drubbing to somebody-or-other.
Hm. Source still escapes me. Ah. well.
Anyways. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Or a recruit.
Or so I'm given to understand.
Thomas Schoene
>
> Or, let's see... hm, can't recall the SF it came from, but there's a
> bit about somebody being very impressed that, without a single
> profanity, and without repeating himself for many mintues, some (iirc)
> drill seargent had given an epic verbal drubbing to somebody-or-other.
Starship Troopers, I think (Chapter III):
"He [Sergeant Zim] went on and on and I began to forget my goose flesh in
hearing him storm. He never once repeated himself and never used either
profanity or obscenity. (I learned later that those were reserved for
/very/ special occasions, which this wasn't.) But he described our
shortcomings, physical, mental, moral, and genetic, in great and insulting
detail.
"But somehow I was not insulted; I became greatly interested in studying his
command of language. I wished that we had had him on our debate team."
Of course, this isn't really a Heinlein invention. Drill instructors have
been doing this for decades if not centuries. RAH was almost certainly
channeling some Marine DI from his Naval Academy days, but it was a
well-honed drill even then.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
Wayne Throop
:: 2) What if the novel is about an ordinary person thrust into an
:: extraordinary situation? Without a hardened image to maintain,
:: aren't they going to react to crisis with a string of shocked
:: expletives?
: r.r...@thevine.net
: If said ordinary person is me, the answer is no. In a crisis, I go
: quiet... extremely quiet. Cursing just gets in the way of figuring
: out what needs to be done and doing it at that point. And once you've
: done whatever, then normally the emotional level has dropped to point
: where cursing is just not appropriate.
Good point. Panic screaming is another thing that's often depicted
in movies that wonders me. Do people really do that? I don't.
On those rare occasions when I've had a chance to see badness coming
(car or motorcycle accidents or near-accidents in progress, falling
off a roof that one time, etc) I didn't scream, I didn't curse, I got
very Focused. It didn't always help in doing what needed to be done,
and I don't necessarily recommend it as being more comforting. But at
least there seems more of a chance to put that adrenaline to use rather
than wasting it on screaming, cursing, or whatever. So I guess on balance
I prefer the way I'm wired/imprinted/whatever.
Luke Webber
> Asa a parallel of sorts, during my 10 years in the navy, some people used
> vulgarity more than they used punctuation, while others used it rarely, if
> at all, and most were somewhere in between. My personal opinion
> (influenced by those years, plus 20+ years in the criminal justice system
> since) is that educational level has a strong influence. Those with
> smaller vocabularies and more limited mind-sets tend to use profanity and
> vulgarity than those with more to say, in my experience.
And then there's Billy Connolly. A man who cries on stage should not be
accounted tough. <g>
Luke
Wayne Throop
: Starship Troopers, I think (Chapter III):
Hm. I thought I was thinking of something more recent than that.
But the "never once repeated himself" seems diagnostic. Ah well.
: "But somehow I was not insulted; I became greatly interested in studying his
: command of language. I wished that we had had him on our debate team."
Of course, this can conceivably backfire if the object of the drubbing
is not ... perceptive/thoughtful enough to realize he's been drubbed.
Bradford Holden
>
> Good point. Panic screaming is another thing that's often depicted
> in movies that wonders me. Do people really do that?
Yep.
> I don't. On those rare occasions when I've had a chance to see
> badness coming (car or motorcycle accidents or near-accidents in
> progress, falling off a roof that one time, etc) I didn't scream, I
> didn't curse, I got very Focused.
Most everyone does that. When you swear or scream is when, despite
all of your efforts to the contrary, you are going crash or fall anyway.
After I have completely screwed up and I am about to feel some
significant pain, I usually say "shit" in a normal conversational
voice.
I have heard people fall and, while falling, yell and/or utter blood
curdling screams. But always while they are falling, not while they
are trying to keep from falling.
Of course, you are suppose to say "falling" but no remembers that....
--
Bradford Holden
"Let us leave philosophy to the physicists" - Ken MacLeod _Newton's Wake_
Carl Dershem
news:ilvf4ad...@oddjob.uchicago.edu:
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>>
>> Good point. Panic screaming is another thing that's often depicted
>> in movies that wonders me. Do people really do that?
>
> Yep.
One of my favorite examples of that is STanley Tucci's character in
"Undercover Blues." That poor bastard. :)
Wayne Throop
:: (car or motorcycle accidents or near-accidents in progress, falling
:: off a roof that one time, etc) I didn't scream, I didn't curse, I got
:: very Focused.
: Bradford Holden <hol...@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
: Most everyone does that. When you swear or scream is when, despite
: all of your efforts to the contrary, you are going crash or fall
: anyway.
I meant cases where I'm going to have Bad Things Happen no matter what I
do. I still don't vocalize; I cut over to mitigation. Can I get caught
on the edge of the car bumper instead of smack dead center, can I land
in such a way as to lower the risk of fracture, can I steer so I go
between those trees and hit the softer sand beyond them even though
I've already gone over the embankment and AM gonna hit something,
etc, etc, etc. (actual examples)
Of course, these are cases where I had only a few seconds at most. It's
possible I'd react differently if I concluded there was nothing at all I
could do to affect the outcome in any way... and I had more time. But
I think not. I sometimes vocalize well after the fact. And actual pain
can do it. Hm. I suppose if I were falling from a sufficient height,
like Nth floor for N>3, or a skydiving accident I might consider it
"after the fact"... but no, even then, I think not.
: After I have completely screwed up and I am about to feel some
: significant pain, I usually say "shit" in a normal conversational
: voice.
Heh. Yes, I suppose that. But that's not what's shown in movies
most often, except in the most macho of action-adventure heros.
And I certainly don't feel like a macro action-adventure hero.
In movies, I tend to find a lot of "why are you screaming and
not running (or whatever mitigating action)" moments.
Christopher Adams
>
> And, anyway, I didn't find the degree of profanity in Wayans's "The
> Ladykillers" character to be realistic. Perhaps I'm just not familiar
> with some particular subculture where it is. No loss there, I'd say.
That's what I'm saying. Fucking prudes!
Hehe.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country.
Christopher Adams
>
> Or, let's see... hm, can't recall the SF it came from, but there's a
> bit about somebody being very impressed that, without a single
> profanity, and without repeating himself for many mintues, some (iirc)
> drill seargent had given an epic verbal drubbing to somebody-or-other.
R. Lee Ermey got the role of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket" by
videotaping himself screaming insults and abuse for fifteen minutes without
pause, repetition, or flinching even though he was being pelted by tennis balls
and oranges. He'd originally been hired as a consultant on USMC drill style.
Dr. Dave
> : "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> : You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is preferable
> : because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and sentence
> : fragments are not preferable, even though they're more realistic.
>
Well, no. That's a *different* argument, based on something other than
realism. And I'm not sure it's true anyway.
> Unless
> the hesitations and restarts are *very* noticeable, your memory edits
> them out. Most times, you won't be able to say, a minute later, exactly
> where the hesistations and such were. But word *choice* sticks out more.
You think most people would be able to tell you exactly where and what
the obscentities were? I doubt that, too. And we are talking about
extreme cases here, anyway. Extreme or unusual hesitation patterns are
just as noticeable, and as relevant to characterization, as profanity
patterns.
> Or rather, I should say that's how *my* memory works; don't know about
> yours for sure. But in comparing on-the-fly composition hesitations
> vs word choice, the two are different enough that one can legitimately
> prefer one be realistic and the other not matter so much.
I think you must mean something by 'realistic' that doesn't match what
I mean. I mean "like you would encounter in real life". Once you go
on to say that there are differences in how important you would
consider various features of speech to be, when listening to real
speech, you've moved away from an argument based on realism, to an
argument based on relevance -- a wholly different basis.
David Tate
matman42
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:oJHse.5415$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> On 17-Jun-2005, "ckovacs" <cko...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Flashforward 1990s. Zelazny himself records the audiobooks. In each,
>> the male clearly says "Damn you!" twice in response to Corwin.
>> (Apologies if anyone is offended by me repeating this here.)
>>
>> Another example is the explictly pornographic sex scene with choice
>> words that Zelazny admitted to have written in Guns of Avalon, but that
>> the editor insisted be removed. It was done for his own amusement, he
>> said, and he had expected the editor to object.
>>
>> I agree that Zelazny's use of expletives was mild and often inferred
>> rather than overt. Someone writing Nine Princes in Amber today would
>> probably have the male attendant use the "F" phrase instead of the "D"
>> phrase, or maybe even something more ripe than that.
>
> But "Damn You" and "Fuck You" aren't quite synonyms.
Also, RZ might have felt that Damn You worked better on tape than "--".
MM
Keith Morrison
>> Or, let's see... hm, can't recall the SF it came from, but there's a
>> bit about somebody being very impressed that, without a single
>> profanity, and without repeating himself for many mintues, some (iirc)
>> drill seargent had given an epic verbal drubbing to somebody-or-other.
>
>R. Lee Ermey got the role of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket" by
>videotaping himself screaming insults and abuse for fifteen minutes without
>pause, repetition, or flinching even though he was being pelted by tennis balls
>and oranges. He'd originally been hired as a consultant on USMC drill style.
Yep. Kubrick had realized who better to play a Marine DI than a good
actor who'd been a Marine DI.
--
Keith
Andrew Wheeler
>
> :::: If it's not that big a deal, what use is it?
>
> : Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com>
> : Walk away from that if you want to -- *I* don't mind.
>
> Don't be silly. He already told you where you went wrong.
>
> : If you don't actually believe -- and aren't actually asserting -- that
> : only words that are "a big deal" are of "use," then you shouldn't say so.
>
> And he didn't say so.
> You went wrong in your interpretation of "it".
> "It" did not refer to "words". "It" refered to "profanity".
The "profanity" in question was embodied in "words," and could not be
otherwise. Trying to separate the two (to make "profanity" some sort of
"non-word") is ludicrous.
Writers choose the words they use. Some of those words -- of all
different sorts, some profane and some not -- will offend, annoy, or
otherwise cause consternation to some readers. "Profanity" is not some
magical category that exists separate from the realm of "words" -- each
reader has particular biases and preferences, and so has a different
definition of "profane."
Wayne Throop
: The "profanity" in question was embodied in "words," and could not be
: otherwise. Trying to separate the two (to make "profanity" some sort
: of "non-word") is ludicrous.
Ah. So your position is that since all profanity is words,
all things that are true of profanity must be true of all words.
Since, after all, that's the only way you can reach the conclusion
that the question was refering to all words.
I think you've slipped a sylogism or two, there.
Wayne Throop
::: You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is preferable
::: because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and sentence
::: fragments are not preferable, even though they're more realistic.
:: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: Sure you can. Because of the way memory of conversations work.
: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
: Well, no. That's a *different* argument, based on something other
: than realism. And I'm not sure it's true anyway.
The "preferable" here refers to word choice in a work of fiction.
Choice of words to create a work of fiction is not "based on realism",
it's based on the artistsic license.
Sheesh.
: You think most people would be able to tell you exactly where and what
: the obscentities were?
No. Lucky for me, my position doesn't require any such silly thing.
I don't recall each raindrop in the drizzle yesterday, but
I still got wet, and I still remember that, and it set a mood
for the period of time of the precipitation.
Same with profanity.
: I think you must mean something by 'realistic' that doesn't match what
: I mean.
I mean, "similar to reality". As in, "depicting talking animals
is not realisitic", or "depicting somebody blowing a bubble gum bubble
and having it lift them off the ground by buoyancy is not realistic".
There's really nothing arcane here. It is often reasonable to choose some
aspects of a depiction to be realistic, and other not so much. Therefore,
if an artist prefers to use profanity, that doesn't mean he's cheating
somehow if he doesn't use word hesistations and conversational glitches.
Again. SHEEEEEESH.
Dr. Dave
> ::: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> ::: You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is preferable
> ::: because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and sentence
> ::: fragments are not preferable, even though they're more realistic.
>
> :: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> :: Sure you can. Because of the way memory of conversations work.
>
> : "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> : Well, no. That's a *different* argument, based on something other
> : than realism. And I'm not sure it's true anyway.
>
> The "preferable" here refers to word choice in a work of fiction.
> Choice of words to create a work of fiction is not "based on realism",
> it's based on the artistsic license.
You misread what I wrote. I'll expand:
An argument based on the way people selectively filter conversations
they hear, and thus that some words are more 'important' to preserve in
a conversation when trying to convey the content of it accurately, is
*not* the same argument as "including profanity is important because
it's how (most) people talk."
The latter was Ray Cunningham's position, that I was responding to.
> Sheesh.
Indeed.
> : I think you must mean something by 'realistic' that doesn't match what
> : I mean.
>
> I mean, "similar to reality". As in, "depicting talking animals
> is not realisitic", or "depicting somebody blowing a bubble gum bubble
> and having it lift them off the ground by buoyancy is not realistic".
>
> There's really nothing arcane here. It is often reasonable to choose some
> aspects of a depiction to be realistic, and other not so much. Therefore,
> if an artist prefers to use profanity, that doesn't mean he's cheating
> somehow if he doesn't use word hesistations and conversational glitches.
It does if his argument for including the profanity was that it's
important precisely *because* it's "similar to reality". If he has
some other standard for how similar to reality the two ought to be,
that's fine -- but, as I noted above, that's a different justification
entirely than the one that was made by Ray.
David Tate
Wayne Throop
: An argument based on the way people selectively filter conversations
: they hear, and thus that some words are more 'important' to preserve
: in a conversation when trying to convey the content of it accurately,
: is *not* the same argument as "including profanity is important
: because it's how (most) people talk."
The former is an example of a motive for *why* it is important to
have characters "talk the way most people talk", and why some
aspects of "the way most people talk" are more important to
preserve than others.
Because you asserted that
You can't consistently argue that realistic profanity is preferable
because it's realistic, but that realistic hesitations and sentence
fragments are not preferable, even though they're more realistic.
when, in fact, it *can* be consistently argued, because it is not
inconsistent to recognize that some parts of a depiction are more
important to have realistic than others, for the purpose of a
particular depiction.
:: Therefore, if an artist prefers to use profanity, that doesn't mean
:: he's cheating somehow if he doesn't use word hesistations and
:: conversational glitches.
: It does if his argument for including the profanity was that it's
: important precisely *because* it's "similar to reality".
No. It still doesn't. "It's important to include this profanity,
because it's important that this profanity be realistic" does not in
any way, shape, or form indicate whether or not it is important that
word hesitation be realistic.
Dr. Dave
> : "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> : It does if his argument for including the profanity was that it's
> : important precisely *because* it's "similar to reality".
>
> No. It still doesn't. "It's important to include this profanity,
> because it's important that this profanity be realistic" does not in
> any way, shape, or form indicate whether or not it is important that
> word hesitation be realistic.
But that still isn't what he said. If he had, I would have asked him
why it's particularly important for profanity (as opposed to other
aspects of speech) to be rendered realistically. That might have been
interesting, and even convincing.
What he did say instead is that realism in profanity is desirable
because "it's the way people talk". Simpliciter. There is no attempt
whatever there to distinguish profanity from any other aspect of "the
way people talk". The clear implication is that being "the way people
talk" makes it necessarily important (or at least desirable) to render
it realistically. Which, as you agree, isn't true.
David Tate