The technical usefulness of expletives

The Lonely One · Jan 19, 2012

So, this may seem very basic but I think there's some discussion that can come of it. Swearing has the following very basic and broad uses in language, according to wikipedia:

Syntactic expletive, a word that performs a syntactic role but contributes nothing to meaning

Expletive attributive, a word that contributes nothing to meaning but suggests the strength of feeling of the speaker

Profanity, a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something

Most these definitions seem to suggest that expletives in general are not contributory to the strength or meaning of a sentence. To me, I feel they are ornamental and often unnecessary, though there are specific instances where they contribute to authenticity of a piece of writing, as in:

-colloquial dialogue
-colloquial internal first-person dialogue

However, there are instances, such as third-person omniscient narration with free indirect discourse, which uses expletives.

I wonder if the "cut unneeded adverbs/adjectives" rule can apply here, as sometimes expletives are used in these capacities, whereas there is perhaps a stronger word. Also, perhaps region and dialect can be expressed in stronger ways.

This is not a morality discussion, but simply I'd like to delve into the functionality of the expletive in the fictional narrative, or even a creative non-fiction narrative.

Are there sometimes stronger words to put in the place of an expletive, while still maintaining cultural authenticity?

Remember, this is not a moral debate, it is a syntactical one. I was just curious if there are syntactical studies out there, or if you all have opinions on the matter.

gothicangel · Jan 19, 2012

I argue that the use of expletives also have another function: characterisation.

Swearing can be an attribute of an explosive, violent temper or the frustrations of a man who is constantly thwarted in life. Of course, lack of swear can also denote a buttoned down, repressed character or someone who has led a sheltered, even naive life so far.

The options are endless.

ironmikezero · Jan 19, 2012

Profanity for its own sake is boring.

Used sparingly, it can serve as the emotional spice in a turbulent stew of intense dialogue; but overuse taints the flavor of the dish and the overall effort is diminished. Too much pepper will spoil any culinary (or literary) endeavor.

Sadly, some aspire only to shock... and dare to call it art.

Well, to each his own, I suppose...

IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

HarryHoskins · Jan 19, 2012

ironmikezero said:
Profanity for its own sake is boring.

Used sparingly, it can serve as the emotional spice in a turbulent stew of intense dialogue; but overuse taints the flavor of the dish and the overall effort is diminished. Too much pepper will spoil any culinary (or literary) endeavor.

Sadly, some aspire only to shock... and dare to call it art.

Well, to each his own, I suppose...

IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

I agree.

Karen Junker · Jan 19, 2012

I'm reading the Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters -- in it, Amelia's husband, Emerson, is known as the Father of Curses. He occasionally lets loose with a 'Good Gad!' or "Bloo...Blooming" or something like that, but in the books, he rarely ever actually uses profanity. But the characterization is still there and the impression that he has sworn is still there. I just find it very clever.

Puma · Jan 19, 2012

IMO, a bit of profanity is useful in dialogue, and, once in a while in narrative for emphasis (so damned cold).

The expletive attributive shown in the examples given in the linked article seem to me to be more characteristic of colloquial or regional speech (bloody cold) and could show up in narrative - but again, a little goes a long way. (And yes, I know - what's the difference between damned cold and bloody cold other than side of the pond.)

The syntactic expletive discussion left me scratching my head - pronouns need antecedants if used as a subject? Hunh? Puma

buz · Jan 19, 2012

Most these definitions seem to suggest that expletives in general are not contributory to the strength or meaning of a sentence.

Blasphemy.

Like everything else, it depends how it's used. You can't just go around saying eff this and eff that for no reason, because then it really is meaningless and pointless. It gets annoying and repetitive, as with any overused and pointless word.

If your catalog of expletives is also only limited to effing and s...ing, that too is boring and fairly meaningless.

But...they can definitely add something.

"Get off my chair" vs. "Get the hell off my effing chair before I shoot you in the -----," for example.

"I love you so much I would lassoo the moon for you" has a much different tone from "I love you so much I would ------------ an astronaut just to get you some moon dust."

"Ow! I stepped on a rockfish! That really hurts! Ow ow ow!" versus "Oh eff my effing leg what the eff get it the eff of me eff eff what the c--- b--- t---- gremlins afire in my b--------ing skin dammit I hate everyone s--- my pants make it stop."

By the same token, you can't just say "I would effing lassoo the effing moon" or "Ow, I stepped on an effing rockfish, that really effing hurts." That's lazy and boring, and indeed meaningless. You have to use the whole sentence, all the words in concert--profanity, like any other types of words, cannot stand on its own and mean something. But it can add something to its partners.

Profanity for its own sake is boring.

Yes, but so is any word for its own sake. You don't use words for their own sake; you use them for the story. Profanity is not special in this regard.

Used sparingly, it can serve as the emotional spice in a turbulent stew of intense dialogue; but overuse taints the flavor of the dish and the overall effort is diminished. Too much pepper will spoil any culinary (or literary) endeavor

The prose was too purple for me and the only word I paid attention to in this was taints.

crunchyblanket · Jan 20, 2012

IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

Ah, that old chestnut. As nonsensical now as it was in the previous thread. Some of the most articulate men and women you'll ever meet are prolific swearers - I believe seun quoted Stephen Fry in the previous thread. If you dislike profanity, that's your prerogative. But please, spare us your generalisations and contempt.

Yes, but so is any word for its own sake. You don't use words for their own sake; you use them for the story. Profanity is not special in this regard.

Agreed.

Not all words have to have a function. And I would argue that swearwords can be very functional indeed - for emphasis in dialogue, for characterisation, to convey a sense of place ('bollocks', for example, is almost entirely unique to the UK) Any word, used in excess, becomes dull and repetitive - it's not a special characteristic of swearwords. If I saw 'fish' every third sentence, I'd grow weary of that too.

JimmyB27 · Jan 20, 2012

Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word 'Fuck'.

crunchyblanket · Jan 20, 2012

JimmyB27 said:
Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word 'Fuck'.

In terms of etymology, and sheer range of use, it actually is quite interesting.

It can be a noun ('a fuck', as in sex) or a verb ('to fuck') It can be an adjective, an adverb, an interjection, a superlative. It doesn't even need to have negative or sexual connotations - 'that's fucking fantastic' (or, if you're feeling creative, 'that's fan-fucking-tastic')

The original meaning of the word, as I understand it, was nothing to do with sex. It's of Germanic origin, derived from the Latin word 'pug', which is itself from the root verb 'pugnare', which means 'to fight'. Another theory suggests it originates from ancient Greece, from the verb 'φυω', which is to sow seeds. The Romans translated the word as 'fututio', and poetic usage rendered it a euphemism for sex.

So yeah, it's a very interesting word indeed.

seun · Jan 20, 2012

ironmikezero said:
IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

Last week, I couldn't find a dvd on the shelf that I was knew was there so I smashed a glass beause I was so fucking...what's the word?

crunchyblanket · Jan 20, 2012

seun said:
Last week, I couldn't find a dvd on the shelf that I was knew was there so I smashed a glass beause I was so fucking...what's the word?

Wankered? Bollocksed? Tosspotted?

quicklime · Jan 20, 2012

gothicangel said:
I argue that the use of expletives also have another function: characterisation.

Swearing can be an attribute of an explosive, violent temper or the frustrations of a man who is constantly thwarted in life. Of course, lack of swear can also denote a buttoned down, repressed character or someone who has led a sheltered, even naive life so far.

The options are endless.

this.

if you are narrating in close third, and your MC is a dockworker who would make a person with Tourettes blush, then "It was fucking cold out. Mike got up, stretched, and imagined the shit-storm that was waiting for him down by the forklifts. He should just call in sick." makes perfect sense...probably much more than "It was a horrifically frigid morning, the sort usually reserved for Dantean visions of Hell and the Emperor penguin. Mike got up, stretched, and imagined the terrible vortex of confusion, frustration, and incompetence which surely awaited him at the the forklift bay, and decided calling in sick would have been a far wiser course of action."

quicklime · Jan 20, 2012

buzhidao said:
The prose was too purple for me and the only word I paid attention to in this was taints.

I was not about to make such a withering utterance myself, but had made similarly colorful observations from behind the bastion of my monitor as well, in kindred thought..... :tongue

quicklime · Jan 20, 2012

ironmikezero said:
IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

you should find JAR and go out for a couple drinks and a "self-serving and not terribly accurate blanket generalizations" contest

Phaeal · Jan 20, 2012

ironmikezero said:
IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

Frack no. Among many of us, profanity is the very FIRST bastion of the frustrated.

The Lonely One · Jan 20, 2012

ironmikezero said:
Profanity for its own sake is boring.

Used sparingly, it can serve as the emotional spice in a turbulent stew of intense dialogue; but overuse taints the flavor of the dish and the overall effort is diminished. Too much pepper will spoil any culinary (or literary) endeavor.

I agree with this part.

Sadly, some aspire only to shock... and dare to call it art.

Well, to each his own, I suppose...

the thing about art is that it's almost individually defined. I'm with you that shock-based art isn't my cup of tea, because that usually means the tactics employed are rather contrived and cheap (think a horror movie that isn't that scary so compensates with random loud noises to get a cheap thrill).

IMHO... Profanity is the last bastion of the frustrated, the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate.

I can see that this could be true on an individual basis, but not as a generality. I've seen plenty of very articulate authors, in whose prose every other word is necessary and powerful, use words like fuck and shit in their prose, albeit sparingly as you mention above. In real life conversation, however, I see this statement as often true, situationally.

gothicangel said:
I argue that the use of expletives also have another function: characterisation.

This is the number one best use, in my opinion. I see expletives kind of like jokers in the deck, they have no assigned meaning and sort of fit in any role you need them. But they're also weaker because to really help you out they rely on the other cards to set them up in the best-effective pattern.

As per characterization, this makes sense.

One of my main critiques is if the author who employs the expletive ever challenges the word's effectiveness in the place of another word.

We'll use the "damn cold" example (sorry I forget who posted it).

In context, it may work because it's a scene that needs to move quickly in its pacing, or various other things. The fact needs to get put across without lingering. Which makes sense, as I feel strong language is often attributed to urgency.

But if it's simply in a descriptive moment, or scene setting, might there be another way to describe the cold in a more concrete way? This might not be a good example, but maybe latching on to physicals or the effects of the cold on the characters, something like

"From behind George's burning eyes, the city looked as if reflected from the glass of a Christmas tree ornament. All gleamed faintly in the light of the moon, and the cold wind shook him as easy as it did the air."

One is much longer (and certainly needs the purple-police to revise), but I'd argue it gives a better sense of the cold. It deals in concretes.

This has always been my main hesitance with swearing, but I can also see that it has its moments of power.

For instance, in a dialogue of a book where swearing is used sparsely, a well-placed "cunt" could knock a reader out of his/her socks. I've seen this, and liked it when I saw that it was effective.

Maybe it comes down to style and preference as well. Either way, I'm not suggesting to stop cursing in prose. I'm just wanting to explore with you all how they operate on a writer/reader level. Thanks for all those who've indulged so far.

JimmyB27 · Jan 20, 2012

The Lonely One said:
One is much longer (and certainly needs the purple-police to revise), but I'd argue it gives a better sense of the cold. It deals in concretes.

IMHO, the problem in the first one isn't the expletive. It would still be as bland if it had been 'Very cold'.

quicklime · Jan 20, 2012

The Lonely One said:
But if it's simply in a descriptive moment, or scene setting, might there be another way to describe the cold in a more concrete way? This might not be a good example, but maybe latching on to physicals or the effects of the cold on the characters, something like

"From behind George's burning eyes, the city looked as if reflected from the glass of a Christmas tree ornament. All gleamed faintly in the light of the moon, and the cold wind shook him as easy as it did the air."

One is much longer (and certainly needs the purple-police to revise), but I'd argue it gives a better sense of the cold..

It absolutely gives a better sense of the cold. But if you're in close third POV, for example, you have to ask yourself if that's the way your MC would actually think of the cold. I know a lot of folks who would just think it was damn cold...or perhaps "colder than a witch's tit in January," a line I heard quite a bit growing up.

a lot will depend how tightly in POV you are...some of Koontz's lines, like one book that opened with sea metaphors about sinuous sea beasts twisting beneath the surface" works because at the time he's omni--he can narrate however he likes. But ask yourself if, for example, Tony Soprano, or any of the cast from Jersey Shore would think in those terms?

If not, and you are narrating from in their heads, would that not be jarring? If you had snookie sounding like the Queen of england in her inner monologue, that is going to ring very false.

Al Stevens · Jan 20, 2012

ironmikezero said:
Used sparingly, it can serve as the emotional spice in a turbulent stew of intense dialogue; but overuse taints the flavor of the dish and the overall effort is diminished. Too much pepper will spoil any culinary (or literary) endeavor.

Funny. That's how I feel about metaphors.

Al Stevens · Jan 20, 2012

A writer came in second place in the Dirty Limericks Contest. He asked the judges to tell him the winning limerick. They said it was too dirty to recite as written, but they would hum the words they couldn't say. The limerick went like this:

Hum-a hum-a hum hum-a hum hum,
Hum-a hum-a hum hum-a hum hum,
Hum-a hum-a hum hum
Hum-a hum-a hum hum
Hum-a hum-a hum hum-a hum fuck.

Now what other word could you possibly use?

Phaeal · Jan 20, 2012

Al Stevens said:
A writer came in second place in the Dirty Limericks Contest. He asked the judges to tell him the winning limerick. They said it was too dirty to recite as written, but they would hum the words they couldn't say. The limerick went like this:

Hum-a hum-a hum hum-a hum hum,
Hum-a hum-a hum hum-a hum hum,
Hum-a hum-a hum hum
Hum-a hum-a hum hum
Hum-a hum-a hum hum-a hum fuck.

Now what other word could you possibly use?

Oooh, oooh, a dirty limerick contest! Here's my, um, friend's entry:

There once was a fairy named Puck
Whose penis was big as a truck
He carried it fine
Til it snagged on a line
Of lady trolls needing a fuck.

:thankyou:

<-- My, um, friend.

Pyekett · Jan 20, 2012

quicklime said:
this.

if you are narrating in close third, and your MC is a dockworker who would make a person with Tourettes blush, then "It was fucking cold out. Mike got up, stretched, and imagined the shit-storm that was waiting for him down by the forklifts. He should just call in sick." makes perfect sense...probably much more than "It was a horrifically frigid morning, the sort usually reserved for Dantean visions of Hell and the Emperor penguin. Mike got up, stretched, and imagined the terrible vortex of confusion, frustration, and incompetence which surely awaited him at the the forklift bay, and decided calling in sick would have been a far wiser course of action."

Now that is fucking beautiful.

The Lonely One · Jan 20, 2012

I rather like it myself.

So what you guys are saying is that I'm overthinking this, and that characterization is key?

quicklime · Jan 20, 2012

The Lonely One said:
I rather like it myself.

So what you guys are saying is that I'm overthinking this, and that characterization is key?

I think that's a fair generalization, at least....in a cozy you likely have a lot more "he cursed under his breath" and in something had-boiled you probably have more ""Oh fuck a christing goddamn skunk," he muttered" with mainstream somewhere in between, and you have some leeway, but in general it comes down to characterization and being true to your character.

Too much fucking swearing for the fucking sake of fucking swaering is fucking redundant, absolutely, but that isn't unique to swearing--too many adverbs, too much purple metaphor, too much anything is too much

The technical usefulness of expletives

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

Toughen up.

practical experience, FTW

Straw-fed

Live a little. Write a lot.

Retired and loving it!

edits all posts at least four times

the Juggernaut of Imperfection

Hoopy frood

the Juggernaut of Imperfection

Horror Man

the Juggernaut of Imperfection

all out of fucks to give

all out of fucks to give

all out of fucks to give

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

Hoopy frood

all out of fucks to give

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

I need no hot / Words.

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

all out of fucks to give