What finally settled this matter in my mind is a simple question: Will having swearing please God? Since the only answer I could come up with was no, I decided not to include any swearing.

Making up a swear word seems the safest, and most logical, route for fantasy. If done well. Otherwise it's corny. Give it a reason for being what it is. If you don't want to, have your character think something like 'He wondered what meaning behind the word could generate such shock among the public." Or "He never knew exactly what it meant. No one did. Something about a dictator who lived 100+ years ago."

A potential problem with this, though, is that some people can start using these words in real life. Artemis Fowl did this, and the words are used sometimes, mostly among Artemis Fowl circles. However, this tends to just fall under plain dumbness rather than vulgarity, especially if said word originates from a guy who never existed. Harmless, unless the reason you give is something that has meaning in this world. Like references to waste products. Which I highly doubt any of you would be doing if you have conniptions towards swearing at all. So it's not a big deal, just something to keep in mind.

I agreed with 95% percent of Airianna's post. But I think there are exceptions. The example she gave for Second Chance could also be applied to book, though to a lesser extent. 'He swore' isn't going to cut it in select situations. People swear as an exclamation of surprise, but many do so in the sentence. ("What the *bleep* are you doing?")

Avoid swearing when you can, always try to find a way around it. But don't avoid it at all costs. Say your book is about the damages swearing causes, or something like that. This would, ironically, call for swear words, and probably a decent amount. This is true for any other subject, murder, drinking, drugs, etc. Swearing is no different.

I've also read, from the words of an editor, that excessive vulgarity will turn off most editors. So it's not a good thing from a business stand point, either.

- Terra

Well, as regarding murder by a villain, you don't describe every gory detail, right? You would say that he killed (so and so) and with what weapon, but you would leave a great deal up to the reader. In the same way, you would just say that the character was swearing/cursing. I've seen in a few books (Auralia's Colors series comes to mind) where the author makes up swear words, but that doesn't seem any better than using real ones, in my opinion. In this story, there is an atheist. Obviously, he's not going to have any qualms about using God's name or crude language, so when he swore, I wrote "He uttered a string of profanities..."
It gets the point across, without violating either my own conscience, or that of the reader. I hate it when I'm reading something and I have to cross out a word in a book. I hate writing in my nice books

Yea, I see what you're saying. Well, I write a nice descriptive scene for my murders (well not so nice I guess) to make it interesting, rather than just 'he was killed' kind of thing. My book is for adults so I put more description in than I would if it was for young adults.

I wouldn't use swearing in my books,; I think I will just be saying 'he cursed' etc. I prefer that idea, in that way you're not actually saying the swear word but you're saying that he swore.

*Is a little overwhelmed with all these words and honestly only read the first post but wanted to add his thoughts anyway.*

Hey guys. In my books I have recently been working on don't even have swear words, or at least not the ones that we have here. However, in other situations I simply write such things he swore loudly or he mumbled foul words under his breath. That suffices for me. I don't find it necessary to include swearing in dialogue or other things.

I swear sometimes. I wrote a true story based on a dialogue with my uncle and I used the f-word to be accurate. I avoid the f-word but I will use: GD, s---, d---, h--- etc. Excessive swearing is dumb but a well placed one is effective and good in my opinion. Plus the Bible has swearing.

The Bible has swearing? Where!??

I would disagree strongly, Will. And you will have to give me a swear word that is used in the Bible. The Bible does have instances were an oath is given, and that can be seen as a swearing ("do you solemnly swear") type of thing. However, the Bible does not approve foul words, which is what our modern culture uses. Swearing is not really the correct term for our modern, culturally perverted words.

The Bible does use words which are considered swear words nowadays, but which were not when it was written. Those don't really apply either.

Yes. In Philippians when Paul says all things are rubbish it is appropriate to translate it as s---, which if you look at the Odyssey has that a few times and is actually used in a sense of swearing. So am I saying go cuss like a sailor in your books, etc? No. Just saying there is a precedent there.

You are talking about Phil 3:8.

The verse says:

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ ."

I'm sorry, Will, but that verse does not convince me. The word used here - σκύβαλον skubalon - occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, dregs; refuse; what is thrown away as worthless; chaff; offal, or the refuse of a table or of slaughtered animals, and then filth of any kind.

The Bible is portraying a deep sense of the utter worthlessness of all that external advantages can confer in the matter of salvation. The word shows how utterly insignificant and unavailing, in point of salvation, the apostle esteemed everything but the Gospel of Jesus.

The cultural word you are using is not on the same plain with rubbish, dregs, or dung. Paul is showing the people that their works are as worthless as dung. During that time Paul was not using a foul word. He was using an unwanted object to vividly portray a point, like Christ did in His parables.

It's not used anywhere else in Scripture? So?

The only reason for me personally not to swear in my writing/speech are these two things:

1. My parents say I can't so I don't. Or if in my writing I just don't show them which is not deceitful in my opinion.

2. My Christian witness. If I am ever published I plan to be vocal about my Christianity, but I also plan to majorly avoid labeling myself as a Christian writer.

I guess that is about it.

Oh

I merely stated it was used nowhere else in scripture as a point of interest. My point was that the word rubbish is not equivalent to Paul swearing.

You can't take one scripture in the Bible, in my opinion, and use it as a base to say people in the Bible swear. You would need scripture to back up scripture; Paul was a very godly man and I would be very disappointed (and I believe God would also be disappointed) if he was swearing. A one off scripture would not count as that would go against other Scriptures like:

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.

And -

1Pe 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

Also:

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

And:

Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

In Paul's dialect he would not use a swear word as that goes directly against Scripture.

Maybe what was profane then is not now or what is now would not be then. So s--- is profane now so scripture changes/adapts?

When you look up the Greek word for what Paul uses there, it translates to 'what is thrown to the dogs'. That is not swearing, I could easily say that's worthless, throw it to the dogs, and it is not swearing. Where have you got your information that it is swearing from?

*agrees with Elanor *

There are a lot of words that have that definition. Not all of them are vulgar. Things like that change from culture, and from day to day. Words themselves are not wrong; only how they are used.

Linguistics can't help in this kind of conversation, as far as I know.

In the KJV the word is translated as 'dung.' Which is used commonly nowadays along with many other words to refer to the same thing (such as 'scat') without any vulgar connotations like s--t does. One meaning can have different words with different connotations (practically every meaning does, as a matter of fact). Another example is 'urine.' There are loads of crude words which refer to the same thing, and which are used as swear words.

In any case, crude language such as s--t and p--s and whatnot is in a completely different category from words like d--n, h--l, j---s, c----t, etc. Those are called profanity, and are utterly separate. Crude language is just rude. Profanity is... well, profane, and sometimes, blasphemy.

Besides, just because a word has the same core meaning as another word, does not mean it can be translated as the other word. There is worlds more that goes into translation than that. Such as whether or not the word is crude or vulgar.

Linguistics is a valid area to consider this problem from, but certainly not the only category and definitely not the most important.

Besides that, words which have the same "meaning" have different connotations and can be used differently. Some language, for example, have a despective form of each word. Normally brother isn't an insult, but give it a despective form, and becomes one. This is but one example.

"d--n", "dang it", and "rats" can be used to convey exactly the same meaning (on a semantic level) but carry very different connotations (on a pragmatic level). Semantics is concerned mostly with categorizing words by meaning, pragmatics is concerned with what exactly our intention behind words is, in so far as it effects which words we use.

So, examining connotations is much better than examining "meaning".

If I post, it'll be a monster post which I don't have time for at this minute. But I have very unique views on swearing, and I don't believe it's always a sin. However, so far the only times I've included swearing in my books I've edited it back out again after prayerful consideration. But I wouldn't say I'd never do it.

There's nothing wrong with being on the safe side, and doing your best not to cause anyone to stumble or offend. If I was going to use it, I'd have to be very, very sure it was the right thing first.

I'd be interested in a monster post, Grace.

Something occurred to me, regarding foul language. Swear words, like any other word, are a form of communication. When someone uses a swear word, they are trying to communicate an express emotion. Not only does the word they use have dictionary and contextual definitions depending on how it is used in a sentence, but there are also situational definitions that come from the scenario and the speaker.

For example, if a bad guy swears every other sentence, he's using explicatives rather loosely and doesn't necessarily mean anything strong by them. On the contrary, if your good guy who believes swearing is evil slips and says something nasty, that indicates that he's either a) extremely upset and/or b) experiencing a moment of spiritual/emotional weakness.

Swear words are a form of communication. And as writers, we need to use every word masterfully to make our point. Whether or not you write out words or just use phrases like "he swore," I challenge you to think of this - what are you trying to communicate in your book with foul language? What, precisely, are you trying to say?

And then, given that information, is foul language, as you have it written, the best way to accomplish that?

I don't write out swear words, but I have no qualms about noting in the narrative when my bad guys swear. I actually have a bit of fun with it, thinking up creative ways to deliver the information while making the right impression for the scene.

And, occasionally, my good guys swear too. I can think of one instance in particular in Peter's Angel where, as it stands in the current revision, a character swears in his head, like so...



It's against Edwin's principle as a character to swear, and it's against my principle to have swearing good guys. The reader will hopefully recognize that, so the fact that Edwin thought curses (even if he didn't say the words out loud) sends a strong message. It says, in essence, that Edwin understands all the tragedy that has just befallen him, and it's Mark's fault. And Edwin hates Mark to the fullest extent.

When I drafted this scene the first time, just going off a stream of consciousness, having Edwin swear was the most natural way for me to convey that emotion. That's just what came out. Is it the best way? I don't know yet. This is the kind of passage that's going to get scrutinized during versions as I try to figure out what purpose God has for this dark, lengthy work of mine. Swearing is one way to convey the emotion in that scene, but there are dozens of other ways as well. Will my conscious tell me to use another? We shall see.

Very nice, Aubrey.

I'd give an example of my own except... eh, yours was plenty sufficent, I think. I employ much the same technique.

I 100% agree with you. The all encompassing question is why? Every word you write deserves careful consideration, and potentially offensive words deserve even more.

Nice post, Aubrey. Good thoughts indeed.


Of course you would. Maybe sometime, if I get poked enough.

Thank you, ladies! If you don't want to post examples from your own writing here, Katie, I might be interested in reading some of them via chat or something. Knowing your style I can envision how you'd use a technique like that very effectively.

*stretches fingers* You asked for pokes, Gracie dear?

I'd hardly say I ASKED for them, but whatever.

I agree with your post, Aubrey.

*pokes Aniese*

(Indulging my inner pedant for a moment on a months-and-months-and-months-old post before I get to my main point.)

I don't think that saying ... that ... implies that we have that power over God any more than saying "God bless you!" when a stranger helps us (or when someone sneezes) implies that we have power over whom God blesses. The reasons I see for avoiding it in our speech (and thoughts) are twofold: First, the passages about controlling the tongue, particularly "Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing ... This should not be." And second ... whenever we ask something of God, he may grant it. And this particular form of cursing is a prayer as dangerous as "Let me do it my way" ... what if he granted it? If we really want God to consign someone (or something, except that we know anything that isn't eternally valuable will pass away with the rest of the world, so cursing in this way about something is above all else pointless) to eternal fire, that often, or even usually, is a sign of a problem in us.

Back to what I really wanted to say:
I agree with Aubrey's point (and to minimize the length of this post, won't quote it.)

In the world in which I'm writing, members of "the Chosen"---who are from our world originally---tend to swear about as much as you'd expect, though I'm now trying to write this as "He swore" rather than spelling it out. This is in contrast to the local culture, which discourages "foul language", but native-born characters swear occasionally, and even often in particularly vexing circumstances. However, because of the way "applied metaphysics" works, if a mage swears, curses, or otherwise uses "foul language", this (like any other failure of virtue or self-control) damages his or her ... abilities ... until he or she has repaired this breach of communion with God---so a mage will swear much less often than an otherwise-comparable character would. I allude to this in the beginning of the (original version of the) prologue of my WIP An Internal Conflict, as I'm trying to set up my (alas, a bit info-dump-ish) exposition of the regrets that do get past her self-control, and the events that caused them:

*is poked* We'll see if I have time. But you've already heard my ideas, sir.

I'm the same, Philly. I have no qualms doing that either.

Good discussion here.

You need some poking, Grace?

*knows from experience that Mark is a very good poker*

Well, since everyone seems so set on it, here be my rather unorthodox thoughts on language in general, and language in books and/or films.

Language in general:

Most people seem to be under the impression that foul language is blasphemy. That's not actually the case. Blasphemy is defined in Scripture as the misuse of the name of God.

Most language falls into three categories: first, there are offensive words that would usually be classified as "PG" level in a film. The expletive uses of words like d--- and h--- are good examples. Or words for excrement. These I do not believe to be wrong, except in the sense of being offensive to others, and in the sense that they are usually expressive of some wrong emotion.

So I would shy away from the use of these words, out of respect for others. And that includes "minced oaths" such as "darn" "shoot", etc.

Second, there are sexual words that I believe are slightly more offensive, and are more on the unnecessary side, as they are rather indecent. I don't see any need or reason to use these words.

And thirdly of course, there are oaths which use the words God, Lord, or Jesus. This is what most people mean when they say "taking God's name in vain." However, I don't believe that's what the third commandment is talking about.

If you study the Scriptures for the true meaning of God's name, we find that His name is not the word we use to refer to Him, but rather His character. "The name of the Lord is a strong tower," "I will praise His name," etc. From my study of Scripture, blasphemy is to defame something, thus blasphemy against the Father includes attributing characteristics to Him which are not His, or denying His true characteristics. Blasphemy against the Son includes attributing his power to the devil, and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit includes attributing His call to something other than Himself. There is more I'm sure, but these are the examples which can be directly gleaned from Scripture. Blasphemy against the Word is otherwise known as heresy.

However, to use the words by which we refer to our God as expletives does not qualify as blasphemy, and thus does not break the third commandment. However, to use those words interchangeably with words for excrement cannot be seen as anything but disrespectful, and is thus wrong. What people don't understand is that saying things such as "God is evil" or "God does not exist" are far worse, because they are actual attacks on His character. That's breaking the third commandment.

Where does all this come into our writing? Well, I've devoted a lot of thought and prayer to the subject and here's what I've come up with:

In the first category of words, PG level crude language, I do not see an objective moral problem with using them in a book or film. They are not inherently sinful. If I get to where I'm writing adult books and such a word seems fitting and realistic, I imagine I would use them, albeit with caution.

However, as I write for teenagers and young adults at the moment, I've decided not to use them in that context. Why? Two reasons -- first of all, I see no reason to put the words in their heads, as there is no real good to them. Secondly, children and teens are more likely to go around repeating what they read/see without discretion, and would probably end up using the words they read. That's not something I want to encourage, as such words are generally considered offensive and unnecessary.

In the second category, I do not imagine I would ever use any of those words in a book or script, because they are just too offensive and distasteful and I don't see that anyone needs to have them floating around in their minds. We want to fill our minds with what's good and pure and right.

The third category, words we use to refer to our Lord, is the hardest. We would have no qualms about having a bad character say something like "God does not exist" which is more sinful and disrespectful than using the word God flippantly. Both are wrong. Neither should be shown in a positive light. I would not use this kind of language unless it was strongly needed to make a point, but I do not believe it would be sinful to do so, no more than for an actor to say "God is just a bully." He's only acting, showing something wrong because it is wrong.

Them be my thoughts. Hopefully they make some semblance of sense! If anyone has a Scriptural problem with what I've said, do share! It's been a real journey of discovery for me.

All ye pokers satisfied now?

Wow. Not only was that really well presented, but I agreed completely with every word of it. Which is rare on this topic.

Defined? Really? I might perhaps agree that "in Scripture, 'blasphemy' means 'the misuse of God's name'", but there are very few things that Scripture actually defines.


Yes, these aren't blasphemy, but are arguably wrong nonetheless... Covered under the various passages about controlling the tongue "and the like" appended to most of the lists of vices, forms of immorality, etc.


More than just "oaths" ...


I'm not sure that using a word by which we refer to God as an expletive---or calling on him to condemn "it" when we're under stress, or referring to him in any other disrespectful way---isn't breaking the third commandment, because it's an attempt to cheapen his perceived value. It's making God a "byword", as the King James (I think) puts it.

But yes, "blasphemy" doesn't mean "misuse of the word that is God's name", it's more like "slander or defamation of God's character."


This is, I think, another judgment call; some people's consciences would not permit them to write such a line, and for them it is sinful, while for others it might not be. The question should be, "Does it glorify God?"


Just so.


Yes. Remember the proverbial story from which we get our phrase "straw-man argument". We have to portray evil and falsehood credibly---even if we end up with something the unregenerate will latch on to as supporting them, like Milton's characterization of Satan in Paradise Lost (based on what I've read elsewhere, as I haven't read that poem yet for myself)---because if we don't, God will not be glorified in or work.


Yes... poke.

I agree very much with what you said, Grace. I would even be interested in a blog post on this subject. *winks *

I think there is a difference between showing the struggle of foul language with a character, and even showing the words, and using foul language mindlessly, just cause. There has to be a reason. A strong reason. A point to it all. And I think that point needs to be more powerful than “Because people swear and I want this guy to look evil”. There are lots of other, more effective, way of making a character evil. Several people have commented to me that my character Thalverin (who actually has no real “book time”, as he is a character of the past) is incredibly evil sounding. Most of that is based off of what he did to the Diegosian young. I didn’t have to use foul language to show this was an evil, vile man.

Now, I have said in my books that a character swore. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I mean, it is a part of human life. Lots of people around us swear. I don't give the words, but I state it is done.

I've commented elsewhere on the forum, not sure where at the moment, that I think foul language can be poignant in certain circumstances. While I think an evil bad guy isn’t much reason to use foul language, I do think it can be used as an object lesson, of sorts. If portrayed appropriately, and negatively.

Here is the example I normally give, when talking about this subject. In the movie Second Chance, with Michael W. Smith, there is a Pastor. I happen to love this street wise, somewhat brash, pastor. He’s human. He’s come from a tough life. He understands that you have to “meet people where they are at” without becoming just like them (another topic altogether). But you know what is one of the things I love most about this man? He’s human. He struggles. Anger, pride, language. Those are his three big struggles.

This man grew up in the hood, he was involved in gangs. He spent his teenage life spewing filth from his mouth because everyone else did. But now we see this man is a pastor. And guess what? His language didn’t clear up over night. It’s been a struggle. One he is working on conquering something that is so ingrained in him, that sometimes he doesn’t even think. And let’s face it, sometimes he wants to say those things.

He uses 3 foul words in the movie, one of which is cut off when his wife hits him in the chest with her elbow to remind him to think before he speaks. There is also a conversations between the husband and wife where he says "When are you gonna get a computer?" Her response? "When you learn to control your mouth."

The language is shown in a negative light, and us seeing him struggle with it is far more powerful than if he had just said “I struggle with language”. It’s not shown to be cute. It’s shown for what it is. But it was handled well. It remains one of the few movies or books where I felt the words were better portrayed, than left as “he cursed”.

It's a real struggle. It does occur. We shouldn't hide from it. However, we should make sure we don't violate our audience by it.



Oh I think Grace would agree with you on that, Kingjon.

*loves to see other people's monster posts! *

Aniese, I admired your post... it was extremely concise and made heaps of sense. My comment has to do with the below passage:



I'd like to suggest that using God's name in oaths and as expletives is an attack on God's character, and therefore is blasphemy. Think of it this way, when someone uses His name in this way, what are they doing? They are attributing no worth to who He is by giving Him no respect, therefore proclaiming that He is so unworthy of honor, that His name can be ground underfoot with as little notice given to the crushing of an ant. Essentially they are voicing their belief (albeit unconsciously) that either God does not exist, or that if He does He has no real worth to the world or to them. They're making Him to be less than He is. And that is blasphemy.

So my suggestion is that 'name' can be used for both one's character and the name one is known by... and that to defame one is to defame the other.

Andi... I think I agree. That was brilliantly put. I had a long talk about this with Leah last night after her post... and reading yours this morning suddenly made me feel so much better about Lighting Ranger.

I especially admired your second point. People tend to leave that out of the discussion altogether, but when I was exposed to the big bad world that was what I heard the most. And I completely, completely agree.

(and fyi I edited your post because actually spelling out any sort of profanity is against the rules. Just a quick reminder. )

Thank you so much for putting together those thoughts.

I agree with you there, Cassie. I can see where Andi is coming from and I can see that both can be blasphemy, but I still think when people say Oh my G- or even Jesus' name I think that is blasphemy.

I've always seen it as such.

*agrees *

@Jay - Strawberry agrees with me? *faints*

Thank you, sir.

@kingjon - Thank you for your very thoughtful response! I'm pondering some of the things you said, very good thoughts.

I do think that saying crude, offensive words is wrong, or at the very least not right (which is good enough for me) and would not use them myself in real life. I apologize if my original post is not clear on that point. They are certainly not edifying to anyone.

@Airi - Blog post? Eh, I don't think that's a good idea... Anyway, thank you for your response, good stuff there.

@Cassandra - That is a good point. I will ponder it. I think you may be right about that. however, other forms of swearing are not blasphemy, and blasphemy entails so much more than just using His name flippantly as a swear word -- those were my main points. Thank you for your reply!

@Katie - Katie agrees with me too? Cool. Thank you for the reply, and for the edit, I apologize about that and will be more careful in the future.

I think personally using God's name as a blashemy is far more than 'just using His name flippantly'. I think people lose sight of how fearful God is in many ways. I'm pretty sure God does not like people using His precious name as a curse or swear word. Yes it can be more than that but in my opinion when people use God's or Jesus' name as a curse word they are blaspheming.



Yes, more than His name can be blasphemed but people blaspheme His name as well. I don't think blaspheming God's or Jesus' name is not as bad as blaspheming his character, both are just as bad as the other I think.

Just my thoughts.

I recently wrote an article on this subject, actually: http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/oh-god/

Jay, that is truly a beautiful post. It sounded like it came from your heart and I wanted to cry at the end. *Holds back the tears* (I think I'm in an 'I feel like crying' mood) Anyhow, thanks for sharing it.

* smiles * I was crying while I wrote it. I'm glad it touched you.

That was a very good and thought-provoking post, Jay, thank you.

Elanor, part of my point was that God's name is actually His character, not the word "God." Yes, it's wrong and disrespectful to use the words "God" and "Lord" as swear words, I do not deny that that is outright wrong. However, if we have the cleanest speech around and have never said the word "God" other than in a prayer, and yet we put something above Him, deny His beautiful character, or accuse Him of something against His character, we are blasphemers.

Basically what Jay was saying in his post, though he said it a lot better.

*feels like she's not making sense*

*Laughs* You are confusing me good and proper now. I have no idea what you mean by God is not God's name, that doesn't make sense, but so we don't derail the thread maybe you could PM me? As long as you want to, I'd be interested in hearing what you mean.

I understand what you mean in the other as well, that was like what Jay said. I just don't get what you mean by God's name isn't His.

What she is saying is that the word 'God' is not all of God's name. God's name includes His character, His attributes, His nature, His very being and purpose. So although treating the word 'God' lightly is blasphemy, so is behaving as though God isn't God.

Does that help?

Aah, yes now I see. I thought Andi was saying that God wasn't His name, which is what confused me. Thanks for explaining, Jay.

What Jay said. I explained it somewhere in my original monster post -- but the Bible is clear that God's name is His character. "The name of the Lord is a strong tower" "I will praise His name" etc. We are not praising the letter combination "G-o-d," but rather who He is.