Why Does the Wilbur Theatre Suck? Better Rock Shows in 5 Steps
Photo of the Day, November 24, 2009: Hook, Line, and Sinker
Photo of the Day, November 25, 2009: Boston as seen from the harbor
Cheap Eats: Burtons Grill
Sports Redux: Nobody Puts Bergey In the Corner
OK, this isn't the ordinary Ask Bostonist, where some kindhearted soul makes the flattering mistake of thinking Bostonist might be a useful resource. Instead, a reader e-mailed us privately to object to our periodic use of the "F" word. We responded (pleasantly) to her complaint, and she wrote back. Because we think the question of whether and when to curse is an interesting one (especially for us blogging hacks who aspire to some semblance of legitimacy), we thought we'd share the exchange (with the reader's permission, of course), and ask you, dear readers, what you think about the question:
Is there any particular reason you have to use the "F" word? Are you even aware of the meaning? For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Why is it we can't even read an article without it having a warning label that says, "Offensive and/or stupid verbiage included"?- Dareen Cannizzaro
Bostonist responds:
We're sorry to hear we've offended you. We looked back through all our posts (of which there are now more than 1,200) and found only four uses of the "F" word (aside from occasions when we were quoting someone who actually said it). One of these instances employed the traditional meaning you refer to (to copulate; but note that the Oxford English Dictionary does not attribute the word's primary meaning to an acronym), two used the word as an adverbial amplifier (more or less synonymous with "very"), and one used it followed by "up" in an adjectival phrase meant to connote disorder or destruction.
We know that this word is offensive to some, but it does, for better or worse, add a measure of expressive weight that we couldn't achieve with any synonym. We remember being taught by our grandfather long ago that it was OK to curse every now and then, in the right context, but that if we did it too much, the words would lose all their power. You obviously feel that Bostonist isn't the right context, and maybe we could have avoided the word on all of the occasions when we used it. But we like the richness and variety of the English language, and especially the nuances of spoken English (that's why we sometimes write things like "um"). And this word is part of all that. We think that four posts out of 1,200 (.33 %) is a low enough incidence of profanity to satisfy our grandfather's sensible standard and the sensibilities of most or our readers.
Dareen responds:
I agree with much of what you say, but I sincerely and will always believe that, as the late, great, incredibly intelligent Tony Randall said, if you can't make your point without the use of profanity, leave your hat on so no one will see your best point.I too appreciate the finer points of the English language, which is why I see it as completely unnecessary in any way to use offensive words. Period.
Although we're not promising a bowdlerized Bostonist in the future, we think Dareen has a compelling argument. Naturally, we also think we have a pretty good argument. Dear readers, what do you think?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The ironic thing for me to say would be to comment that she's too fucking sensitive, but I'll let that pass.
The word doesn't bother me; in fact, I'm known to cuss like an Oklahoman truck driver who was just cut off when I really get going. But I can understand her point. That said, it's not like there are a lot of great substitutes. "Freaking" really doesn't cut it - TBS's movie dubs have proven as much.
And as to the point of respectability, this is a blog. Not a novel, not a newspaper, not a press release. A blog. There's a certain amount of lowest-common-denominator that needs to be taken into account. This city swears. The blog reflecting it should be free to do so; whether it chooses to or not is a matter of author's preference.
seriously, this is a blog, not tony randall's house.
I think your argument that, in some cases, there is no other word that would adequately convey the sentiment you wish to express is a valid one.
Respectability aside, a publication should reflect its audience. Should the Bostonist audience suddenly decide that swearing does not serve their interests, then it might make sense for you to reconsider. But until such time, make with the dirty talk.
Lord knows, we do.
I consider myself to be a relatively conservative person (especially compared to my fellow residents here in MA), but even I don't find the use of the "F word" to be offensive. I think that it is usually unnecessary, but not offensive.
"Fuck that shit. Pabst Blue Ribbon!"
I find the idea that words can in and of themselves be offensive, to be offensive. It's the speaker who may or may not be offensive, don't blame the words.
I think she makes a good point about making a good point without swearing. How meta. Nobody ever really *needs* to swear.
However, we're also free to swear, if we want, most of the time. And we're also free to be offended. Telling someone not to be offended is on the same level as them telling you not to swear. Bostonist can swear, Dareen doesn't have to like it (or read it). You can't please all the people all the time.
Do what you want, don't kill anyone while you're doing it, and respect that other people are free to do their own thing.
I "Go Galactica" and use "frack." It's more fun than cursing. I recommend it.
No one can cater to everyone, so don't try. If she or someone else does not like the language [on Bostonist], don't read the site.
It's just that simple.