The Art of Profanity

I don't like profanity. I can tolerate it in books (even enjoy it when it's well placed), but I personally--if ever--use it. When a 'choice word' does slip out, it's an event. Or I'm feeling awkward. Or lose my temper. Get cut off in traffic. Hmmm...

Anyway, when I began writing, this showed as a fatal flaw in my work. A memorable instance occurred when my main character, in a heated situation, called his mom a 'wicked witch.' This insult resoundingly fell flat with my writing group (none of them are heavy handed with artistic verbiage). Unanimously they said the proper word for this instance was, 'bitch.'

Was I wrong? Yeah, I kinda was.

You see, it all boils down to your audience. If your target is the middle-grade market, then little to no profanity is expected. A religious market? Probably the same. But the Young Adult market is going to expect a curse word or two. This doesn't mean the author has to use profanity, but it's permissible. My story was a gritty YA sci-fi/horror mash-up, so an arrogant little prick of a son, would be expected to call his mother a bitch. Not using that word made my character instantly unbelievable.

Chuck Wendig, an author known for cursing, once said that he would get letters saying he had too many F-bombs while simultaneously getting additional letters wanting more F-bombs. In the end, he wrote what was comfortable for him, and let his audience choose whether they read the books or not. Chuck follows the mantra of George Carlin, "My argument is that you don’t need paprika or oregano or a few other things to make a stew, technically, either — but you make a better stew. If you’re inclined to make a stew of that type, “seasoning” helps."

Ranking Profanity
In my writing group, author Jordan Ricks suggested that curse words had a severity ranking from 1 to 10. Words higher on the list would be much more severe, and thus, used less frequently if at all. So there's a better chance that I'll use a 'hell' (ranking number 2), in my writing, than take the name of God in vain (a 10). This ranking system would naturally vary from person to person. And if you're feeling so inclined, socially offensive words could be added to the list as well. These words, however, could define a character more than a paragraph of purple prose, but should still be used cautiously.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to serve as an LDS missionary. A few of the young men in my mission were--what I would call--less than apostolic. Nineteen year old boys can sometimes go awry, so consequently, my mission president was famous for uttering the words, "Damn it, Elder," when counseling wayward missionaries. One of these missionaries happened to ask him, if his swearing wasn't wrong as well. My mission president's reply? "Sometimes I have to say, 'Damn it, Elder,' just to get a missionaries attention."

And he was right.

Swearing is closely akin to an exclamation mark, and if you think about it, that's exactly what it is: an exclamation of intensity. Author David Morrell explained this principle best in, The Successful Novelist (If you haven't picked it up, I recommend you do).

"If the passage absolutely demands cursing, be moderate. A little of it goes a long way. I've seen beginning writers pepper curse words through sentence after sentence.

'If you don't -blanking- get your -blanking-blank-blank- in to this house this -blanking- minute, I'm going to -blank- your -blank- and nail it to the -blanking- door.'

"Two things happen when I read this junk: I get bored and I get angry. I didn't pick up your book to read garbage. If this is as clever as you can be, I don't want to read your prose. In life if you met someone who spoke like this, you'd want to flee. Then why put this stuff on the page?

"As near as I can determine, this abomination occurs because a writer is corrupted by the awful -blanking- dialog that movies inflict on us these days. It's also a sign of insecurity. The writer wonders if the dialog is strong enough and decides a lot of -blanking-blank- will do the trick.

"Someone might object that this kind of dialog is realistic in certain situations--intense scenes involving policemen or soldiers for example. I can only reply that in my research I spend considerable time with policemen and soldiers. Few of them curse any more than a normal person would. This garbage isn't realistic. It merely draws attention to itself and holds back the story. Use it sparingly."

The Final Word
Writing is--as always--an art. Every artist is different, which is fortunate because art is completely subjective. From King, to Heinlein, to you, each author paints with a variety of words, molding worlds for readers to explore. Just as one drop of paint can ruin a Matisse, one ill-used profanity can stagger a story. Readers are the final arbiters of what will be ultimately successful, but remember the words of Ricky Nelson, 'You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself.'

Castle Contentions

Beckett and Castle

I'm a huge Nathan Fillion fan, which naturally makes me a huge fan of ABC's Castle. My wife and I sit up Tuesday nights (as soon as I get home from work) and watch new episodes on Hulu Plus. We were particularly excited to see this years season finale (titled 'Always') because of the sneak peak we'd seen.

So we watched the episode and loved it.

And yet... I felt something in the episode didn't work for me. Something that made me feel like the writers botched the character's motivation at the finish line.

** Spoiler Warning ** Spoiler Warning **

Hot and Bothered
I've talked about it with a few people and I think they went where the writers wanted them to go. (To see the conclusion of 'Always', click on the link below and watch it on YouTube -- It's just under three minutes).

As the clip shows, Castle and Beckett finally make their connection and begin kissing heavily. Castle opens her shirt and touches the bullet scar over her heart before holding her hand and walking into his apartment.

My whole problem is that I think the shirt thing is too sexual. Everyone I talked to thought it was as well, but they thought that after four years of being friends, they were just ready to rip each others clothes off.

So after watching it again, I think the writers were going for the connection with how close Castle came to losing Beckett when she was shot in season three's finale. But regardless of whether they were ripping their clothes off, or whether Castle wanted to touch her scar, it came off wrong for me and here's why.

Click to watch conclusion of 'Always'

Castle and Beckett's relationship isn't about sex.

In four years, Castle hasn't opened Beckett's clothes in any sexual way. In four years, they've never crossed the line from friendship into something more. Have there been times when they thought about it? Of course! But when you love someone so much that you just want to be in the same room as the object of your affection, sex (while a wonderful part of a healthy relationship) isn't what you really care about. And I believe Castle and Beckett are definitely deeper in their relationship than just wanting to push each other over and bump uglies.

I think Hollywood has a major problem because they feel sex equals intimacy. You would almost wonder if anyone on the West Coast ever fell in love without jumping into bed first. It does happen in the real world, crazy but true.

The writers do try to redeem 'Always' by having Castle and Beckett hold hands and walk into the apartment together, but even that feels like they are heading straight for the bedroom (nudge-nudge, wink-wink). Why not have two or three tentative kisses, the smile, the hand holding, and then Castle leads Beckett into the apartment? Intimate with the smoldering passion we've come to expect.

The Mirror Cracked 

Click to watch Conclusion of The Limey

There is one other episode this season that cheeses me off with what I feel is bad characterization.

 In the episode titled, The Limey, Castle realizes that Beckett has lied to him and begins pursuing other meaningless relationships. My beef with this episode, as the clip shows, is that Beckett, after being rejected by Castle, goes out with the handsome detective from Scotland Yard.

I'm not saying she can't go out with whoever she wants, but how many episodes have we seen where Castle swallows his pride and goes home alone after seeing Beckett heading out with another man? If Castle is man enough to know that if he can't have Beckett and he'd rather be alone, then why should Beckett be written so shallow that she wouldn't go home alone because she's not going with Castle?

It was a total misfire with me and breaks the mirror image that Castle and Beckett were finally getting into the same mindset. This is just one of several episodes where Castle's writers do something that resets the emotional balance between the two characters, ultimately making their connection in 'Always' even more surprising/unbelievable.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury
Anyway... all this nitpicking at these episodes made me remember something David Farland said at his Writers Death Camp. He said people don't like watching movies and T.V. with him because he likes to tear apart the scripts and analyze them. Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, I'm obviously starting to do the same.

So what do you think? After watching the clips, is my interpretation correct or am I just up in the night? Do you tear apart movies and T.V. shows to find what you don't like? Do you find times when you wonder why characters act like they shouldn't?