farfromfearless said:
Having the dubious distinction of being a PK, I've heard and read much in the same vien as your response Bruce. I find a part of myself agreeing with you on a superficial level; however -- and this is my opinion -- I still find that regardless of how well one writes around the explicit nature of obscenities or blasphemy, tastefully, cleverly, it is still avoidance. It's an avoidance that borders dangerously close to censorship. You can hail a writer as clever, even inventive on their particular technique of avoidance, but it is still avoidance, and the repercussions of that can do more harm than good for the Christian community as a whole or in part.
Let's take for instance sexual education between parents and children. It's no big secret that parents are often uncomfortable with explaining the workings of a human body and the reproductive functions of its parts. So, in order to skirt the issue and avoid having to explain the facts, they resort to flowery metaphor and simile. They avoid naming the parts necessary for reproductive purposes and attribute silly equivalents in their place (bear with me I do have a point). For the most part this appears harmless, yes? Now, what happens when that child in turn attempts to explain that metaphor to someone else, their own children perhaps? The metaphor tends to change and become something slightly different and again avoids the facts. A vagina is still a vagina; a penis is still a penis - but now you have generations that know it as a hoo-hoo or a ding-dong (there's dozens so take your pick). What you end up with is a culture of ignorance that's based on avoiding the uncomfortable in favor of well... the comfortable.
You can extend that same example in Christian literature. When people read about a blasphemous character, an obscene character, do they read about him as "the obscene one" because they author has told them as much? Or do they see and understand he is obscene because of his manner of speech or actions? That is to say, did the writer show the character as being obscene or did they skirt the issue with flowery metaphor?
Again, I put forward this: Why white-wash the obscene and not show it for what it really is? Why candy-coat something that is real and has value in the context of a moral work?
And yes I very much believe that a good writer can paint a picture of a very crass person, but there-in lies my point. A brave writer on the other hand, will paint what is there and let the reader make the choice for themselves. For the conscientious Christian, I believe it is truly important to challenge personal beliefs, and as writers, it is imperative that we offer such a challenge.
White-washing is what it implies - why else would one wish to cover the ugly with a fresh, brilliant coat of paint?
Good points, Far, and I do see where you're coming from. We really are balancing on the razor's edge of rhetorical semantics at this point, though, I think. Let me 'splain.
"Avoidance" is really a neutral term that has taken on a negative connotation. It need not be equated with (or "come close to" to do your thought more precise justice) censorship any more than the words you've selected in your response do just because you chose them instead of others. Avoidance is a merely a subelement of discretion, choice, discrimination (another trigger word, but in this context and in its purest form morally neutral) and we employ it for a variety of good reasons, as well as occasionally not so good reasons. Respecting other person's sensibilities--especially those in our target audiences--in our writing/speech/art (ref 1 Cor. 10 and Rom. 14), is, in my view, simply being respectful.
Your example of avoidance is well taken. We do choose words based upon our own sensitivities, whether in instructing our children or writing our novels, and I think extending that consideration to our readership is not inappropriate. Euphemisms for body parts have been employed for generations, but we still have the words penis and vagina with us. They haven't disappeared and I've never run into anyone who has been emotionally handicapped from the impact of meeting these words at whatever point in their lives they finally did. That may only betray limited experience in my own life, though, I suppose.
Again, I'm not suggesting "white-washing" and I still don't equate it with discretion. I've heard so many people say they just "tell it like it is", "don't mince words" etc. when in reality they simply don't want to make the effort to be considerate. Tact is not synonymous with "beating around the bush." (I know this is a bit of a tangent on the main point, but it's a comfortably close first cousin). My perception of "white-washing" is going out of one's way to portray something the way it isn't; not being judicious in describing something the way it is. "Flowery metaphors" are not the only alternative to obscenity; the answer to one extreme does not have to be the other extreme. In my estimation, resorting to profanity can just as well be an easy way out of expressing oneself well verbally or in the written word, not being brave.
I spent over 20 years in the military and have worked in a military environment ever since my retirement. Not that it qualifies me as any kind of expert, but I'm around an abundance of profanity every day and have been for most of my professional life. I have never heard its use enhance a conversation. I've never seen its written form enhance communication. If I use "nuts!" instead of "dammit!", it's not because I'm avoiding "dammit!", it's because I'm used to saying "nuts!". If we've invented a character in a story in whose background "dammit!" is more appropriate, I have no problem reading that the person "cursed." I know what a curse is, I credit my reader with enough intelligence to know what a curse is, and it adds nothing to my story to tell him/her exactly what that curse might have been. It's unimportant and has the potential--in the Christian market, which is the background to the original question--of becoming a tripping point for the person who bought a Christian novel perhaps thinking he/she was safe from having to wade through explicit material (language, sex, or otherwise) and has now been yanked from the dream of the story by a gratuitous use of profanity. And, to answer the original question of this thread, few Christian publishers (I think, anyway, I haven't asked any; I've just seen some of their standards for 'suitable' material) are going to risk their reputations, or revenue, with the mainstream Christian community by doing the same.
I agree that we have to leave our personal beliefs open for self-scrutiny. I also agree that, if we as authors have this agenda (not all do), we should challenge those beliefs--or perhaps better put, facilitate the Christian reader in challenging his/her own beliefs. I just have no idea how inserting explicit profanity into a Christian novel promotes spiritual self-examination.
For the final question, a repeat for a final answer. "Flowery metaphors", "candy coating" and "white-washing" appear nowhere in my recipe for good writing. But then, neither does the other extreme.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Far, I do understand your argument and there is merit in it. I guess I just don't see its application in the same way you do.