Hmm, I'm not agreeing with that. So basically I could use any swear word I liked and could claim it was cultural, so I am fine using it?

People like to claim a lot of things are cultural these days, to make them ok; it doesn't do that though. In my opinion it's just an excuse for sin. (No offence to anyone I hope.) If you start excusing one sin as cultural, then surely we can do that with lots of others - like not staying pure before marriage; someone I know thinks that's cultural, so it gets a mess then. You could change anything in the Bible to being a cultural issue then, surely? That is what worries me most. How could you tell someone that swearing is a cultural issue, whilst deciding that something else (like what I mentioned above) is not?

@Lady Elanor: I'm not actually trying to say that swearwords are ok because they're cultural. If you look at the questions Jonathan asked me:And the answers I gave to them:I was not trying to make all swearwords acceptable, I was trying to point out that there is not one single blacklist of words that God condemns. Culture determines what words are acceptable or not by its use of them. To call someone an "a-----e" is a rude and foul remark, to the point where it became a foul word that we teach our kids not to say. Take another word with the exact same meaning--not something you'd usually throw around in polite company, but an acceptable scientific term: "anus". This isn't a swearword, but if people started calling each other that as an insult, I bet you it would become one. Or, for an example from history, a "f----t" is a bundle of wood--a word you encounter in LotR, no less--but it's certainly a word to avoid today.

These are examples (although one's only a thought experiment) of how a word could become a swearword through the way it is used in a culture. Luke and I were arguing that the opposite process can happen, too--that, through the evolution of the way a word is used and the meanings it gains or loses, it could stop being a swearword. (If you ask me what words I personally think are on their way out of swearwordhood, I could list a few; I'd censor them just in case not everyone agrees ...in fact, I'd expect that people would disagree. Many different cultural backgrounds, even within the first-world, english-speaking realm...)

Anyway, to be honest, the point Luke and I were making is actually tangential to the real question, which is whether it is ever justifiable to use, in literature, words that people deem unacceptable in direct speech. If the character swears with an unacceptable word, is there sometimes a good reason to include it explicitly? On that front, I've presented a few arguments already, but we kinda got side-tracked with the new issue.

Quite true. But God did say not to swear. Swear words are obvious, and those words can be avoided.


All that shows is that words can be misused. Swear words such as the "d" word are not swear words when used properly, and they are still in proper use to this day. We can use these words properly, just not improperly, and avoid entirely the few words that have no proper use.


Misused, as I noted above.


If we can so clearly see the beginning and possibly the ending of swear words, then that is an aid in avoiding them.


Since the Bible says not to swear, that answers the question. The theoretical literary benefit of using swearing is not worth disregarding a Biblical rule.

The biblical rule does answer a question, but I think it's a different question. The Bible tells us not to swear, and I take that seriously (although, as mentioned above, I recognize where my subjective/cultural experience guides me in applying it seriously), but I would suggest that this thread is not about me swearing. This is about how to present an event in a story. I'm not swearing...the character is swearing. Is what the character is doing wrong? Sure, characters do wrong things all the time in stories. Characters murder, characters commit adultery, characters exploit, characters swear. My business as an author is to decide how to depict the character's wrongdoing. Do I depict it explicitly, or imply it? Which parts do I depict explicitly, if any, and why? To whom am I presenting it, and what message do I want to convey?

My belief is that sometimes, an explicit depiction of a wrongdoing--as part of a redemptive story--can be helpful and God-glorifying. Certainly not all the time; I'd be hard pressed to think of a place where an explicit depiction of adultery could be helpful. But swearing? My current understanding of the Bible doesn't rule it out.

(Or in this case, the weakness and hardships of the characters, who will hopefully be growing and overcoming as the story progresses)

By the way, the verse 'swear not by this or that', is not about cussing but rather another common meaning of the word swear, which as we all know is to promise solemnly; take an oath. "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

That reduces us to one spot I know of where Paul talks about 'coarse jesting', and I think there may have been another verse also about keeping our speech clean. And of course, the part where he says let nothing come out of your mouth but that which is good to the use of edifying those who hear it.

Since edify is to 'make someone understand', edifying means 'Enlightening or uplifting so as to encourage intellectual or moral improvement', I'd say if we're using such words in our writing (not even in our speech, so it is different) in a way that makes people understand it isn't a good thing to do (just like we do with murder and adultery and all that other stuff), then there is nothing wrong.

Where does swearing by other gods fit into this discussion? I'm speaking of the old Roman oath "By Jupiter!" Ya'll talk about not taking the lord's name in vain, but does this apply to gods not our own?

For my part, I would not swear by them myself, but I don't care when heathen characters swear by their false gods. They hold no power, they deserve no respect. HtTyD is a picture of where this was used. They say "by Thor" in the movie.

God on the other hand-- I would have an issue with a character taking His name in vain, same way I do in real life.

I think what cephron (and others) are saying is that culture decides what is and isn't a swear word. Foul and offensive language is cultural and contextual; whether or not a word is perceived as foul depends on the definition of the word, the connotations culture attaches to it, and how the word is used. What's offensive in America may not be in England, or it may not be when translated to German. As someone said, there is no official list of swear words; culture decides what is offensive and what's not.

I think we as writers need bend to culture's rules in this instance. By that I mean, if culture has decided a word is offensive, we need to treat it as such. If we were raised to treat a word as foul, it should be handled appropriately in our writing. Yes, culture has decided some "milder" words are acceptable in certain situations, but there is still a negative connotation attached to those words in certain circles. (Like the word for mending socks... Some people think that's fine, but others still question it.) If nobody -anywhere - questioned a word's appropriateness, then we wouldn't have to worry about it. But when a word is under scrutiny - even if some brackets of culture are fine with it - we need to treat it accordingly.

I personally amn't bothered by swearing by false gods. The oath itself doesn't bother me because I don't respect those gods. What bothers me is the fact that those characters obviously worship those false gods... So it's not something I would use lightly. I would only use it if a character did worship false gods, and I wanted to make a point of that. It would not be portrayed as good, but I don't consider it foul. Even so, I don't think it would be edifying to pepper a character's language with it.

Very good thoughts, Aubrey. Thank you for posting that.

Very good post, Aubrey. Thank you.

OK, I've been reading through this discussion, and I'm ready to give my opinion. And, sorry if it all seems disconnected. Hopefully it will make sense.

First off, in my own writing, I don't think I'd put in swear words in because I just don't feel comfortable writing them. That may change in the future, I don't know. But for now I won't be using them.

However, as Calenmiriel brought up at the start of this thread,

I think this is a completely fine thing to do in writing.

We've already come to the decision that culture decides which words are "bad" words, so I'm not going to talk about that.

I want to say that I'm leaning towards Luke and cephron's view on things, but let me add on to what they've already said.

Jonathan, you mentioned, first of all, that the Bible says not to curse. Can you please repeat the verses? I may have missed them.

Second: You also mentioned that "Christian writers" are thought of as "safe" and are expected to not have swearing in them. My question is, who deemed that to be true? Honestly, I think it depends on the age of the reader. I wouldn't be surprised if adult Christian writers used some language in their books one bit.

Third: You said,
Who ever said it isn't acceptable for Christian authors to have swearing in their novels? In my opinion, as long as the swearing is portrayed in a bad way, it is perfectly acceptable to have swearing in their novels. Now, I do think that Christian writers should use mild words instead of the very strong ones because of their level of "badness" deemed by the culture.

Next:

I don't know... I think swearing could add to a novel's power. I've read some really really AMAZING books with INCREDIBLE (and I really mean it; like, best writing I've ever read type of incredible) writing, but they still used a couple uses of the d word. Personally, I thought that this word added to the story. Not because I thought it was a good word, but because it made the story more real.

Part of the attraction of stories is how real they are. One of my biggest pet peeves in books, movies, and radio programs are the "model families." I respect what Christians are doing with these, and I understand that others like them greatly. I'm sure many of you have at least heard of the Jonathan Park series. (This is not meant to offend those who like this series. I actually like it to an extent, myself) This series is one of those that makes me cringe because the family is such a perfect Christian family. No matter how good the writing can get for that series, it will never get "better" to me because of how unreal it is. No family is as perfect as they are. I can't really relate to them, because even the Park family's "family struggles" don't seem very big.

However, if you have a character who occasionally (which I mean just about only once or twice within a book) uses a swear word, it makes them more real, more human. Does it mean the swearing is good? No. But it strengthens the story.

Now, I'm not saying you should do a little bit of bad for a lot of good here. In my opinion, though, it's not doing a little bit of bad if you portray swearing in a bad way. And, in my opinion, swearing is less of an issue than of adultery being portrayed in a book. If Christians are allowed to portray adultery or murder in a negative way in their books, why shouldn't they be allowed to use swearing?

It's not that we don't like swearing or would use it ourselves, but it's our characters. Characters are like people. If you wrote a historical fiction story about a man who cursed all of the time, and if you wanted to accurately portray him, you would need to at least indirectly mention his foul mouth. There are real people who curse, and if we want to make certain characters real, then maybe they need to curse.

OK, here's an example I have real quick of making a character real with swearing. In Peter and the Starcatchers by Ridley Pearson and Dave Berry (who I am not sure are Christians or not), the father of the main girl is talking with a porpoise. (Put in spoilers in case you don't want to read this bit of the book. )

Ammm is the Dolphin, Aster is the father.

"Bad man hunt father ship," said Ammm.
Aster felt a chill.
"Again," he said, and the response was the same:
"Bad man hunt father ship."
Bad man. Aster figured he knew who that would be. He thought a moment, then squeaked a question to the porpoise.
"Ammm see bad man ship?"
The answer was immediate: "Yes."
"Where?"
Chittering among the dolphins, then: "Near."
D---. Aster thought furiously.

In that instance, I would expect a British man of the time to respond that way to bad news. It was real, which made the character more real to me. The authors only used that word twice in the book (as far as I know; I'm nearly done with it), and the two instances were right near each other and were in response to bad news. Because they used the word sparingly and in an appropriate place, I was OK with it.

This is the same way I would want Christian authors to use swear words. (Note: I'm meaning for older audiences. As in 15/16+) Plus, what made it better was it seemed meaningful. It wasn't just a wasted word flippantly used. It was very purposeful in its placement, and the character using it wasn't saying it at anyone. He was basically saying, "Oh man. That's not good."

Sorry for the ramble/rant. I hope it all makes sense. Ask me questions if you don't understand something that I said. Usually that helps me make my points more clear... My thoughts are not wanting to connect today. This post was not meant to be offensive, and please let me know if it was.

Out of curiosity, Elanor, how many British men actually fall into the stereotypical D--n swearing?

Good post, Nemo. Thankyou for sharing those thoughts. As another fan of Peter and the Starcatchers, I agree with you. Another series of books that I love, Ranger's Apprentice, also uses such mild language in appropriate places.

Since we write about flawed characters, their actions, and their words are also flawed. If it is considered okay to include things such as adultery and murder in a Christian story, I don't see why one would exclude bad language from this basket. (However I when I refer to "bad language", I am referring to mild swearing, not obscene, vulgar words)

I think a lot of good guidance on this subject can be taken out of Andrew's recent blog post that talks about what one should/shouldn't read. If you wouldn't read it, should you write it?

For now, I don't use any bad language in my writing. And though our main characters often reflect the values and beliefs of us authors, most of us would agree that our villains do not. Is it then a bad thing to add flaws to flawed characters in the way they speak as an outside writing the story? I'm still not certain, but this discussion has been very good to think about.

*ends ramble*

*smiles * I have often thought of this, Aussie.

Yes, I have been thinking about that a lot these past few days. What good discussions we are having; it really makes you think, and ponder these things.

In some cases it is not cultural. Bl**dy is considered swearing in England and acceptable in the US, but is questionable even in the US due to its possibly blasphemous roots.


I agree.

The main verses about swearing are these:

Nor should there be obscenity... Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. -- Ephesians 5:4a, 6-7

However, there are others that are slightly less direct, and numerous ones that can be interpreted as supporting this.


If swearing is wrong, then Christians would be expected (and rightly so) not to have it in their books.


Again, it depends on the Bible. It doesn't matter what anyone says. What do you think the Bible says about swearing? That's all that matters.


I've never read a swear word that added to a novel's power. Instead, such usages tend to damage otherwise wholesome stories.


I completely agree about "model families" (with exceptions). But there are plenty of other ways to show characters with flaws without having them swearing.

I really don't see how this applies to swearing. Swearing isn't deceiving at all, and I don't think swear words are empty words in the least. They are full of meaning. The meaning may not be desirable, but they are not empty. I think this verse is more talking about giving false promises. Like what Pirates often do. They get work out of their crew, then kill them so they can keep the treasure for themselves, even though the promised to share.

The part of "obscenity," can you give more what the verse was talking about after that? Or was it not related to words?




I'm sorry, but that's like saying, "If adultery is wrong, than Christians would be expected not to have it in their books." Or even murder, or anything that's wrong. The only thing we'd be left with is an unreal perfection in no need of God. We cannot simply say that if it's wrong we can't have it in our books.

In my opinion, if the word is used with purpose, like it was in Peter and the Starcatchers, and with meaning, instead of just careless cursing, and if it's portrayed as a negative thing (which I understand it wasn't necessarily portrayed negatively in the example I gave, but it sort of was....), then it should be perfectly acceptable for a Christian to use them in their stories. Perhaps not for younger audiences, but so far I'm really not seeing anything that should prohibit them from using the words.



I do think the Bible shows that swearing is bad. I've already said it's bad. That does not mean that we should not use it in our stories in the least. Adultery is bad. Murder is bad. Disobedience is bad. The list goes on and on. But none of that stops us from using them in our stories. We should portray them in a negative way, such as having our villains use the words, but there is nothing saying that we should not use them.



Sometimes that is the case. But in this instance I think it added to the story. Would I have personally preferred them to use an even less "swear" word? Yes. But in that instance an "Oh man," or something of that sort was needed, and I think the best option was the d word.



There are. And there are plenty of opportunities to tell the stories of those people, but what about the people whose flaws are swearing? Who's going to tell their story? Do we ignore it?

I agree with you here, Nemo. So long as they are portrayed in a negative way, I don't believe "bad things" (per say) are something that should be prohibited from our writing.

I forgot to address this earlier. I've never seen this used as a reason not to swear in the manner in which we are discussing on this thread.


Only the part about "obscenity" was relating to swearing. The rest was relating to the seriousness of swearing and other sins and why not to do them or be convinced by the culture to do them.


Here it is with nothing cut out:

Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. -- Ephesians 5:3-7


I'm planning to write another post on this at some point.


That is a possible exception, when some mild swearing might be acceptable: If it is directly addressed as wrong. That is different than just having a bad guy randomly swear, though it is still arguably unnecessary.

And Nemo has finally hit on the one point at which I have found that swearing is appropriate.

I'm not going to reiterate my second chance argument, because I've posted it at least twice elsewhere and I'm sure no one wants to hear me say it again. This is the exception that I have found to including swearing. Just having a bad guy use it holds no power. But when dealing with a regenerate character who fights the battle of swearing with the help of the Lord... this is a powerful tool. It’s like portraying an alcoholic who is trying to conquer his alcoholism through Christ. That is a powerful image. That brings glory and honor to Christ.

Because of this, I do not say that swearing is prohibited in your books, but I think there are very strict parameters, and I think the point of the swearing, when used, is to bring glory and Honor to Christ, just like everything else we do.

Example: Luke, you know I have the greatest respect for your passion towards dealing with the topic of men abusing women (in all its forms). You deal with this topic head on in ways that make some people uncomfortable, but you do it because you want to show how destructive it is. To make people aware of it, to push them out of their bubble. You do this to bring awareness and by doing so you bring glory to Christ because, let’s face it, the church is lazy and gun shy when it comes to this topic, or helping women in these situations. *will not rant, will not rant, will not rant *

That, to me, is very different then just having our bad guys use foul language for effect. Effect doesn’t bring glory and honor to Christ. We can write books that are not specifically aimed at Christians, and still be Christ honoring.

This post is not directed at Luke, by the way. Luke just happens to have a story(ies) that I think deal with topics that adress a gritty subject, yet can still bring glory to Christ.

*will await Jonathan's post with intrest *

Might be I'm just tired...but I'm missing what you're saying...

That verse was brought up at some point, if not in this thread, then in the other one. So I was pointing out that it's not applicable to this discussion.

Ah. I must have forgotten seeing it. I agree.

Are writing about a villain who commits murders and writing a villain swearing really the same thing? It might seem so. After all, if you write about a villain committing a murder, have you just committed a murder? Of course not. But there is a difference between writing about a murder and writing a swear word. If you write a swear word in the villain’s dialogue, you have just said a swear word the same as if you spoke it with your lips. It is no longer a description of a fictional character’s sin, it is the actual sin. No one dies when a fictional character commits a murder, but when you write a swear word, you have literally said the swear word. That is the difference.

Also, is there a difference between a villain insulting God and a character taking His name in vain, since both are blasphemy? Again, the difference is in whether the act is described or is actually committed by the author. An author who writes about a villain who insults God has not insulted God, and of course the villain eventually learns better. An author who writes God’s name being used as a swear word has actually committed the sin of blasphemy, rather than referencing it.

With both swearing or blasphemy, one might argue that it is okay to write it as long as it is condemned. I do not find this argument convincing in light of what I said before. A sin is a sin, and it does not take committing it to condemn it.

Here are some examples from the Bible, in this case, to show the different ways the two kinds of blasphemies are treated.

First, God insulted by an unbeliever, which is described:

Then the [field commander of Assyria] stood and called out in Hebrew: "Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria! This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you from my hand. Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’

“Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then every one of you will eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey. Choose life and not death!

“Do not listen to Hezekiah, for he is misleading you when he says, ‘The LORD will deliver us.’ Has the god of any nation ever delivered his land from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries has been able to save his land from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?” -- 2 Kings 18:28-35

In response, the Angel of the LORD came and slaughtered so many of the Assyrian soldiers during the night that the Assyrian fled from their siege of Jerusalem in the morning.

And here God’s name is used as a swear word, but it is only referenced rather than actually said:

Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.

Then the LORD said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.” -- Leviticus 24:10-14

Yes, Jonathan, the word you mentioned is a sticky one, because while it technically isn't profanity in American English (as per the dictionary), I think enough people in America realize it's a British profanity that we need to treat it as such. That is one of those cases where a word may be acceptable in some circles, but not in all, so it needs to be handled with the minority in mind. That's what I was saying when I mentioned the word for mending socks (which, AFAIK, the word you mentioned is basically the British equivalent). Some circles accept it, but some people disagree with it - therefore it's under question.

What I'm trying to say is that we, as Christian authors, need to become "as the weak" when determining what is a swear word. If a fraction of culture still deems it as foul, even if has become acceptable in mainstream usage, I think we need to be respectful of the minority in determining a word's profanity status. Also, if we are writing for (or attempting to portray) a culture/language other than ours, we need to be aware of the different language rules.

But I am speaking purely in terms of deciding what is foul language, whether mild or strong, and not whether or not to use it. *has no further input on the latter at this time*

It is a word they use, although they use bl***y and the f word a lot more these days, I think. D**n was a word that was used a lot quite some time ago. To be honest, I don't think you hear it as much these days, as some other swear words. But yes, it was a typical swear word back in the day.

Yes, I knew back in the day. I was wondering about now. Thank you.

Okay. I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd include both. But yea, you hear other swear words a lot more now, rather than that one.

You're absolutely right that this is the kicker, Jonathan. However, not everyone would agree with your assertion here. I would argue that, in swearing, the sin is in the person's heart--the word itself is simply the overflow of that.


Now, let's start with an extreme example. Suppose you are asked in court to testify word-for-word what you heard someone said, and what the person said included a swearword/profanity. If you speak it, is it coming up out of the overflow of the evil in your heart? No. And both you and the people listening to you know that. Everyone knows these words came from the overflow of his/her heart, not yours. So I don't think quoting someone's swearwords, when it's necessary, is sinful.

In the same way, I think that writing a swearword in fiction is not a sin if it's not an overflow of some "evil in your heart". It's simply less necessary than being asked to say it in a court testimony, which leaves us room to consider the impact of including it. There are general negative impacts that would lead us to suppress using that kind of language by default. But, as some of us apparently agree, there are also positive impacts to using swearwords--usually something to do with the reader's connection to the situation or the characters, or to help convey strong emotion.

It's quite possible that not everyone would agree that there could be positive impacts. If you, yourself, have never seen any positive impact from the use of swearing in a novel or other media, I would be tempted to chalk that up to a difference in culture between your upbringing and mine. Is your culture better than mine? Quite possibly--it's arguable that a world entirely without swearing would be better than a world with swearing. But if I were to write a fictional book for people with an upbringing similar to mine, I would be carefully considering, should the issue arise, whether or not to explicitly include the foul language spoken by the characters. If my heart is right before God as I write, I don't think I'd be concerned about sinning. It wouldn't be a moral choice for me, but an optimization problem--how to best convey something to the readers, but in general avoiding bad content/offensive content.

*has been lurking* Really wonderful post, cephron. I agree with what you said.

I've enjoyed reading all the discussion and opinions!

I agree! We shouldn't have a villain that just swears all the time. I finished reading Peter and the Starcatchers, and the place I mentioned was the ONLY place including the actual word. The authors later mentioned that a sailor cursed, but did not give the word. This makes me think that they chose to put the word where they did, not to just have cussing in the book, but as a very purposeful expression. *will add more when her mind is working more*

Anywho, very good post Cephron!

I was going to mention that yes, this is where we disagree, because I would say it is not the same as speaking it yourself.

And cephron made some great points.

Let me put it this way. You believe it's wrong to insult somebody, right? Like all-out angrily insult them. That's a sin. And it's just as bad as swearing. So by your standards, it would be no different to write about one character insulting another even without swear words, because it's just like you saying those words yourself.

Or is it?

An obscenity is an offensive word OR phrase. So even if your phrase contains no swear words, by definition it could still fall under what that verse is talking about.

I would disagree that writing a swear word is the same as saying it. What I tell my friends who swear profusely "I don't care if you use that language, in the privacy of your own room. But when you're out in public you need to be considerate of offending people around you."

Swearing and cussing isn't what you say, it's who you say it to. After all, the entire origin of such words is insulting or downright rude. A rude gesture would be meaningless, if there was no one there to be insulted or embarrassed. Swear words are the same way. Therefore, when you're writing, you are not really swearing. Not until someone reads it. And that is why you must consider very, very carefully what it is you are writing, and if it is worth potentially offending or insulting your readers.

I say this about violence; never use lightly. Never kill in your book without giving the situation due gravity. The same rule applies to swearing, I think. You had a very good point about empty words, Jonathan. If you use an oath in your writing, make dead certain that it's not an empty oath. You make very sure you're not putting it in for shock effect or because you can. It needs to have impact; it needs to be required for the story.

*agrees completely*

*also completely agrees* And, like in the story I showed, the character wasn't even swearing at anybody or insulting them. And it was a very purposefully placed word that had an impact. So an instance like that I would say would be acceptable. I'm not even sure if in that instance it could really be considered "cussing," aside from the actual word.

However, when the Pirates in the story "swore," the author realized their cursing was not needed and so just mentioned their action, not the actual words. In that case it was better not to swear, otherwise it would have most likely been insulting to another character (and very possibly the readers), and would have been empty words.

Hmm...just curious, would you still hold taking the Lord's name in vain to be wrong, even when done alone? ('Cause he's kinda always listening, right? )

Well, yes, because in that case the person being insulted is God. And he is always listening; you're never completely alone.

But that's between you and God. It's not our place to judge what you say and write when you're alone, with only Him to hear or see.

I read some of this thread... I'm sorry if what I say is something that someone already said!
I, personally, would not be against 'She swore under her breath' or 'she cursed silently' or something like that. I am definitely not a fan of bad language, and it is hard for me to put anything out there. But, as I saw people say this and I am inclined to agree, that people generally swear or curse with foul language when horrible things happen. And yes I have heard it plenty of times. (Which just shows you how we need to learn to think before we speak) I don't feel as if I just said something foul or unclean if I just say 'she gasped and swore with horror' or something like it.
So, I think it wouldn't be bad to hint at it, because you know it wouldn't be as natural if she/he did not, but you don't want to make anyone stumble.
(My views.)

I think my views fall under what Captain, cephron, and Katie were saying.

In re Vanya's question:

One of the few things I like least about the Narnia books is the occasional "By Jove!" or "By gum, the sea!", etc. (The latter being a more direct slightly-modified-substitute-of-real-blasphemy, of course.)


The thing is, though, that fiction is both descriptive and prescriptive. It has to be sufficiently realistic to be plausible, but once the reader has suspended disbelief, he or she may (consciously or unconsciously) use one of our characters as a model. I deliberately choose to write mostly about a society that's far better, more moral, etc., as a whole than our own, in hopes that ours may perhaps be brought up to its level, for example. But this effect---that life tends to imitate art---is part of why writing fiction is a moral activity in the first place. (Going back to the Apology for Poetry, which I brought up in another thread recently ...)

RunningWolf cited a passage from 2 Kings and one from Leviticus to show how two different kinds of blasphemy are treated in the Bible. Good examples, but the correlation between kind of blasphemy and how it's described is confounded by the fact that 2 Kings was written much later than Leviticus, and is a rather different genre. (2 Kings is a history book, and the Assyrian commander's speech is perhaps included partly as a piece of history; I think the example from Leviticus is included primarily as the precedent-setting case that shows how that bit of the Law should be applied, so it doesn't matter what he said. It'd be interesting to look in still later books for other examples.


Let's be careful here ... The truth is offensive to those it condemns. Being "offensive" isn't the problem, or what makes something blasphemous or obscene (and the two are different). What matters is whom or what something offends.

And I've thought of one (and only one, so far) example of a work (an operetta, in this case) where a single blasphemy had great dramatic effect that a lesser word wouldn't work: H.M.S. Pinafore by W. S. Gilbert (music by Sir Arthur Sullivan). Early on, the Captain sings "Though 'bother it' I may occasionally say, I never use a big, big D", with the "never" then modified to "hardly ever" in the pattern of that song. In the final act, having disovered his daughter trying to elope with one of his sailors, he says, "D-----e!" He's immediately frowned on by all concerned and sent to the brig by Sir Joseph, but the way Gilbert builds it up, no other word will do. I note that the only other place that I know of in Gilbert's plays that even comes close to a swear-word is in Pirates, where the Pirate King says, at one point, "Oh, dash it all!" (a reference to the dashes used to expurgate blasphemies---he's effectively saying "d---" rather than the expurgated word).

The problem I see with swearing in our writing (no matter who says it) isn't in the "distasteful" category but more the Distracting one. If a man who doesn't mind a glass of wine now and then inadvertently shares one with a recovering alcoholic, that man has just been distracted from his devotion to God. This is where a swear in writing is very different from an insult or a murder. An insult is often only instigation to its victim and murder is easy to paint truthfully, but letting a swear word into your book is putting it on its home playing field in the same way alcohol's playing field is physical presence. Because words are intangible, they play by different rules than physical distractions.

This partly explains my view:

When you write a character insulting a character in a book, it is entirely fictional. A murder and insult have no reality outside of the book. A swear word does. It affects the mind of the reader in ways that most other fictional depictions of sins do not, in a way that is similar to, though far less damaging than, depicting sexual sins explicitly.

An exception to not swearing would seem to be limited real life circumstances such as cephron referenced, where it is theoretically necessary for a swear word to be said in a detached manner, and not with the emotional investment of a “normal” usage by a real person or a fictional character.


I agree, though I also agree with this:



An excellent point.

The Christian fiction (and secular fiction, for that matter) I've read that made an impact never achieved that effect through swearing, but through good writing. I can say that as someone who used to believe that swearing was acceptable in Christian fiction, but I changed my view when I couldn’t get around what the Bible appears to say about this issue.

I have, though. Not JUST swearing but the realistic inclusion of it in conjunction with good writing.

Well, I think I definitely agree with what Cap'm and Ceph have been saying. And, after reading at least most of this discussion, my views of swearing in your book have become a lot more clear.
I understand what Jonathan is saying and I agree about what the Bible says of 'obscenity' and such. But I am inclined to agree with Cap'm about writing a swear word. Though I wouldn't be very inclined to write one, I always feel uncomfortable. So, I like to settle for this:

I like the way that was put.
God bless!

Would you say that there are some scenes that it would be impossible to write effectively without swearing? And if so, what kind of scenes would those be?

Yes. It depends on your characters and your theme. I've done it before. Whenever I'm faced with a cussing character, I always look or a different word and consider the situation, to avoid overusing such words.

My first book to really venture there kinda surprised me with the themes, because they grew naturally out of the characters and situations and a few swear words were part of the theme.

When your writing is as dialogue-driven as mine is (probably 75% dialogue), saying 'he swore' or something like that isn't going to work. I use it here and there, but it's telling. It's not showing. It doesn't have nearly the same impact, and thus in most cases it falls flat.

Do you think some authors could write such scenes effectively without swear words, or do you think such scenes would fall flat no matter who was writing them if they didn't have the swearing?

Option Deux, in my ever-so-humble opinion. A lot of it has to do with the reader, too. I prefer powerful books. I don't like it when things are watered down, dumbed down, tidied up to make them easier to take.

I want the cold, hard, painful truth.

I hadn't considered that. Thank you Froggie!