Words

PS Just don't overdo the naughty stuff. We want to keep this site open, 'k? :-D

Since activity at Lola's has come to a screeching halt, I am wondering how naughty we can be?

Blatham's outburst, expressing frustration as a blocked writer, contained words most of us have used in similar circumstances. His statement was used in an abstract way; it was not, in any way, directed toward another person.

Since this thread contains fictional writing, do the same rules apply?

Able2know sets higher standards than abuzz, giving us a forum for civilized discussion without having to worry about ugly, obstructive, personal attacks; but as a new enterprise, it still hasn't found where the boundaries need to be set.

I don't think fiction can be held to the same standards as politics or film, for example. It isn't addressed toward an individual (although it could be, in a subversive way); rather it is a continuous story written by many different authors. It is fiction.

Unless it becomes so objectionable that participants start to complain, shouldn't we be able to swear in the story line? How much self censorship do we need to excersize?

I think this is a good opportunity to establish boundaries.

(Personally, I like a little naughtiness!)

It's a balancing act.

I want there to be freedom - I do! - but at the same time there have to be strictures, or else the site loses its hosting. I take it no one wants that, yes?

So, my friends, kindly hold back if you can. It makes one of my jobs (search and destroy naughty words) a lot easier. A little sprinkling is one thing. A torrent is something else.

I don't want to have to be the schoolmarm here. I would like to have fun, too! I take it we can all have fun by mainly using the other million or so words available to us, rather than George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say On Television and related verbiage.

Let me know if this is unclear to you. Thanks.

I take it that Blatham's use of the f-word in this context is admissible as long as he only uses it once and proper space is given before anyone else uses it or another similar word again. I hate to have original writing restricted in this way, but I DO understand about the fact that we DO have a host and they have these rules.....and there are unpleasant consequences for not obeying them. So we should be prudent with the use of our necessary-for-the-story-line type words. Is this what you mean, Jes? Don't answer if it will incriminate you. Would it help at all if this thread were in the "Original Writing" catagory rather than in General?

Blatham's writing, open and honest, will protray situations most people can and do identify with.

Personally, I'm not offended by "language" when creating a text. Naughty words speak volumns ~ especially in the context of Blatham's story, where many discriptive adjectives would've seemed benign.

Gosh, I sound like a critic! Just wished to add my two cents.

This week's episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," Larry David's ("Seinfeld") HBO series ended in every epithet imaginable at the end.

Lola, it really doesn't matter which forum this is in, vis a vis the language. And you're right - few and far between should be the order of the day. And I mean few and I also mean far between.

Now back to our story -

Steve, allow me to join you in a cuppa. Plus I see some nice brownies to have with it. Wonder if they're laced with anything. Hmm.

jes
I sent you a pm but not sure if you received (it's staying in outbox). Could you verify.

Got the note, thanks, blatham.

I think that's plaster dust in my hair. Probably came from the slight tremor I felt earlier. Then again, perhaps it was my heart fluttering. Helfino.

More tea? I'll try not to get any plaster dust in it this time.

<PS I'm going to split away the, um, business posts on page 12 so as not to interrupt the flow of the story. Carry on. :-D>

This topic was split from http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=759&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=110 (pages 11 and 12) in order to not interrupt the flow of that story.

It sounds as if I should start following Lolas Salon!!

It's a fun place. :-D

Hebba, you are very welcome at my salon, anytime. As is everyone.

Jes

This was a nice idea. And thanks for your kind help on the matter.

Hey, thanks for bein' understanding and all ...

it's a well-lamented fact that were the "f" button to fail on a modern writer's keyboard there would be serious gaps in the prose. Victorian morals have disintegrated, and so has the poetic eroticism of the lascivious pre-Victorians. We're stuck with the "f" word, it has become the central adjective/adverb/verb/noun/preposition of the American-Canadian language. Does that mean we can no longer enjoy a sentence without it?

There are many sentences that require no f word. But there are some that would be inauthentic without it. And I know this is not true for everyone, but for me.....I wouldn't want to live without it. I'm a child of the 60s and the f word meant liberation, independence, and freedom. So I don't mind a sentence containing it, actually, I love the word and other words equally as nice.

Algis

What words a sentence of published prose ought or ought not to contain seems to me a matter of context - a speech by Falstaff should be somewhat more liberal than an imagined Arkansas preacher's sermon. It is a matter of situational appropriateness, yes? Ben Bradlee, the Whitewater era publisher of the Washington Post, once suggested that if, during a war, your jeep terminally broke down behind enemy lines, a sentence such as "The f*cking f*cker is f*cked!" quite suits the situation.

You seem to have a distaste for the 'f' word, and of course you aren't alone in that, but like Lola above, I don't share this response. Actually, I'll even push against it a bit, holding that the use of such sexually related words is quite socially benign while, more importantly, the suppression of them is not benign.

Outside of the artistry of how one might sling individual words about in a sentence, those words seem to me to be the least of our worries as writers or readers. For example, the second to last sentence in your post above reads...
"We're stuck with the "f" word, it has become the central adjective/adverb/verb/noun/preposition of the American-Canadian language."
That sentence is not true - it is an exaggeration which you've used, I assume, to produce some rhetorical heft to your argued position. Your final sentence appears to be likewise designed...
" Does that mean we can no longer enjoy a sentence without it?"

You see, I think it a far greater cause to bring a sentence to task for uncautious promiscuity with truth than for any presence of naughty words.