Swearing, language in westerns

I'm not surprised they don't want some of the worst profanity, but a little surprised to see "hell" and "damn" on the list.

It's kind of funny that they pointed out that "heck" and "dang" were acceptable.

I hope they don't really want stories with "he cursed a blue streak".

"Say that again and you'll be pushing up daisies."

Could he curse a blue streak then throw a missile? But seriously, if you cut the cussing too fine you can't have any really bad baddies.

Can't say I care for it...

I think it's silly. One of the stock "old timer" expressions was "son of a bitch." And don't get me started about PC language. I was reading a book about C.M. Russell's short stories last night and the author had an interesting observation about that sort of thing. Why is it, he wondered, that Huck Finn gets tagged all the time for using the word nigger while Uncle Tom's Cabin does not? And with push to banish buck and squaw from Westerns as well... Again, those aren't words I'd use to describe characters, but I have characters that would certainly use them...either in a derogatory sense or as part of their own neutral or positive description of someone they met or saw. I've got this odd urge to try to write dialog in the language of the times and not current language.

I don't tend to use tons of profanity in my writing, but carrying it over to damn and hell is downright ridiculous. "Golly gee, mister gunfighter, I guess I'll be a-seein' yu when heck done freezes over."

It is only since WWII that cursing has reached its current level. I'v known ranchers and cattlemen who lived from the end of the 1900s and NONE of them used anything worse than Dang or drat!
The S and F words are quite recent and therefor are not appropriate for the Western Genre

lvcabbie said:

It is only since WWII that cursing has reached its current level. I'v known ranchers and cattlemen who lived from the end of the 1900s and NONE of them used anything worse than Dang or drat!
The S and F words are quite recent and therefor are not appropriate for the Western Genre

Click to expand...

Actually this is something of a misnomer. The old timers could (and did) curse like crazy...but they also turned it off when in polite company. This doesn't mean that you have to swear when writing Westerns, but to say that they didn't swear is inaccurate. Some of them could get quite inventive with it, in fact, but most was never written down or otherwise recorded.

I'm with Cav on this one. Considering when sh*t and f*ck came into being, they were around WELL before the Old West, as merely two examples. People have been using "bad language" for, well, as long as there have been people -- it's just what words are considered "bad" tend to shift with the ages.

What rough folks said to each other would be different from what they would say in polite company, or in front of a woman, etc.

I've got no problem with language, as long as it's in character. But each publication has its own requirements. *shrug* You do have to write for the individual market, as it were. What this one wants another may not care about.

Personally, I'm in agreement with their guidelines. I don't like having vulgarities forced on me in books and will either put a book down or return it to the store if it's a pattern. I don't feel it's necessary and easily get the full effect from "he cursed." A person's imagination can figure out, within a second, which words they feel the character would use, if they feel the need to know. It's like character description, let the reader develop their own sense of the character. I don't need a character to swear to understand that he's a bad guy. The books I read don't have cursing and I've run across some pretty loathsome characters.

It's a judgment call for the writer. If a writer is adamant about writing out their vulgarities, they need to realize that they're limiting the number of publishing opportunities (and possibly their audience) along with it. If you're OK with using "he cursed," I don't know a single publisher that isn't fine with that.

The publishers don't hold to this requirement to make writers angry. It's either a value that they themselves hold highly or because they know their readers and what they're willing to tolerate and what they won't.

Thanks, CBumpkin, I'm glad I'm not alone. I would rather read a well-written book, than have to wade through vulgar language every other word. I think a story can be just as good without it. I suppose that's why I don't go to movies, or rent recent releases any more. I prefer movies made before language went to the gutter. Authors today feel they have to fill their novels with four letter words page after page. Sad. And I'm not a prune. Twenty years in the military, I was around language most of my life. You can't shock me. But you're not going to entertain me, either. Not with a lot of vulgar language. Just MHO. Now, back to your regular scheduled programs.

I don't like profanity just thrown in, as though doing that by itself made the book or story more realistic. At the same time, in some stories the use of profanity is needed to make it honest. For example if I were writing a story set in a maximum security prison, it wouldn't be honest to have the convicts say things like, "Darn, you shanked me, you pumpkinhead."

In a western I think most profanity can be avoided and certainly the publisher can make what requirements they want. Still, it does seem a little straight-laced to even exclude "damn" and "hell" and other relatively mild words. I mean, if you hear those words in the pulpit I don't think many people are going to be shocked to see them in print. But, whatever they want; it's their ballgame.

alleycat said:

I don't like profanity just thrown in, as though doing that by itself made the book or story more realistic. At the same time, in some stories the use of profanity is needed to make it honest. For example if I were writing a story set in a maximum security prison, it wouldn't be honest to have the convicts say things like, "Darn, you shanked me, you pumpkinhead."

Click to expand...

This is where the writer's skill comes in. Of course "darn" and "pumpkinhead" aren't appropriate and no publisher would publish a novel that used them in the scenario you gave.

In a western I think most profanity can be avoided and certainly the publisher can make what requirements they want. Still, it does seem a little straight-laced to even exclude "damn" and "hell" and other relatively mild words. I mean, if you hear those words in the pulpit I don't think many people are going to be shocked to see them in print. But, whatever they want; it's their ballgame.

Click to expand...

If you're hearing "damn" or "hell" in a pulpit as curse words instead of referring to damnation and hell (Hades, lake of fire, etc.,) then you should stand up and march right out because you aren't in a Christian church.

My point was that as far as curse words go, "damn" and "hell" are pretty tame. I would almost say that they're no worse or no better than "dang" and "shoot".

Now when someone gets into the words referring to sex acts and slang for body parts, then it's another class altogether.

Just my opinion. I'm not really trying to change anyone else's.

alleycat said:

My point was that as far as curse words go, "damn" and "hell" are pretty tame. I would almost say that they're no worse or no better than "dang" and "shoot".

Now when someone gets into the words referring to sex acts and slang for body parts, then it's another class altogether.

Just my opinion. I'm not really trying to change anyone else's.

Click to expand...

I do agree with you. I'm not prone to reading books with cursing in them, but one or two of the "milder" ones you mentioned wouldn't cause me to put it down. The rest of what you mentioned, even used once, will cause me to return the book to the store for a refund though.

As for the publishers... unless we play by their rules, we don't get published. However, I do think all writers should stand on the principles they feel strongly about. Every person, regardless of being a writer or not, should stand up for what they believe. Respectfully, of course.

For what is still the best take on this, I point you to George Carlin's "The 7 Words You Can't Say on Television".

In a small way, I think some are missing the point, though. I still think a good story can be written without the four letter words, just as movies used to be made without them. When I joined the Army, I thought we were supposed to drink, cuss, fight, and go to bed with women we met in bars. I lived that life for years, but it got old - or I did. And I found that life could be just as interesting without all the drinking, cussing, fighting, and ... (see, I didn't have to say it, did I?) As a writer, we should be able to get our point across without going to the gutter for words to shock the reader. And still tell a good story. I got into an argument on another Loop about a scene in one of my stories, where my hero and the bad guy were fighting, and they fall out of a window twelve stories above the street. My hero says, "Damn!" Readers jumped all over me, saying their character would have said a lot worse than "damn". (My character catches the ledge of the window before he falls to his death, of course.) But prior to 1950, publishers would have been satisfied with "damn", and nothing stronger. Jack Palance was pure evil in Shane, but I don't remember him uttering one cuss word. Still, that scene with him shooting Stonewall outside the saloon is classic even today. To say we need gutter language in books and movies is pure hogwash (lol) in my opinion. Of course, if you can't write, throw in the language. That's what actors do that can't act. (Just kidding, but in a lot of cases, this is true.)

Hi Puma, yes, I think the guidelines for Great Western Fiction Magazine is what started this thread. I appreciate their guidelines, though you're right, some of them may "sound" unrealistic for most writers. Still, it's refreshing to know there are publishers out there with a strong code of conduct for their writers. But if you look at the other hand for a second (while on the subject of westerns), just read some of the junk that's out there today and it leaves you cold. Oh, sure, you have well-edited paperbacks. Though the outlaws may be vampires or zombies, as long as the language fits the criteria, then all is well. Sex and language sell the books today. If we think mild language is what the publishers are looking for, we have another think coming. They want it rough, and straight from the gutter. Or maybe I've been trying to read the wrong books. If you can point me to an author (new) without the gutter language, I'll be glad to try their books. Right now, I'm rereading the old authors. I do enjoy James Reasoner's westerns, but he told me his publishers tell him what they want, and he has to oblige. Don't even get me started on science fiction (lol).

Basically, it boils down to the publishers setting their guidelines and the writer deciding if they want to abide by them and have a chance at publication or to not submit their manuscript at all, based on personal principles.

If a publisher asked me to rough up the language a bit, I would politely explain that I couldn't do that, based on my personal principles. I would offer to more skillfully word those sections to intimate what they're suggesting without using the actual curse words. If they insisted, I would sincerely thank them for their time and suggestions and then respectfully withdraw my manuscript. Others may find themselves doing the exact opposite.