FEATURE ARTICLE: Cuss, Curse, or Clean It Up
Writers make lots of decisions, and writers of young-adult fiction are
faced with choices regarding profanity. Like
it or not, the use of profanity is an effective device for portraying emotion
in fiction, adding realism to dialogue and to a character's introspection. So how do writers balance the desire for
authenticity with the need to be responsible to young readers?
The choices come down to:
- Liberal
use of profanity
- Omission
of profanity
- Sparse
use of profanity
- Summarized
profanity
- Sanitized
profanity
LIBERAL USE OF PROFANITY.
In some ways, this is the easiest of the choices. Rather than agonize about the use of foul
language in novels, writers may just use it wherever it seems natural. After all, nearly everyone has heard and read
foul language before, and it's been decades since it's been taboo in fiction.
On the other hand, there are serious drawbacks to the
liberal use of profanity. First of all, if
a writer needs profanity to make teen dialogue seem realistic, then a lot of it may be needed. For any work of fiction, overuse of profanity
can become an annoying distraction to the reader. For some readers, it's an outright turnoff,
leading them to promptly put the book down.
For young-adult fiction, there's a substantial economic
price for the use of profanity. Although
some youngsters purchase their own reading material, buyers of teen novels are often
parents, grandparents, teachers, and librarians. Many adults are reluctant to purchase teen
fiction that includes gratuitous use of profanity. Editors and publishers may share those
feelings.
OMISSION OF PROFANITY. An alternative to the liberal use of
profanity is to avoid the issue by totally leaving it out of the
manuscript. After all, the best of fictional
dialogue isn't a transcription of real-life conversation: it's distilled down
to the very best and most appropriate, given the needs of the story.
If the characters and dialogue in the story are believable
without profanity, there's no problem.
But will all of the characters be believable if they never use profanity, even in situations
where its use seems natural? Maybe a
compromise is in order.
SPARSE USE OF PROFANITY. Why not use profanity only in those few
situations that are most important to the story? This approach has a benefit: if you seldom use
profanity in your writing, it will stand out more when you actually do.
SUMMARIZED USE OF PROFANITY.
If a writer is trying to limit or avoid the outright use of foul
language, but the needs of the story call for it, the use of summary may be an
acceptable alternative. Summarized profanity means using phrases
like, "he cussed," and "she cursed," and "he cut loose with a string of
expletives." In fact, summary may very
well serve the story better than interrupting the action with dialogue or
distracting the reader with specific curse words.
SANITIZED PROFANITY. By
sanitized I mean sugar-coated
substitutes. "Fiddle-dee-dee," might be
fine for Scarlet O'Hara in Gone with the
Wind. "Oh, fudge!" "Shoot!" and
"Darn it!" would be appropriate for some characters. On the other hand, there are situations where the
words manure, dung, or poop might not adequately communicate a particular character's
emotion.
My young-adult novels deal with troubled teens, boys likely
to pepper their conversation with expletives.
As a novelist, I've weighed the costs and benefits of using profanity and
have developed my personal guidelines:
- The
younger the intended reader, the harder it is to justify using any profanity at all
- I
won't use liberal amounts of profanity in my writing; in fact, I'll use
profanity only reluctantly where I believe the benefits outweigh the costs
- I'll
use sanitized cussing where appropriate and summarized profanity where it
serves the story best
Writing is largely about making choices, and writers of
young-adult fiction are faced with decisions that may influence young people. Hopefully, this article has helped you make
your own decisions about the use of profanity in fiction.
