Is it possbile to read masterpieces without bad language?

[misterlit]

Are there any good books such as ones that rank on the level as 1984, Fahrenheit 451, The Great Gatsby, and so on without any foul language?
Is bad language avoidable in amazing works of modern and classical literature?

[meh!]

Masterpieces are in fact renowned for their excellent language.

[amarna]

Is bad language avoidable in amazing works of modern and classical literature?
Yes.





.

[misterlit]

Any recommendationss?

[Dr. Hill]

Almost anything pre-1900, friend.

[JBI]

Rabelais' Gargantua et Pantagruel - very modest stuff - nothing anyone would have any trouble with, I assure you - none of that toilet humor or stuff better suited for a carnival.

[mayneverhave]

Almost anything pre-1900, friend.

Yes, but the sheer number of sexual puns in Shakespeare is staggering - but of course that's what makes Shakespeare so endearing.

Is the OP at all suggesting that he has encountered bad language in too many of the classics that he has tried to read?

I can only think of the cursing in The Catcher in the Rye, the occasional slang in Hemingway, and the use of the n-word in Faulkner, none of which is foul for the sake of being foul, but is necessary to the art of the writer.

These aren't porno-mags; if there is foul language it is most likely for a purpose.

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

Well, I know of tons of 'post-modern' literature that has a bit of the crude and rude aspects of language. It's interesting that some of these books (Delillo, Pynchon, even some of Joyce and the modernists) are being examined by scholars of the arcana and could be the classics of tomorrow. Of course in tomorrow's realm of literature, classic will have a new meaning and such...

[JCamilo]

hey, Joyce is dirty, remember the judge said it!

[Bluebeard]

Well, I know of tons of 'post-modern' literature that has a bit of the crude and rude aspects of language. It's interesting that some of these books (Delillo, Pynchon, even some of Joyce and the modernists) are being examined by scholars of the arcana and could be the classics of tomorrow. Of course in tomorrow's realm of literature, classic will have a new meaning and such...

Mayneverhave said it... if you find it strange that language from the likes of Pynchon has been canonized, Shakespeare's immortality must be deeply disturbing.

[mollie]

You say that you want to read modern literature, but to give an appropriate recommendation, I would like to be clear - exactly what it is you object to - is it obscenity, or profanity and irreligious/immoral/amoral themes? Or do you object to swearing on aesthetic grounds?

For example, if I remember rightly, Ford Madox Ford's "The Good Soldier" which I think is excellent, contains little or nothing in the way of sexual swear words, but I think contains profanities, and may not appeal to someone of a strictly religious/moral outlook, and I would be unwilling to recommend it to them.

Alain Fournier's Le Grand Meaulnes or William Golding's Lord of the Flies should be ok either way, and both are good.

[dfloyd]

bad language. Yes, they can; I never talk while reading.

[DanielBenoit]

Ughhh, I hate it when people criticize works due to some 'foul language', same with movies too. Okay, I understand if you are offended by four letter words, I never have been, but how can you dismiss a work, based merely on a word? Now I'm not saying that of you, I'm just projecting my fustration from expereince.

Yes, all throughout the history of literature, obsenity and innuendo and whatnot have existed. We may not notice it today because we are no longer offended by words like humbug or the like, but back in the 19th century that was a 'low term'. Shakespeare, was tons of suggestive sexual material in the form of puns, metaphors and jokes, but we usually tend not to notice them today, becasue they were written in the context of their time.

Yes, some books are incredibly violent, look at Naked Lunch, but does that mean we should let our shock and disgust overcome us, or should we be objective (or at least try to) and think about what the author is intending.

I hate it when in movies, people seem to dismiss films which contain violence or obscenity as shallow and irrelevant. I recently had a bad experience with a friend when I showed her Pulp Fiction. She had said that she had never seen it, and I told her how great it was, so we watched it; though I wanred her beforehand that this movie is very very violent. We watched it; about twenty minutes in, she asked me in a way as if I was some kind of lunatic "why do you like this kind of stuff?" We turned it off and watched something else.

I don't know. I just hate it how people seem to love Dan Brown, but then dismiss William Burroughs as obscene or crazy, or how people can spend there money to go watch Transformers and then walk out of Pulp Fiction, as if they don't know the difference. Yes both films have violence, but main the difference is; one's a masterpiece and one isn't.

[mal4mac]

Foul language is often hidden pre-19th century. Beware modern translators though...

Chaucer uses the word "fethered", which Peter Ackroyd translates into a more basic "f" word in his (excellent) translation of the Canterbury Tales. That is, to name a natural act between a c*ck and a hen. Foul language indeed! :-)

Note, I think Ackroyd was quite right to do this, as he wanted to get across the violence of the act - "fethered" sounds quite sweet to the modern ear.

[Mariamosis]

bad language. Yes, they can; I never talk while reading.
:lol:

[Janine]

Absolutely; there is tons of classic literature without the use of foul language. Try Thomas Hardy, Willa Cather, Hawthorne, Henry James, Tolstoy...the list is enormous. I hardly ever encounter a classic story with foul language. These authors had a sense of class. And as far as Shakespeare is concerned his double meanings or inferences have never bothered me at all. I find them witty and rather humorous. That is just Shakespeare.

As a side note: my favorite author, D.H.Lawrence, doesn't use foul language on a whole. I don't even think in Lady Chatterly's Lover he uses it, unless you want to count the use of naming some body parts, foul. He was appalled by pure pornography or pornography's sake, so I don't think he used it to my knowlege...not like the F, S, or C words. He even wrote that Joyce was pure filth and pornographic and although, Lady Chatterly's Lover, at that time in history, was banned, he never considered it truly 'pornographic'. I don't either. To me it seems now tame, to what is out there and just natural.

[Adagio]

I feel that foul language is actually necessary to literature.


As a side note: my favorite author, D.H.Lawrence, doesn't use foul language on a whole. I don't even think in Lady Chatterly's Lover he uses it, unless you want to count the use of naming some body parts, foul. He appalled pornography, so I don't think he used it to my knowlege...not like the F, S, or C words. He even wrote that Joyce was pure filth and pornographic and although Lady Chatterly's Lover, at that time in history, was banned, he never considered it 'pornographic' at all. I don't either. To me it seems now tame to what is out there and just natural.

Um (the blocked out words are c*nt and f*ck):

`Ay!' he said at last, in a little voice. `Ay ma lad! tha're theer right enough. Yi, tha mun rear thy head! Theer on thy own, eh? an' ta'es no count O' nob'dy! Tha ma'es nowt O' me, John Thomas. Art boss? of me? Eh well, tha're more cocky than me, an' tha says less. John Thomas! Dost want her? Dost want my lady Jane? Tha's dipped me in again, tha hast. Ay, an' tha comes up smilin'.---Ax 'er then! Ax lady Jane! Say: Lift up your heads, O ye gates, that the king of glory may come in. Ay, th' cheek on thee! ****, that's what tha're after. Tell lady Jane tha wants ****. John Thomas, an' th' **** O' lady Jane!---'

Also, um:

“Th’art good ****, though, aren’t ter? Best bit o’ **** left on earth. When ter likes! When th’art willin’!”

“What is ****?” she said.

“An’ doesn’t ter know? ****! It’s thee down theer; an’ what I get when I’m i’side thee, and what tha gets when I’m i’side thee; it’s a’ as it is, all on’t.”

“All on’t,” she teased. “****! It’s like **** then.”

“Nay nay! ****’s only what you do. Animals ****. But ****’s a lot more than that. It’s thee, dost see: an’ th’art a lot besides an animal, aren’t ter—even ter ****? ****! Eh, that’s the beauty o’ thee, lass!”

The author to praise when it comes to dealing with a sexual relationship and avoiding the use of foul language is Nabokov with his Lolita, not Lawrence.

Foul language is, in my opinion, vital to the representation of the character and the society in which they live. I mean, how can an author in today's society write about London and not use any foul language? Foul language is everywhere in London. What if the character is foul, wouldn't they realistically use foul language? Faulkner uses the word nigger alot in his works, that word is, in my view, foul, yet it is vital to his work. I think people shouldn't take offense at foul language in literature and throw the book away in horror, but actually take the time to think about why the writer has used that kind of language and what they're trying to tell us about that certain character or society.

[Janine]

I feel that foul language is actually necessary to literature.



Um (the blocked out words are c*nt and f*ck):

`Ay!' he said at last, in a little voice. `Ay ma lad! tha're theer....only what you do. Animals ****. But ****’s a lot more than that. It’s thee, dost see: an’ th’art a lot besides an animal, aren’t ter—even ter ****? ****! Eh, that’s the beauty o’ thee, lass!”

The author to praise when it comes to dealing with a sexual relationship and avoiding the use of foul language is Nabokov with his Lolita, not Lawrence.

Adagio, hummm...point well-taken. I was thinking they were anatomical words :lol:....just joking.... The heavy venacular makes it hard to read those words....sort of....the text here is a teasing going on between the two lovers, isn't it? It is quite natural, them being alone. Now I am embarrassed; you would have to spell it out to us with the blantant text. I actually have never read Lolita but refrained from it because the whole idea of an underage girl being seduced or abused by an older man bugged me and I don't really offend easily. I guess it's the idea of a mere child being tainted. I find that disturbing. Anyway, now I cringe to think the original poster of this question now sees me as some kind of sicky, who reads dirty literature. LCL is really a good book and not all of it is like the said quote by Adagio. The point of the passage is to say it's not dirty to have sex, but rather the same with animal life and man is afterall, part animal...so it's natural.

The type of use of the F word at random is what really offends my sensitive side at times in literature. I found I wasn't so appalled by these two talking privately together. Yes and but, I was going to add to stay clear of LCL and try his other works, which are much more restrained, since LCL was written near the end of his life; he paid to have that published himself....he therefore, let all the 'stops out' on that one and said what he pleased. It still is not quite pornagraphic, in my opinion...but that's interpretation...isn't it? I am a person hating to see the F word randomly interspersed in text just for the effect of it or to express anger; in a slang manor. It can become unnatural and even a bit overdone at times. I don't see the point sometimes.


Foul language is, in my opinion, vital to the representation of the character and the society in which they live. I mean, how can an author in today's society write about London and not use any foul language? Foul language is everywhere in London. What if the character is foul, wouldn't they realistically use foul language? Faulkner uses the word nigger alot in his works, that word is, in my view, foul, yet it is vital to his work. I think people shouldn't take offense at foul language in literature and throw the book away in horror, but actually take the time to think about why the writer has used that kind of language and what they're trying to tell us about that certain character or society.

I agree to some degree about this, but not all works. I don't usually let things set in a certain time period bother me...such as the use of nigger to convey the prejudice that existed at that time...we have come a long way and know better now. I just hate the use of foul language, as I said, randomly placed and liberal to the extreme.

[Adagio]

Adagio, hummm...point well-taken. I was thinking they were anatomical words :lol:....just joking.... The heavy venacular makes it hard to read those words....sort of....the text here is a teasing going on between the two lovers, isn't it? It is quite natural, them being alone. Now I am embarrassed; you would have to spell it out to us with the blantant text. I actually have never read Lolita but refrained from it because the whole idea of an underage girl being seduced or abused by an older man bugged me and I don't really offend easily. I guess it's the idea of a mere child being tainted. I find that disturbing. Anyway, now I cringe to think the original poster of this question now sees me as some kind of sicky, who reads dirty literature. LCL is really a good book and not all of it is like the said quote by Adagio. The point of the passage is to say it's not dirty to have sex, but rather the same with animal life and man is afterall, part animal...so it's natural.

The type of use of the F word at random is what really offends my sensitive side at times in literature. I found I wasn't so appalled by these two talking privately together. Yes and but, I was going to add to stay clear of LCL and try his other works, which are much more restrained, since LCL was written near the end of his life; he paid to have that published himself....he therefore, let all the 'stops out' on that one and said what he pleased. It still is not quite pornagraphic, in my opinion...but that's interpretation...isn't it? I am a person hating to see the F word randomly interspersed in text just for the effect of it or to express anger; in a slang manor. It can become unnatural and even a bit overdone at times. I don't see the point sometimes.
It's nothing to be embarrassed about and LCL is not dirty literature. It's brilliant literature. In a way your response made my point: the language didn't disturb you. It probably heightened the sensation of the novel. If we take those sections out of the book it is not the same novel. Both Lawrence and Joyce were considered dirty in their time but we accept it now. We accept it not because we have become crude human beings but because crude behaviour and language is realistic, it is part of life. If an artist is going to portray something to the best of their ability they must not be afraid to exploit things for what they really are. However, I do agree with you, crude language for the sake of it is pathetic, it should only be used when it is needed.

I understand what you're saying about Lolita, it is a pretty tough subject to take. However, Nabokov delivers with the upmost beauty and it really is something. Perhaps you can put it on a 'to conquer' reading list. :)

[Roaring Fish]

Foul language is, in my opinion, vital to the representation of the character and the society in which they live. I mean, how can an author in today's society write about London and not use any foul language? Foul language is everywhere in London. What if the character is foul, wouldn't they realistically use foul language?

Not really. Speech in fiction is not a copy of spoken language. If it were, it would be unreadable, full of errrs and mmmms and unfinished sentences. Fictional dialogue is not a reflection of life, and competent author should be capable of painting a convincing character without using bad language in the dialogue.

Look at Birdsong as an example. A story full of WW1 soldiers who in real life would be expected to swear like.. well... troopers. Sebastian Faulks manages to avoid all that profanity but still show us convincing characters.



I think people shouldn't take offense at foul language in literature and throw the book away in horror, but actually take the time to think about why the writer has used that kind of language and what they're trying to tell us about that certain character or society.

If there is profanity, the writer has chosen to put it there for some reason, and yes - we should consider why it is there. Does it serve some rhetorical purpose or it gratuitous?

All too often, in my view, it is there just for shock value, in the same spirit as artists who use various bodily ejections in their work.

[kelby_lake]

There are many good books that don't have swearing but they mainly avoid the context for it. For example, Pride and Prejudice. It would look a bit silly with swearing in. But with LCL, which is all about sexual awakening and whatnot, you'd kinda expect bad language, because it's supposed to be a contrast to the restraint and inertness of her marriage.

[Adagio]

Not really. Speech in fiction is not a copy of spoken language. If it were, it would be unreadable, full of errrs and mmmms and unfinished sentences. Fictional dialogue is not a reflection of life, and competent author should be capable of painting a convincing character without using bad language in the dialogue.

Look at Birdsong as an example. A story full of WW1 soldiers who in real life would be expected to swear like.. well... troopers. Sebastian Faulks manages to avoid all that profanity but still show us convincing characters.
I'm not saying that speech in fiction is an exact copy of spoken language but it does attempt to present human characters realistically. I also think that foul language doesn't necessarily have to be swear words, take for instance Iago for Shakespeare's Othello:

'Even now, now, very now, an old black ram/ Is tupping your white ewe.'

There are no swear words but the language is extremely crude and foul. What I'm trying to say is that crude and foul people do exist. If literature, of any form, is going to present a foul character then the reader has to expect foul language and behaviour.

I have not read Birdsong, even though I'd like to, but I assume there is enough violent imagery to capture the urgency that would provoke those people to swear. I mention above how Nabokov doesn't use any swear words in his masterpiece Lolita and that's because Humbert Humbert and what he is doing with Dolores is foul. It is disgusting and disturbing, no swear words are needed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is not much different between foul language and foul behaviour. But yeah, it should only be used when necessary, otherwise they wouldn't be much of an artist.

[Madame X]

There’s something to be said for de Sade’s forthcomingness, I think. :nod:

[Roaring Fish]

'Even now, now, very now, an old black ram/ Is tupping your white ewe.'

There are no swear words but the language is extremely crude and foul.

You think so? Then we are talking about two different things: when I hear 'crude and foul', I think of the kind of thing that is bleeped out by the BBC.



I have not read Birdsong, even though I'd like to, but I assume there is enough violent imagery to capture the urgency that would provoke those people to swear.

My own opinion.... I wouldn't be in a rush to read it. It starts out well, and I really enjoyed the rising action, but in the latter half the 'horrors of war' aspect is overdone. It left me thinking "Okay Mr.Faulks, I've got the message now..." when there were still a lot of pages to go. You know those films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, basically an hour of people running around screaming in terror and then being chopped up? It was a bit like that.

[kelby_lake]

Used sparingly, bad language can be effective. The problem is that we're not going to warm to characters who swear and are vulgar all the time. There are some complete weirdos in society but I don't think we want to read about them. Just because something exists doesn't mean we have to write about it.

[MarkBastable]

The problem is that we're not going to warm to characters who swear and are vulgar all the time.

Why not? Swearing has absolutely nothing to do with whether I warm to a character. I can't imagine why it should.

In real life, of course, it's different. I would never trust someone who didn't swear.


Just because something exists doesn't mean we have to write about it.

Don't have to, but may choose to. Or, to be more accurate, should not choose not to for a reason as limp as not liking the swearing.

[Madame X]

Why not? Swearing has absolutely nothing to do with whether I warm to a character. I can't imagine why it should.

In real life, of course, it's different. I would never trust someone who didn't swear.

Don't have to, but may choose to. Or, to be more accurate, should not choose not to for a reason as limp as not liking the swearing.

Couldn’t agree more; merely writing or, by extension, reading about something that, to use Faulkner’s apt expression, is “doomed to exist”, however nefarious, in no way necessitates such existence be condoned by writer or reader respectively. Indeed, crudity abounds in ways far more potent than a mean and meagre vocabulary; a fact I think that any able penman of the profane is well enough aware.