adult content
- Thread starter alsih2o
- Start date
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I think your comment is exactly what I was trying to get at... I have no problem with material that is ABOUT "adult content" - I run into difficulty with things that are in and of themselves ("CONTAIN") adult content.Morrus said:
Let's face it, a lot of what we see presented in D&D is about adult content - half-orcs, anyone? Evil. Slaughter. Death. Demons. Torture. All of these are adult THEMES. But usually, they are presented in a tasteful and proper manner. It's when you start presenting things in an "mature" manner (which is a peculiar euphemism, since usually "mature" means "immature") that you run into trouble (at least with me).
--The Sigil
Mouseferatu
Hero
Sorry for the hijack here. I'll be brief.
Does that apply to fiction as well? Sometimes you have a character who's simply an ugly, foul-mouthed sort of person. In my own fiction, I've found that it's both easier and leads to better and more realistic dialogue if you just go ahead and include the four-letter words, rather than interrupting the flow of dialogue to say "So-and-so cursed foully" every couple of paragraphs.
People do curse, after all, and I'm a big believer in realistic dialogue. Just curious where you stand on that.
Does that apply to fiction as well? Sometimes you have a character who's simply an ugly, foul-mouthed sort of person. In my own fiction, I've found that it's both easier and leads to better and more realistic dialogue if you just go ahead and include the four-letter words, rather than interrupting the flow of dialogue to say "So-and-so cursed foully" every couple of paragraphs.
People do curse, after all, and I'm a big believer in realistic dialogue. Just curious where you stand on that.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
I once ran a campaign centered arounf the Church (with PCs as Agents of the Church and Inquisition) their were a few 'mature' themes here
1. A Marquis De Sade type figure (and cult leader) who was kidnapping maidens from the surrounding villages then raping and killing them (as per De Sade *from whom the word Sadism comes for those who don't know)
2. A Brother in the Church hostel who was molesting the young Neophytes and thus allowing Demons to enter pass the hostels walls (his evil actions within the sanctuary were causing a breach)
3. the incident from the life of St Tomas Aquinas when his brothers kidnapped him and sent a whore in to try and seduce him
1. A Marquis De Sade type figure (and cult leader) who was kidnapping maidens from the surrounding villages then raping and killing them (as per De Sade *from whom the word Sadism comes for those who don't know)
2. A Brother in the Church hostel who was molesting the young Neophytes and thus allowing Demons to enter pass the hostels walls (his evil actions within the sanctuary were causing a breach)
3. the incident from the life of St Tomas Aquinas when his brothers kidnapped him and sent a whore in to try and seduce him
Desdichado
Hero
And for me, ditto the Sigil.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Good question...
I guess I am a great believer in the adage, "profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly." IMO that doesn't always have to refer to the character - some authors have a tough time expressing themselves forcibly without such crude language as well.
I will give you two examples of my opinion "proper use" of such dialogue from movies...
1.) Amadeus - There is a scene in which Mozart is vulgar, telling dirty jokes, double entendre, innuendo, and so forth. The narrative comment is something to the effect of "he was a dirty little man" and then the scene follows. While the narrator complains later on in the film several times about how puerile Mozart is, we never have to see him cursing again - that single scene had the effect needed because it is in stark contrast to everything "genius" about his music.
2.) Star Trek IV(?) - Whichever one it is where the crew goes back to the 80's to "Save the Whales" and Kirk starts swearing left and right at the locals. Spock asks him about the sudden introduction of "colorful metaphors" into his language. Kirk replies, "this is the 80's - nobody can understand you here if you don't use them every other word." Spock nods. The next time he speaks, he literally uses "colorful metaphors" every other word. Kirk tells him to leave off the colorful metaphors and the rest of the movie proceeds more or less metaphor-free. The little jab at contemporary society is (in my mind) effective - again because just enough is done to make the point.
Bottom line - if done once or twice for contrast or to make a point, I can usually accept it. If done constantly, it makes me wonder if the author is the one suffering from an inability to express himself forcibly and (to me, at least), takes much away from the reading of a work of fiction. Piers Anthony had some great ideas, but the constant cursing wore on me and I can't read his stuff any more. Isaac Asimov, just as imaginative in his own way, more or less refrains from this - and I can read his stuff because I'm not turned off by it. Even if done just once or twice as a "normal part of the language use of the author" (i.e., not for contrast or to make a point) it turns me off as "the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly." In other words, it's not necessarily the words and you are using so much as how - and more importantly, why - you are using them.
This may be applicable to a huge market of exactly one person (myself), but there you have it.
I'm not afraid to stand up and tell you how I feel - though by no means will I tell you that you have to feel the same way! 
--The Sigil
Fair enough, I suppose. I personally do not care for fiction where I have to read the character cursing every couple of paragraphs. Yes, it is somewhat boring to read "so-and-so cursed foully" again and again, but it also loses its impact to see "bleep bleep bleep" every couple of paragraphs as well.mouseferatu said:
I guess I am a great believer in the adage, "profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly." IMO that doesn't always have to refer to the character - some authors have a tough time expressing themselves forcibly without such crude language as well.
I will give you two examples of my opinion "proper use" of such dialogue from movies...
1.) Amadeus - There is a scene in which Mozart is vulgar, telling dirty jokes, double entendre, innuendo, and so forth. The narrative comment is something to the effect of "he was a dirty little man" and then the scene follows. While the narrator complains later on in the film several times about how puerile Mozart is, we never have to see him cursing again - that single scene had the effect needed because it is in stark contrast to everything "genius" about his music.
2.) Star Trek IV(?) - Whichever one it is where the crew goes back to the 80's to "Save the Whales" and Kirk starts swearing left and right at the locals. Spock asks him about the sudden introduction of "colorful metaphors" into his language. Kirk replies, "this is the 80's - nobody can understand you here if you don't use them every other word." Spock nods. The next time he speaks, he literally uses "colorful metaphors" every other word. Kirk tells him to leave off the colorful metaphors and the rest of the movie proceeds more or less metaphor-free. The little jab at contemporary society is (in my mind) effective - again because just enough is done to make the point.
Bottom line - if done once or twice for contrast or to make a point, I can usually accept it. If done constantly, it makes me wonder if the author is the one suffering from an inability to express himself forcibly and (to me, at least), takes much away from the reading of a work of fiction. Piers Anthony had some great ideas, but the constant cursing wore on me and I can't read his stuff any more. Isaac Asimov, just as imaginative in his own way, more or less refrains from this - and I can read his stuff because I'm not turned off by it. Even if done just once or twice as a "normal part of the language use of the author" (i.e., not for contrast or to make a point) it turns me off as "the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly." In other words, it's not necessarily the words and you are using so much as how - and more importantly, why - you are using them.
This may be applicable to a huge market of exactly one person (myself), but there you have it.
I'm not afraid to stand up and tell you how I feel - though by no means will I tell you that you have to feel the same way! --The Sigil
Last edited:
Zappo
Explorer
Like mouseferatu, I would buy it if it interests me and is good.
But there's a lot of room between a fairy tale and a pornographic novel, don't you think?
This kinda reminds me of the endless threads on the Morrowind boards about nudity not being in the game. A lot of people simply assumed that anyone wanting (or even not objecting to) nudity in Morrowind was a pervert. There's a lot of room between mature and immature...
That's a bit biased. I wouldn't buy FATAL or the book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (though I would and have downloaded them for free to laugh a bit).alsih2o said:
But there's a lot of room between a fairy tale and a pornographic novel, don't you think?
This kinda reminds me of the endless threads on the Morrowind boards about nudity not being in the game. A lot of people simply assumed that anyone wanting (or even not objecting to) nudity in Morrowind was a pervert. There's a lot of room between mature and immature...
alsih2o
First Post
wow! kudos to sigil for intelligent and restrained response...all respect to you my fellow boarder...just one addition to your theory..
sometimes even the most intelligent minds relax into these four letter folksies as a release, i feel i can express myself well without them, but also like seeing the comedians who use them, and laugh like a hyena when they do....look at bill cosby, he is clean and funny(more than most) but sometimes only richard prior-esque humor does it for me
sometimes even the most intelligent minds relax into these four letter folksies as a release, i feel i can express myself well without them, but also like seeing the comedians who use them, and laugh like a hyena when they do....look at bill cosby, he is clean and funny(more than most) but sometimes only richard prior-esque humor does it for me
Similar Threads
