Swearing, language in westerns

[Puma]

In the markets thread, one of the potentials is a new magazine - Great Western Fiction. I was going to send them my ghost story, but then saw the restrictions on their website: no sex, no language. I asked them to elaborate on the "no language". Their response was -

Heck, dang, danged are OK, if it sounds in character. Otherwise, just get on with the story in the classic style with "he cursed", "he cursed a blue streak", "he cursed under his breath", etc. No hell, damn, damned, damnable, bitch, bastard, nigger, niggra, niggress, etc.

What's your take on this? Consistent with the classic westerns of old, consistent with pre Gone with the Wind Hollywood ("Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"), or ...? I'm having trouble seeing "He cursed a blue streak" in a section of dialogue. But I'm wondering whether I'm a bit more modernized than I thought I was in my acceptance of swearing in dialogue and stories. What are your thoughts? Puma

[alleycat]

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.

[dpaterso]

It's kinda nice to harken back to the old, quaint, sanitized, traditional Westerns. I never was a fan of the language in Deadwood, just for example's sake. These restrictions do seem a tad OTT however -- bastard and bitch, well OK, but hell and damn? Darn it all to heck, that's half my vocabulary cut right there! But alluding to what's said rather than spelling it out is editor's choice, I guess.

-Derek

[alleycat]

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

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

[Mumut]

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.

[Cav Guy]

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.":cry:

[lvcabbie]

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

[Cav Guy]

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
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.

[JeanneTGC]

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.

[Puma]

I'm glad to hear everyone's comments on this. The language I used in my ghost story was language used by the two old farmers who lived across the creek from us - both born around 1900. They'd use it, then when they remembered I was around, usually apologize to me for using it. But I can't remember ever hearing one of them use the F word. My Dad (also born about 1900) was much more genteel in his speech but did use hell and damn if the situation warranted. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels their restrictions are a bit pansy-fied. Puma

[CBumpkin]

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.

[Tom Johnson]

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.

[alleycat]

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.

[Puma]

CBumpkin and Tom Johnson - I don't think any of the rest of us like to see four letter words crammed into every page. But, in writing westerns (as in writing any historical), language that is appropriate for the time and circumstances should be used and should be acceptable, i.e., they've made a sweeping ban of the word bastard. Which means, that if someone is writing a novel about William the Conquer, they wouldn't dare call him a bastard - they'd have to call him illegitimate offspring or say that his heraldic emblem bore the bar sinister - both of which are rather high faluting.

I'm with you on getting rid of unnecessary profanity, but there are some circumstances where the lack of profanity (or descriptive terms) would be abnormal. As Cav Guy mentioned, the current school wants to get rid of squaw and buck in stories and there's a lot of PC feeling that the word Indian should be avoided too. In my opinion, what all these edicts are doing is trying to re-write history or say that it can only be communicated in a politically correct manner - and I don't think that's a good idea. Puma

[CBumpkin]

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."
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.
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.

[alleycat]

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.

[CBumpkin]

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.

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.

[Puma]

Dang, darn, drat, dagnabit are all toned down versions of damn.

Heck, hecksfire are toned down versions of hell.

Shoot, she-yite are toned down from shit.

And what about fudge and gall-darnit?

What's the difference? They mean the same thing and are used in the same way. I'm afraid I can't believe that we can keep all the stars in our crowns if we only read (or write) material using dang or shoot but we'd lose them if we used the words they were being substituted for. Puma

[JeanneTGC]

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". :D

[Puma]

Made me go look, Jeanne. But that list is way beyond what we're talking about here, although when I was in college shit was very common and not taken to mean anything other than shoot.

There was a similar thread to this one in historical - think it's still on the first page - about use of profanity in portraying the 17th century if anyone's interested to see how the historicals battled it out. Puma

[Tom Johnson]

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.)

[Puma]

Back at you, Tom - no one's talking about using gutter language. The words which are being prohibited are mild ones (in comparison) - damn, bastard, etc. I have no desire to read or write something liberally plastered with the F word, but a well placed damn in the appropriate situation is hard to replace. Using your story as an example - would darn, drat, shoot, phooey, or anything else of a mild nature work as well to convey the emotion as the damn you used? Puma

[Tom Johnson]

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).

[CBumpkin]

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.

[Puma]

Hi Tom, Well, gee, I'm a new author with an historical coming out (from a small Canadian press) with no foul language - I'm not even sure there's a damn in it. Four letter words were just not appropriate to the story. I'm also trying to market a contemporary story with a small amount of language (one juvenile delinguent uses the F word about four times in 350 pages; another character uses a bit of milder profanity).

My point on these western dictates is that the authors should have the latitude of making the language fit their characters and the situation - but the characters and situations should be realistic to the old west - no vampires, no contemporary "have to put an expletive between every two words" characters.

CBumpkin - I sympathize with your position and wish you well. If you make it up to the Share Your Work boards, be sure to watch for cautions at the beginnings of posts for language so you don't accidentally read something you'd rather not read. Puma

[Cav Guy]

My big divide comes when people say "they didn't talk that way back then." That's just so much bunk. If you don't want to write that way, fine. And if a magazine doesn't want to accept stories written with "damn" in them, again fine. But when someone sits there and tells me that "people didn't say damn back then" I will get a touch excited...:)

The point is there is a big difference between personal (or editorial) preference and historical revisionism. If someone tells me that a story contains "true to life historical Western dialog" and it's all been cleaned up to read "gee golly gosh, Wally, I sure as heck did not see that one coming" I'm going to toss the story. The same goes for a line that reads "look at that stunning Native American female" or "my, that Caucasian son of a biscuit certainly put a dent in our buffalo".

Everyone has their own way of rendering period dialog, and that's fine. Few of my characters really curse, but you will see son-of-a-bitch. I also admit that my cowboys aren't as verbally salty as some of their historical counterparts. But I try to keep their expressions as true to the times as I can. That, to me, is one of the duties of writing any sort of historical fiction. The stuff that came out in the 30s, 40s, and 50s may have been entertaining (and went a long way toward defining what some consider the Western), but it doesn't necessarily reflect the West. Not my preference, but I know some do like it. Again, all good.

[Pup]

My big divide comes when people say "they didn't talk that way back then." That's just so much bunk. If you don't want to write that way, fine. And if a magazine doesn't want to accept stories written with "damn" in them, again fine. But when someone sits there and tells me that "people didn't say damn back then" I will get a touch excited...:)

The point is there is a big difference between personal (or editorial) preference and historical revisionism. If someone tells me that a story contains "true to life historical Western dialog" and it's all been cleaned up to read "gee golly gosh, Wally, I sure as heck did not see that one coming" I'm going to toss the story.

What he said! There's what happened, and there's how it's described: two different things. I wouldn't have any problem writing a story without any swearing for a publisher who required that, but I'd still picture how and when the characters might have sworn in real life based on my research.

It reminds me of one of my earliest memories about books. My mother was reading me a picture book about a construction worker and his bulldozer. The text said something like, "And he worked all day without stopping." I asked, "Not even to go to the bathroom?" My mother explained that he probably did stop for that, but books just don't include those things.

And he probably swore when the bulldozer acted up, and ogled the pretty girls passing by, too. :) There are plenty of things that some kinds of books "just don't include," but it doesn't mean they reflect reality.

[Tom Johnson]

Well, golly gee (lol), they had sex back then too, but I don't want to read about it. Sure, I agree with being true to life in your stories. I just think we've gone overboard with language and sex in books and media - all for the publisher to make a buck. While we (the writers) think we're doing something true to history, the publishing industry is laughing all the way to the bank. I'll continue writing the way I want, even if that means I lose a sale.

[AMCrenshaw]

"I just think we've gone overboard with language and sex in books and media - all for the publisher to make a buck."

i cannot disagree. however, one of the best western and literary novelists i can think of (McCarthy) uses cuss words aplenty. but i know words are words, and i think the ol F-word sometimes describes things perfectly. if you have used these words in very specific situations, then you probably know what i mean. not elegant, no. but sometimes elegance is more inappropriate than vulgarity.

as far as the editor goes: writing is often a business. want to make some money? follow the guidelines.

i myself would feel a great shame if i sold the soul of authenticity for $20, but for business sake it is probably a good idea. for me it is show swearing and tell sex. but i can read both and do not find either offensive.

last thing, thanks everyone for throwing out some opinions. really helped me out.

amc

[Festus]

I've seen those guidelines with no profanity at all. Frankly, I think they're foolish and take away from the realism of a western. It's understandable if these are strickly for children, but apparently, they want adult books written like childrens books. I thought about it quite a bit and came to the conclusion that while they are entitled to their guidelines, I'm entitled not to submit to them.

This isn't to say I'm in favor of extreme vulgarity, I'm not. But c'mon, show me a saloon full of normal, hard working cowboys who didn't use "hell" or "damn."

As an addendum, most men (including cowboys) would not curse in front of ladies. There are tales in my family of my ancestors dealing quite harshly with men who, for whatever reason, were foolish enough to curse within hearing distance of their wifes or daughters. The standard was: Cussing with just fellers around was acceptable. Cussing with ladies or young girls present was not to be tolerated.

Puma, you stick by your guns!

[CBumpkin]

If you look at the way most, and I do mean most, of the cursing is used today, it's nothing more than immaturity. Between the movies (especially comedies) and people who swear openly in public, regardless of who's in earshot, it's nothing but a bunch of people thinking they sound cool or "grown-up", or they're just trying to sound like they're bad and not to be messed with. It's not just the teens and young 20's but even the older crowd. People swear so indiscriminately that they have lost all common sense of even realizing they're doing it. It's selfish. All they're thinking about it themselves and don't you dare step on their right to free speech. They're "right" to vulgarities stops when it reaches my ears, just like my right to swing my fist stops when it lands on someone's nose. Same thing. I have the right not to be assaulted with it.

Sorry. I had to rant. This is a huge pet peeve of mine.

EDITED TO ADD: I understand where writer's are coming from when they say there's a time and place to use it "responsibly" in writing. The concept makes sense to me, but I still disagree. (No need to flame me, I'm not speaking against anyone. Just stating my valid opinion.) Cursing is the easy way out when it comes to writing. It's not "necessary." There are skillful ways of writing a scene without using curse words. I understand some don't agree and I respect that. I'm just saying these are my views.

EDITED ONCE MORE TO ADD: Thinking more about this, I can't honestly bring myself to the conclusion that there is never a time to use a "well-placed" cuss word. I still disagree with those who say they need to use it for realism because history and literature are FULL of great authors who never used it. They wrote skillfully to imply it without using the actual foul language. But, it's really down to personal choice for each writer. That's the fact I can't escape. If you think you need to use it, use it because, above all else, you have to write for you first. I'm not prone to using the language and am one who writes around the actual words. It works for me because my readers have thanked me for that. Cursing isn't natural for me or for them.

OK, I'm done on this subject now. I'm all "thought out!"

[Tom Johnson]

The mention of children's books by Festus reminds me of a funny story "Tommy" Tompkins told me years ago. Tommy wrote westerns for the pulps. Well, he had a friend that also wrote - unfortunately, I don't recall his name (I'm sure I have it listed in the magazine we published back then, though). His friend suggested that they swap their next books, and Tommy agreed. Sure enough, a short time later, Tommy received a book in the mail, a well-researched book on the La Brea Tar Pits, autographed by his friend. It so happened that Tommy's next book was a hardback Roy Rogers novel for Whitman. He autographed the book and mailed it to his friend. A short time later, he received an angry letter, cussing him out for sending him a children's book in exchange after receiving his wonderful La Brea Tar Pit book. His friend never spoke to Tommy again. You know, I don't know how much either of them were paid for their novels, but I bet that Whitman Roy Rogers book is worth a lot more today than his friend's book!

When my wife and I were publishing a string of genre magazines, we had a guideline, nothing harder than hell and damn. And we never lacked for stories. Even today, we still receive letters from some of our writers, thanking us for having faith in their work and publishing them. Many have gone on to publish in the mass market paperbacks. There are writers who are willing to work from guidelines, and I don't condemn any publisher for having stricter guidelines than what we had. Children's books? Heck (lol), I was reading westerns and sci-fi when I was twelve years old. I'm glad there were books I could read at that age.

[Cav Guy]

No one is asking those of you who don't use cusswords in writing to start doing so. To each his own. If you choose not to use strong language, I'm not going to bash you for it. All I ask is that my decision to write in my way be respected (and that's a subject that is independent of editor's guidelines...they can set whatever guidelines they like and at the end of the day it's MY decision if I submit to those editors or not). If my writing is somehow "lesser" because I use hell and damn, then I guess I'm stuck being a "lesser" writer. There's a tone (to me) of "higher ground" creeping into the discussion that I find disturbing.

Consider this: Mark Twain would never have "Huck Finn" published these days because of his use of the "N" word. He used it because it was in keeping with the local dialect he was modeling. The same can be said for Uncle Tom's Cabin. Does this make them lesser works because today we find the word objectionable? They wouldn't have used (for example) hell and damn because in their day that was not acceptable. Interesting how times change...and that's just an observation about how language and society can change in what is an historically short time.

And that's all I can really say about this issue. Write as you choose, and be well with it.

[CBumpkin]

No one is asking those of you who don't use cusswords in writing to start doing so. To each his own. If you choose not to use strong language, I'm not going to bash you for it. All I ask is that my decision to write in my way be respected (and that's a subject that is independent of editor's guidelines...they can set whatever guidelines they like and at the end of the day it's MY decision if I submit to those editors or not). If my writing is somehow "lesser" because I use hell and damn, then I guess I'm stuck being a "lesser" writer. There's a tone (to me) of "higher ground" creeping into the discussion that I find disturbing.

I was on your side until you made the "higher ground" accusation. I'm all for people writing the way they want to write. I don't think that was ever the issue in this thread. Everyone responding gave THEIR OWN opinions and the thread was merely a discussion. You can even see my thought process play out in the editing of my last post, which shows that I put thought into the topic and didn't just respond off the top of my head.

I see a lot of references on the forums to people being "holier than thou" or "high and mighty" merely because someone's opinion differs from their own. Nobody implied anyone's writing was lesser. If you study psychology, what that really is, is a bit of a guilty tug on their conscience. I'm not saying there should be or that anyone is "guilty," I'm just stating that, psychologicially, that's where those statements come from. I'm speaking from experience AND having studied psychology.

If you read my post again, you'll see I said the same thing you just did. It's personal choice to write using curse words and choice as to whether or not to submit them to publishers with those guidelines.

[Cav Guy]

I was on your side until you made the "higher ground" accusation. I'm all for people writing the way they want to write. I don't think that was ever the issue in this thread. Everyone responding gave THEIR OWN opinions and the thread was merely a discussion. You can even see my thought process play out in the editing of my last post, which shows that I put thought into the topic and didn't just respond off the top of my head.

I see a lot of references on the forums to people being "holier than thou" or "high and mighty" merely because someone's opinion differs from their own. Nobody implied anyone's writing was lesser. If you study psychology, what that really is, is a bit of a guilty tug on their conscience. I'm not saying there should be or that anyone is "guilty," I'm just stating that, psychologicially, that's where those statements come from. I'm speaking from experience AND having studied psychology.

If you read my post again, you'll see I said the same thing you just did. It's personal choice to write using curse words and choice as to whether or not to submit them to publishers with those guidelines.

Actually my remarks weren't directed at you. If they were, I would have engaged you directly through either a quote or PM. You presented your opinion in a clear and reasoned way. I've also studied psychology, and understand both sides of the position pretty well.

Having said that, I'm also done with this particular discussion. It's been pretty well flogged.

[CBumpkin]

Then I missed some posts. I thought mine and Tom's were the only two "actively" (for lack of a better word) opposed to using curse words. I apologize for the assumption, Cav Guy. :o

[Tom Johnson]

I guess it was aimed at me (hahaha).

[JeanneTGC]

I don't think Cav was "aiming" at anyone. Cav isn't normally someone who starts or even enters a flamewar.

But, remember, this is an education site (as well as watchdog, fun, etc.). It's really important when you get a topic like this one, that sparks a lot of passion, to make sure all the sides are being shown. And I think this thread is doing that very well. You never know who's going to stumble on it and wonder if they're a "bad writer" because they do or don't use expletive deleteds in their writing. And they can read this thread and really come away with the understanding that it's a personal choice -- and also a personal choice for the publication/editor they'll submit to.

I think that's the hallmark of a great thread, and not a flame-worthy thread.

And, honestly, I don't think it's all flogged out, either. Good debate is healthy. Name calling, not so much, but I haven't seen any and doubt we will -- those who come into the Westerns forum seem to be able to keep their guns in their holsters. ;)

[MrWrite]

I actually stopped reading a book which though it wasn't a western, is relevant here because on virtually every other page she wrote the F word. Now, I'm no prude and am not going to stop reading a book because there's a bit of bad language in it but most of the times when this word was used it just seemed unnecessary and you got the feeling she was using the word just to be "cool". So I put the book down and went on to something else. While strong language in a book doesn't bother me I don't want to read it on every other page. This writer is supposedly one of the hot new writers on the block but I won't be reading any more of her.
Most westerns that I've read, with the exception of Tabor Evans of the Longarm series, don't really use the stronger language. Plenty of hells and dangits abound but the strongest language is usually absent.
Am I the only one who thinks that westerns are among some of the most exciting and suspenseful stories around.
Someone mentioned about the pc side of things and wanting to take out the word Indian. That would be ridiculous. People in those days did not refer to them as Native American. indian while it may offend some people today is a word that was widely prevalent in those days and not to use the word would make the stories less authentic.

[JeanneTGC]

You bring up a good point. There's a fine line a modern writer has to tread when writing any kind of historical. Language of the day can sound very, VERY wrong when used now -- insulting, archaic, or even just wrong, as word meanings do sometimes change.

That's part of the fun and the pain in writing any kind of historical -- how do you use the language properly and what do you choose to change because you need to/have to/can't stand to type the word, let alone have your readers read it?

As for dropping f-bombs all over the place, I agree with you. All words can have their place, but you can tell, as a reader, when it's being done because a writer "can", not because it fits the story.

To the story and the characters be true, and all that. ;)

[Unique]

Louis LaMour wrote plenty of Westerns. Fine ones, too. I don't recall any swearing in them at all. But you always could tell who the bad guys were. Always.

But then back in the 'old days' - that's what editors did. If they didn't want a cuss word, they edited it out. Good ones, you couldn't even tell it was missing from the way you wrote it. It just wasn't there anymore.
I don't think they do that now.

Just my 2 cents. You can keep the change.

[Festus]

Howdy,

Louis L'Amour DID have mild swear words in his novels, I've been re-reading some of my favorites this week. He used just enough of them to be realistic without going overboard.

Be sure you know that your facts are accurate before putting your money on the table. :-)

[MrWrite]

You sure are one tough hombre Festus ;)

[Unique]

Howdy,

Louis L'Amour DID have mild swear words in his novels, I've been re-reading some of my favorites this week. He used just enough of them to be realistic without going overboard.

Be sure you know that your facts are accurate before putting your money on the table. :-)

Swear words don't bother me. (At all) I have the whole LL collection in paperback - read multitudinously - but if he cussed, must have been so mild it passed right on by.
They're in a box in the barn - *sigh*. I miss them. They always cheered me up - cuz the good guy always wins. :)

But this struck me funny:

I actually stopped reading a book which though it wasn't a western, is relevant here because on virtually every other page she wrote the F word. Now, I'm no prude and am not going to stop reading a book because there's a bit of bad language in it but most of the times when this word was used it just seemed unnecessary and you got the feeling she was using the word just to be "cool".


I read a book recently; it was a good book - action/adventure type - and it was loaded with cuss - even the F-bomb up until about the 5th chapter. Then it almost stopped completely. ((??))

A friend told me some publishers want some cuss and this author put them all in the front and got done with it. :roll:Revenge of the writer.
And a warning. But I really noticed it. It was flaming obvious.

[Festus]

Unique,

You best go to the barn and fetch your L'Amour books back to the house! LOL! I keep my collection right by my bed, some of them I've lost count of how many times I've read them - but I've always enjoyed the re-reads!

I don't like heavy cussing, which I count the "F" word as being. If a publisher told me I needed more cussing, I'd tell that rascal to go fly a kite. A body has to have some standards.

Cussing, to me, should be used like brillcream or wildroot instructions used to state back in the old days: "a little dab will do you!" Most of my writings have no cussing at all, but some do, usually limited to 'hell or damn." That's about as far as I really want to go with it. That's just me and I ain't against anyone who feels differently.

Folks, I'll be operated on this coming Tuesday, August 19th on my lower back. After I heal up I look forward to being off pain medications and devoting myself to my writing again - I've really missed it! So if yall don't hear from me for awhile, you now know why!

[JeanneTGC]

Many {HUGS}, prayers and well wishes for a speedy recovery, Festus! We'll miss you while you're gone and be overjoyed when you get back!

[Puma]

Best wishes, Festus. I hope everything goes well and you're back with us even sooner than you expect. We'll be thinking about you. Puma

[AnneMarble]

This is timely. I've been picking up Westerns again lately. Last night, I was checking through the Westerns in the local Wal-Mart (which has a big book section, including a good number of Westerns). While flipping through one Western, I noticed a line of dialogue where someone called a character a "c__ks__ker." I noticed it and then put it on the shelf. Several minutes later, I thought, "Say what?!"

I tried to remember which book it came from, but of course, I couldn't find it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of those "adult Westerns," though. And I know it wasn't a Louis L'Amour book. :) But perversely (pun intended), I wanted to find out which book that word occurred in because suddenly, I wanted to read it.
:roll:

[newshirt]

There was an old dude who once said, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." I like that. It helps me see the true source of my communication, whether written or spoken.

My book has no profanity. I used the word "danged" a few times, but it felt harmless.

I'm not saying, "they never talked that way back then." I'm just saying that we don't have to repeat what they did say.

People are so afraid of being labeled "old fashioned" that they give in to this type of communication. But that's a slippery slope that leads straight to Hollywood. One-upmanship in filthy talk.

--ray

[Tom Johnson]

My dad was a real cowboy, and he could cuss a horse or mule pretty good. Until my little sister and I started repeating his colorful language. My mother put a stop to it quick. She told him that the horse and mule couldn't understand what he was saying, but us young'uns sure could pick it up! I wonder if it makes actors feel good when they cuss in movies? Or a writer spinning a yarn? It doesn't do a thing for me.

"The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit!"

[ComicBent]

Interesting thread, guys. I just found it tonight and read through it all.

I think I agree with both camps on this issue. On the one hand, we all know that cussing is nothing new. Even George Washington is said to have been an accomplished user of foul language. Exactly what words he used, I don't know.

On the other hand, I am old enough to remember a time when people just did not use bad language the way they do now. I agree with Derek in his comment about "Deadwood." Actually, I loved the series, but I hated the gross overuse of extremely foul language. It was not any particular words; it was just that there was entirely too much of it.

I am a little surprised that "hell" and "damn" were proscribed, since these are certainly not offensive to most people. But America has always been eaten up with religious nuttery, so I guess I should not be surprised after all.

[Tom Johnson]

True. I use hell and damn in my stories as well, I've never been against mild language. It's the current trend in movies and books that turns me off today, with vulgar language in every piece of dialogue. With it being accepted more every day, it doesn't fail that you hear the language being spoken in public. And when you call them down, they say, "Hey, we're having a private conversation here, and it's none of your business." But it is my business when it invades my space. I have to blame the media for making this trend acceptible. It's brought into our homes on the TV and radio, and people walking down the street. Because we have allowed it. So I just don't think it's necessary in telling a good story, whether in the written form or visual media. Those who argue that it was around back then (the west), should also remember that a lot of people were tarred and feathered, and even hung back then for using such language. So if they want to be factual, go all the way, not just half way. I wish that kind of language would be removed from books and movies, and that has nothing to do with religion. I'm just tired of hearing it used in normal conversation.

"The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit!"

[ComicBent]

I agree that it has gotten way out of hand. I am not opposed to all use of it, but I don't think it has to be included in everything. A few years ago I wrote a "Deadwood" script as a contest entry (Austin Film Festival; I didn't win, of course), but I eliminated nearly all the foul language. I don't think it hurt the script to do so. (The biggest problem with the script was probably my slightly flimsy plot, since I did not know how to proceed in a nonepisodic series that was between seasons at that point.)

[Puma]

In my mind a big part of the issue is realism versus fantasy land. We all use the language we learned as kids, and there aren't very many of us who can hit a thumb with a hammer and say "Oh my." But there also aren't very many people (in my experience) who use the F word or equivalent in every sentence. The key is temperance - just enough "flavor" to make it authentic, but not so much as to make it objectionable (and by just enough, I mean something more along the line of one or two cuss words in a couple thousand words - and I'm not sure how many thousand, sort of depends on what's being written.)

It may be a bit odd that I'm supporting some cussing in writing, in real life I don't use swear words in public - but watch out for that hammer (which will elicit sometimes no more than a darn). Puma

[JeanneTGC]

I'm probably the only person I know who actually says, "OWWWW" whenever I hurt myself.

Of course, I have the vocabulary of a longshoreman normally, so it's a pleasant change.

I'm with Puma on this one, pretty much in the middle of the road. To pretend the evil bad guy is never, ever going to say a bad word is sort of silly, but to ensure that every other word would have gotten George Carlin in trouble isn't the answer either.

Really, it's what works for you and the story you want to tell.