suzakugaiden

Words are more (by)product than tool.

mammamaia

not really...

words are the product itself... as well as the 'construction material' used to create the product... as wood is to a carpenter, words are to a writer... for a carpenter, the raw material is wood and the finished product is also wood, but the latter has been transformed from its natural state to a work of art [if the carpenter's a master!]... the byproduct is shavings and sawdust... in writing, we have nothing left over when finished with a piece, so nothing goes to waste...

the tool we use is our brain... we sharpen it with dictionaries, and such... and use other tools such as hands, pens, computers, to arrange and display our works of art... some may use other tools such as fancy do-it-for-you programs, just as apprentice carpenters may need the help of templates to follow, their hands not being sure enough on jigsaw or chisel...

as for those blue words, they can be likened to paint or stain added to the wood, to give it needed color/emphasis, if the artistry isn't good enough to impress the beholder on its own... or, if the piece is meant for those of cultures where color is expected... just like the ancient greeks never liked their statues 'plain' as we do today, but had to have them all covered in what would be garish colors to our eyes... did you all know that?

hugs, maia

__________________
For 100% free writing help/mentoring:
www.saysmom.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

cellardoor

having a character swear is just like having a character say "mentally deficient twit" or "poopface", it just depends on the character, and whether they would say it
for example, a mormon character wouldn't swear unless it was really really funny, a seven year old character wouldn't say "you're a mentally deficient twit" and your average CEO character isn't going to say "you're a poopface!" unless it's really really funny. that's the immature comedic dialogue, just have the character say something totally unexpected and ridiculous.
if you're going for shock value, you're probably a douche.

Ilan Bouchard

Swearing has existed since our earliest conceptions of language. People curse for a variety of reasons: when they get angry in order to release tension, when they're around friends in order to indicate they feel comfortable to do things nearly considered taboo in society (similar to undressing in front of a close friend, though cursing is more subtle), to insult someone, and simply as an unconscious reaction to something surprising or unbelievable.

If cursing is used for one of those reasons in writing, all the better. If it's used to "spice" up the story, then I have to wonder how exactly a few select words are supposed to turn a loser into a winner.

__________________
Ruthless comments encouraged!

Soccah

Oh, come on. At what point, in this artistic process, can you seperate the "blue word" from "the word." It's a purely subjective assumption that the "ordinary" word is natural to spheres of artistic discourse, yet, the blue word becomes an unnatural representation...as you put it, staining the wood. All words, are simply that, words. If one stains, they all stain.

The distinction between blue words, and any other, are direct results of social construction. The way in which we accept this differentiation between "types" of words, becomes, then, a process of buying into the dominant ideology of the intellectual class (I use this term lightly, meaning those who've created the meanings of assumptions encircling those words deemed "unworthy" or "unnatural"); the hegemonic control of a ruling discursive ideology that defines our concepts of the denotative, and influences our meanings of connotative assumption.

Our modern day society, in terms of industrialised nations, has accepted the freer use of such "blue" words, not because of a societal construction of "vulgarity," but rather, an exploratory understanding and deconstruction of socially imposed meanings. The capitalised nations have experienced a more "modern", or post-modern understanding of discursive functions. We don't use those words as artistic staining. They've become integrated into the very functions of artistic expression; a transformation from the staining of wood to the actual wood itself.

In essence, all words, in and of themsevles, are words. No word stains anymore than another, no one word belongs to the semiotic gloob (if you'll permit me that much) anymore than some words are considered material and others dressing.

So, uhm, yeah. That pretty much sums my view on it, I could be totally wrong in interpreting what mammamaie meant by "blue words," so if I did, ignore me (or at least ignore the first paragraph, the rest still has relevance to the discussion).

Damn, I got a little carried away when I should have been studying for my midterm, fuck me. (As cheesy as that sounds, that wasn't intentional, you'll have to take my word on it.)