Jimmy
posted by trawlerman at 6:42 PM
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." -G. K. Chesterton
When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning. âReiner Knizia
20 Comments:
I don't get it? Why can't something be 'comical' and clean at the same time?
That's my biggest problem with comics. Therefore, I'm wondering how this appeared on your blog, ie can you defend this crudity?
Matt,
I think that you might be getting stuck on a certain (false) notion of what comics are.
The very term 'comic' is a misnomer, and the name itself has always been the subject of much dispute in the industry.
Nevertheless, most everyone (in the U.S.) settles on the not-very-accurate term 'comics' even if they don't like it.
Here is Scott McCloud's definition of comics:
-
com∙ics (kom’iks)n. plural in form, used with a singular verb. 1. Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer (p. 9).
-
I think that this is a very adequate definition.
Note that there is nothing at all in the definition about comics being funny. It is quite simply a fact that most aren't. In other countries, the name for comics is quite different. The french term is "bande desinee" which, translated, means "drawn strip."
It's similar to the problem that Western Christians have with Easter. Easter is not a great name for a day set aside to celebrate the resurrection. Pascha is much better, but we in the West have settled for Easter. I, for one, would like to see the name changed, but I understand that when someone says "Easter" they probably are speaking of the day Christians celebrate the resurrection and not a day set aside to pay tribute to a fertility goddess.
Something can certainly be comical and clean at the same time. In fact, I despise most “filthy” humor. If you scroll down and read my April 5th post about Orson Scott Card, you should understand that that is my position.
You write, “That's my biggest problem with comics.”
From what I’ve written above, it should be obvious that I think that you seriously misunderstand what comics are. A while back you wrote about seeing the movie “Collateral.” I like the movie and I’m not knocking it here, but I’m kind of curious why you would be okay with real, live people using the word “fuck” or such as part of a story, and not okay with that word as part of a story if it’s encapsulated in a word balloon.
You write, “Therefore, I'm wondering how this appeared on your blog, ie can you defend this crudity?”
I don’t feel like I have to, because I don’t think that it’s crude. I think that part of your problem is that you were expecting this to be funny, or somehow think that it is supposed to be. Well, if you laugh at this particular strip, then there’s something wrong with you. It’s actually a very sad strip about a lonely old man who gets cold in the grocery store. There’s no punch line. You shouldn’t laugh.
The short story found in the four panels in my post, I think, is an excellent expression of human frailty and human cruelty. It is a very human story, and a very well-done one at that, conveyed in the small space of a few panels. (but, of course, this short story is a part of the much larger story of Jimmy Corrigan, and, like most things, probably suffers some because I’ve extracted it from its context.)
Finally, the last three posts, of a Krazy daily, a Jimmy Corrigan short, and another Krazy daily, were meant to illustrate what I had written in a post just prior to these comics going up. If you had kept that post in mind, you may not have been so misled by this Jimmy Corrigan posting.
Here are my previous words:
“Last night I began reading Jimmy Corrigan …
It is a dark story. I had to stop reading and open up a Krazy Kat collection instead. I'll read a dozen or so pages each night, though, I think, interspersed with some Krazy.”
I specifically write that Jimmy Corrigan is a “dark story” and that I felt the need to lighten things up with some Krazy Kat.
Fondly,
An unrepentant comics fan.
I was going to post a good section of Ezekiel's writing to defend the comic strip that you posted, but decide your explanation works well enough. Besides, to make his point Ezekiel gets so obscene that you may not want me to post them to your blog. Even if they are Bible verses.
Besides, if Mat watched Collateral, I am not sure I want to be associated with him. What kind of Christian would watch a movie like "Collateral"?
Tsk, tsk, tsk….
Maybe I will have to see if I can find Jimmy Corrigan now that John has started to corrupt my morals.
Not that I had many to begin with.
Never like Krazy Kat though. Shows what a bad, bad, person I am does it not?
John:
My problem isn’t with the working definition of comics. I understand that comics don’t necessarily need to be light and bubbly, or that one needs tolaugh. However, one needn't wince either. Rather, our descrepency lies in the definition of 'censor'.
you wrote: “It’s actually a very sad strip about a lonely old man who gets cold in the grocery store. There’s no punch line. You shouldn’t laugh.”
Don’t worry, I didn’t.
How does swearing further explain (or glorify) the poor circulation of our lonely old-timer?
John and Teman:
Also, I believe you’re confusing tolerance and acceptance. For example, you surmise because I listen to swearing, movies or otherwise, that I accept/allow/endorse that sort of useless jabber. So then, because I watch other parents allow their kids to do unruly things, does that mean I’m in agreement??? We all do the best we can. I’m not looking to be a prig.
One more thought, for whom is this comic appropriate? I know everything has it’s place, but some things just don’t belong.
Your Victorian Brother,
Matt,
I'm just curious... are you opposed to the use of all "swearing" in any medium?
You write: "How does swearing further explain (or glorify) the poor circulation of our lonely old-timer?"
Here is the text that I assume that you object to:
Man sitting down: "Fuckin coat and hat! Lookit that shit!"
Now let me change the text to satisfy your censorship...
Man sitting down: "Silly coat and hat! Lookit that poo-poo!"
Are my substituted words as effective in portraying the depravity of man as are the words that are chosen by Chris Ware in this strip? Do my words as easily convey the sheer wickedness of the flippant verbal barrage that our hero is faced with?
Perhaps you're altogether unwilling to have sin depicted in artwork. Go back to your Thomas Kincaide.
(By the way, I don't even think that it's inappropriate for Christians to use the two words that you seemingly object to, given certain parameters. I once spent a good 40 minutes discussing several variations of the 'f'-word in a psych class to the mutual benefit of all)
"Also, I believe you’re confusing tolerance and acceptance."
Matt, I believe that you're the one that's being schizophrenic here.
There is a large difference between renting/borrowing a movie that contains "swearing" and unwillingly being subjected to hearing it on the street.
I'm assuming that you watched all of Collateral (just the only movie that I know you've seen, I'm sure that there are plenty others that qualify). You had to accept/allow the swearing to a certain extent just to keep watching it. You could have turned the film off after the first "damn." But you didn't. You accepted it. You allowed it. Thus, my opening question. I don't really understand where you're coming from.
I don't endorse the cruel language of the man on the street in the Jimmy Corrigan comic, but I have no problem with Chris Ware's (the artist) putting those words into a character's mouth.
Chris Ware is acting as a sub-creator under God. God creates men and women who swear. Shall we fault God? Chris Ware creates men and women that swear. He does not present this as a good thing, especially in the small snippet that I posted here on my blog. He presents it as a disgusting thing. I have a difficult time understanding how you find fault in this.
"for whom is this comic appropriate?"
Well, probably for Newmans, just for starters.
Alright, that's enough. You got a response out of me even though I really just want to go to bed.
Teman,
Bring on the Ezekiel.
abigail said...
Not beat a dead horse...but, oh, why not.
In your original comment, Matt, you wrote, "I don't get it? Why can't something be 'comical' and clean at the same time?
That's my biggest problem with comics."
I think that last sentence is one of the reasons why John felt the need to define the term comics, and no one has yet addressed it. Because of one example of "crudity" in a single comic, you state, "This is my biggest problem with comics [as a whole]." Comics are a medium filled with various types of story and varying levels of man's fallenness like any other medium is. Yes, some are so filthy I wouldn't advise anyone to touch them with a ten-foot pole, and yet, there are books, films, magazines, etc., that I would similarly advise against. I would not, however, state because of single examples that, "That's my biggest problem with films (or books or magazines)."
As with anything else, we must exercise discernment, seeking to fill ourselves with edifying story. I freely admit that not all that I've taken in so far in life has edified me, but I say with conviction that I can readily think of a few stories (in book or film) containing swearing or rightful portrayals of sin that have edified me. I can also think of some squeaky-clean stories that have not.
The presence of sin in a story is not always gratuitous or harmful. When the teller presents sin or its end result as it is in reality--as ugliness, wretchedness, and misery--that teller can powerfully illustrate man's need for God in a way that "Pollyanna" never will. (Which is something John already stated and something of which you probably are already aware.)
That having been said, I do feel that there are certain sins that Christians should not watch on film or read in books. And, of course, I also feel that we need to guard our children from certain expression of sin in story. I don't want Millie to read Jimmy Corrigan (if she ever does) until she's old enough to read it and grieve over man willfully sundering himself from His Creator.
Now that we know neither one of us will bend, I mostly understand your viewpoint.
I still think you're confusing tolerance and acceptance though.
Your tactic of false choices is clearly evident with:
"Perhaps you're altogether unwilling to have sin depicted in artwork. Go back to your Thomas Kincaide"
You know that T.Kincaide is sentimental tom-follery as well as I do. Attacking me doesn't make your arguement look better. My point isn't that we shouldn't sidestep "in portraying the depravity of man", but rather recognize there are limits. Does one need to literally wallow in mud to fully (or satisfactorily) understand what mud-wallowing is??
Speaking of tom-follery, what's this:
"Chris Ware is acting as a sub-creator under God. God creates men and women who swear. Shall we fault God?"
Your middle premise is severly faulted. It should read: "God creates men and women. These men and women of their own volition swear." There's a large difference, not that you intended that (I think).
We're essentially in agreement with, as Abby wrote;
"The presence of sin in a story is not always gratuitous or harmful. When the teller presents sin or its end result as it is in reality--as ugliness, wretchedness, and misery--that teller can powerfully illustrate man's need for God in a way that "Pollyanna" never will. "
It's only a matter of limits and realizing it's not a 'either, or' arguement.
Matt--
First, when I use all caps., it's not because my fingers are shouting. I just don't know how to italicize or underline or boldify my words in comments sections.
I don't think I'm understanding things that well (which isn't surprising, as I can't understand myself most of the time...).
"It's only a matter of limits and realizing it's not a 'either, or' arguement." This makes me think that you believe swearing or other portrayals of sin in stories are sometimes acceptable (or can be tolerated, if you prefer), as long as they are not gratuitous or glorified but instead show sin's true face.
What exactly is it, then, about the swearing in this strip that you object to? What limits were crossed?
Its context is missing, so you can't know exactly how the book treats the topics of human cruelty and despair, but the sin this strip shows wears its true face. It illustrates the "flippant cruelty" of man in a way that lesser words would not.
In one of your posts, you agreed that this is not a funny comic. Because you object to it, though, you must think the swearing is gratuitous or glorified or exceeded a "limit." If this is the case, I'm curious to know the specifics of your objection. Or, are you, as John asked, opposed to swearing in any story at any time? If this is the case (even though you implied that it is not), then I am not at all confused. Your position would be consistent, and I have no problem with you holding it. My interpretation of what you've written thus far, though, is that you're not against swearing in some stories, but you are in others. How is this particular swearing, then, a wrong use? (I ask not belligerently, but because I really don't understand your position.)
Also, not to skip off on a tangent, could you clarify your definition of tolerance and acceptance? If I'm understanding your definition, one tolerates what one has no choice about or no ability to change (e.g. other parents' bad parenting), and one's acceptance of something equals condonement. However, you also wrote, "You surmise because I listen to swearing, movies or otherwise, that I accept/allow/endorse that sort of useless jabber." How is watching or reading this "useless jabber" NOT an acceptance or allowance of it? It doesn't have to also be an endorsement, of course, but you ARE making a choice to allow it and to accept its presence when you could choose otherwise.
I can tolerate verbal sin while hearing it in passing on the street (whether it involves swearing or not) without accepting it, but how can you rent or watch a movie without in some way ACCEPTING it? I think that when one chooses to watch or read something, one, in a sense, accepts it, even if one disagrees with it. Are you using "accept" and "agree with" interchangably? Webster's first two definitions for accept are 1. to receive, esp. willingly [e.g. watching a film] 2. to approve. I think my understanding would improve if I knew which definition you were using.
Blah. I can't even ask questions without blathering too much....
p.s. I completely agree that it's not an either/or argument, but I would understand your objections better if you were an either/or fellow. :)
I guess your objections would just make more sense if you were against swearing in any form, as this swearing is not portrayed flatteringly...
Matt,
"Attacking me doesn't make your arguement look better."
I'm sorry if you mistook this as a personal attack instead of a light (friendly) jab at the rumor that I heard that your attempt to create a movie collection for your family consists of "sound of music" type fare. (My light-heartedness surely would have been more apparent if we were together in person, preferably over a pint of ale).
I'm sorry if my jab distracted you from the content of my comment, so much so that you couldn't even answer the question that I ask of you.
-'I'm just curious... are you opposed to the use of all "swearing" in any medium?'
Perhaps my jab did make it seem like I was offering a stark either/or. So...
No. I don't think that something has to be either blunt representation of sin or light, fluffy foo-foo fodder. I don't think I offered any "false choices." I was just making fun of you for watching things like Sound of Music (which, in my opinion, isn't much better than Kincaide- I know I'll take abuse from my wife for this statement), not making a hard and fast distinction.
I recognize that there are limits in depicting depravity. I've told you in the past that I do not believe that sexual sin can ever be represented on film without actual sin taking place. I have limits (I would call them biblical, though I don't have prooftexts on hand at the moment), and this strip doesn't cross those limits. Not even nearly so.
You write: "Your middle premise is severly faulted. It should read: "God creates men and women. These men and women of their own volition swear." There's a large difference, not that you intended that (I think)"
I'll accept your correction for the most part (not entirely..).
I don't think that it affects my argument. Chris Ware is made in the image of God. As such, he creates. (As do you, with your woodworking and such) Chris Ware creates fictional men and women. These men and women of their own volition swear. If Chris Ware wants to tell a story about depraved urban youth at the end of the 20th century that abuse an old man, he would be being false to the subject and to his own creation, his characters, if he put any other words in their mouth than the ones that he did. I'm not going to get into the creative process right now, but you should really read Dorothy Sayers' The Mind of the Maker. It's really a matter of holding in tension God's sovereign responsibility and man's personal responsibility, something which I think that the Reformed do particularly well.
I'm really not sure why you object so strongly to these specific words. If this story was about a man that gets his wallet stolen from him, would you be as upset about the fictional representation of the sin of theft? Is theft somehow less offensive to witness than someone "swearing" at an old man. Yet I'm convinced that if theft was all that was depicted, you would not have responded as you had.
Theft is absolutely prohibited by God's Law. Use of the words "shit" and "fuck" is not, (though these words are more volatile and, thus, more apt to be used in sinful situations such as violent verbal abuse, and thus be sinful).
Finally, Abigail has made some good comments as well that I'd like to see you answer. (and I should point out that she's a veritable prude next to the likes of me, and I scandalize her moment by moment)
-john.
...still waitinng on Teman's Ezekiel defense... I have to confess that I'm not very well acquainted with Ezekiel, even though I know I should be. I'd love to find that he's every bit as coarse as I am... though I'm rather frightened that the truth is much more likely that his words will pierce me and expose my own faults... faithful are the wounds of a friend.. perhaps I'll open up Ezekiel tonight.
All right, all right. I will explain myself better. I must confess that I was under the illusion that point was obvious. But that is a trap that I often fall into. I once wrote a long essay to my very educated uncle entitled "Two Modest Proposals." My uncle thought that I seriously meant every word in those essays. Upon further correspondence, it turns out that he never heard of Jonathan Swift. If I can not even communicate with my own uncle what hope do I have with talking with other people? Oh well… I will try to spell out my point in greater detail.
As soon as I saw that comic you posted, I knew that somebody was going to challenge you over it. And I was waiting with baited breath, because it is a debate that I have had to struggle with many times in my life. I was kind of disappointed that Mat responded the way that he has. For it seems to me that the real issue has been sidestep by the question of why Mat has a problem with your comic when he does not have problem watching certain movies. That is something I find mildly puzzling myself, which is why I made the cheap shot that I did. But not every body is so hard to figure out as Mat.
But I know people who as soon as they saw that comic strip, they would never read your blog again. Not that they would stop talking to you. And they probably would still regard you as a brother and treat you just the same as before. I don't want to make them seem judgmental. They are nice people if I can use that trite phrase.
Anyway, as I was saying these people would never read your blog again. They don't tolerate profanity in any form. They don't watch any movies to speak of. Maybe religious one now and again, (though I am not sure they have a TV). By and large, the only books they read were written in the late 1800's. The only exceptions are some modern religious commentaries.
As a matter of faith, they would believe that they could not read your blog and not be committing a sin when they did so. They would quote Paul to you, " 8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you."
Except that I am quoting from the NIV and I think that there Bible has it little differently. At any rate, as they understand it something must meet all those tests to be worth thinking about. In other words it must be admirable, lovely, pure, right, noble, and true in order to be worth thinking about. In their eyes, your comic strip would fail a couple of those tests just by having profanity in your comic strip. Of course, they would not approve of Mat's movies either, but that is another story.
But I think that these people do not have a proper understanding of what Paul was getting at. By there understanding of what Paul is saying, you would not want to read the Old Testament. There is a number of ways I could demonstrate this, but I think that quoting Ezekiel is the best way of demonstrating that. So cover your eyes, you faint of heart….
"But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans [a] portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea. [b] 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
The whole prophecy is like that. The above quote was taken from Ezekiel 23 in the NIV by the way. I remember how shocked I was a little boy to read 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled for the first time. That is some strong language to use. Can you image what people would say if I used language like that to complain about the alliance between Republicans and evangelical Christians?
When you understand that that Ezekiel was talking to a people who still had hope that Israel would win the coming fight and that they would all get to go home you can understand a little better why the prophets where so often stoned.
People who think that any portrayal of profanity in a book makes it unfit for a Christian to read are not likely to tolerate langue like Ezekiel used in there books either, even if they agreed with the point that the author was making. But they would really not tolerate that type of language if the author was making a point that they did not agree with.
So I would say to those people who do not tolerate any thing the least bit risqué in the books they read; how does Ezekiel rate on the admirable, lovely, pure, right, noble, and true scale? Did God make an exception just for Ezekiel? Although there are many other books in the Bible that get pretty wild, so he would have to make an exception for a lot of people. Or do Ezekiel's methods tell us something about how we should understand "admirable, lovely, pure, right, noble, and true."
I will finishes my thought latter, I have to go eat.
Interestingly enough, Abigail coincidentally found a similar comment thread this afternoon, even including the very same Ezekiel quote.
Jenna's Story
P.S.
I recognized that passage in Ezekiel as soon as I saw it, but I had not thought about it in quite a while. Thanks for the reminder.
Once again, I'm outstanding in my field.
Christian Blog Brothers, join with me in this fight (losing at best) and we will ride the world of malas palabras!!
Any takers?? I trow not.
John,
I know this whole dialogue is 'hit for hit'. And yes, you're right we should be having this over a pint or two. Sorry I avoided the real question of your last post.
-'I'm just curious... are you opposed to the use of all "swearing" in any medium?'
Good question, really. Let me back up. I'd probably be clearer in my argument if (a) I actually cared anything about computing at home. I get enough computer quota time at work. (b)More to the point, the comic struck a cord with me. At best unnecessary word use, at worse (as Teman refered; and btw, it's maTT) repulsive to the extent of blog-excommunication.
Do I have a consistent argument? Under close tweezer scrutiny, no. But like I said we all do the best we can.
Having said that, back to this movie thing (which seems to be a recurring dream). I enjoy an good movie. Hollyweird has foreordained that good movies and foul language are mutually binding. I believe that I'm a mature christian enough to, I'll say it, tolerate such superfulous fluff. I have a desire to watch movies that aren't 'G' rated. Matter of fact, most 'G' rated movies are chock full of innuendos that are worse than 'R' movies. You must admit though, to watch/listen to swearing on a movie that one rented vs posting such language on a blog for all the world to see are two different things.
So my answer is this. I personally find (no sense in throwing the word biblical exposition in becuase we can both make points) swearing offensive and unnecessary. With millions of words why revert to hackneyed babbling? So again, one can portray the depravity of man without such language.
You make a good point with theft in print; one that I knew was coming based on our previous conversations.
However, if an 'artist' wanted to make a film about love between a huBsand and a wife including all it's splendor, what should be left out/in? He wants to show their true love for each other, right?
In case you forgot, I still maintain tolerance and acceptance are two different things.
Abby,
See above. I think that 'accept' and 'agree with' are virtually synomnous. Tolerate is 'actively putting up with something out of your immediate control'.
Teman,
Here's a ringer for ya. Ezekiel is probably my favorite OT book. Eating dung is cool. The holy writ is for our admonition and instruction, not for complete repetition; ex becuase there's fornication in the bible, doesn't give us license to go forth and do likewise. So this inclusion of Ezekiel muddies the water and distracts from the real issue. (What are you doing reading the NewlyInvetedVersion)
All y'all,
I still haven't got a def of 'censor'. If one exists.
John,
The link that you posted was a good post. Many of the response that the guy you linked to received were ones that I intended to address in my second act as it were. Seeing real live people actually respond to something like that helped sharpen my thoughts.
Before I go on though, I would like to point out that Hebrew words are almost always more earthy (i.e obscene in some people's book) in there literal meaning than the translators chose to portray. I think that statement is truer of the King James than it is of NIV. For those who want to argue with me on this, acquire for your self some good word study resources and see for yourself. I freely admit that I am no expert on the Hebrew language. My only source for that statement is what I have gathered from various commentaries and word study resources over the years. It probably is not really profitable for me to bring that all up but some post on Jenna's Story argued the opposite point, so I had to get my two cents in.
With that out of the way, let me try to get this overly long post wrapped up.
Mentioning Ezekiel was only my round about way of raising some issues that are all interconnected.
The first issue: Why does Matt and many of the people commenting on Jenna's Story make it the artist responsibility to defend their use of language? Why don't they feel that the obligation is on them to show how the language is harmful? Or more narrowly, how the language is harmful to the artist's intent?
Most people seem to think that all that have to do is say that a word is obscene and puts an obligation on the artist to defend its use. My feelings on that can be cleaned from how I phrased the question. A proper study of this question would take us to the Bible of course, but I don't want to out stay my welcome. At any rate, this issue leads us naturally to our second issue.
The Second Issue: What makes a word or a work composed of words obscene?
Unless I forgot to read something, there is no list of words in the Bible that are forbidden. Is the word "poop" obscene? Is the word "crap" obscene? Is the word "shit" obscene? I know of people who think all of those words are obscene (okay, so the ones who think that poop is obscene are dead.)
Now contrary to what you might think, I do think that some words should not be used. But I don't think that it has anything to with the words meaning. After all, for all words that you can name that are considered obscene, I can name you an alterative that is not obscene (the expectation being taking God's name in vain perhaps, although people try to come up with inoffensive variations on that as well).
By my understanding, a word becoming obscene has more to do with the sprit with which it is uttered than with anything intrinsic to the word. Not that means that I think that we get a free pass to say what ever we want. Even if your heart is full of love you would not say that you hate someone, for that would not communicate the right thing. Similarly, you would not use words that are considered obscene if that is not the sprit you wanted to communicate.
However, if you wanted to write a book where a character is hate filled you would put the word hate in his mouth. And if you wanted to demonstrate that he had profane sprit, you would put profanity in his mouth.
I was going to develop my ideas more, but it is past time for me to go to bed. Plus, I have just seen Matt latest post.
WAHOO! I know how to italicize!
Alright, given your definition of tolerance, I'd argue that you're not tolerating the language in movies you watch because it is most definitely not out of your immediate control (and due to the glorious invention of the remote, you can exercise control even quicker). :) I know you don't agree with this swearing, but you are actively choosing to take it in, and that's much different than the tolerating of language one must do on a speeding, crowded subway car.
"The holy writ is for our admonition and instruction, not for complete repetition; ex becuase there's fornication in the bible, doesn't give us license to go forth and do likewise. So this inclusion of Ezekiel muddies the water and distracts from the real issue"
I don't think that it does distract from the real issue. Fornication in the Bible is always portrayed as sin. Ezekiel's use of language is not portrayed as sin. The two should not be set parallel to one another in a sentence. I agree that we shouldn't do everything that we read in the Bible, but Ezekiel had a reason for using such strong language. It drove his point home more successfully than lesser language would have (I admit I think it's pretty disgusting, but it's meant to be, and that disgust doesn't cause me to overlook the fact that it served a distinct purpose. It was not "superfluous fluff" in spite of its equivalent meanings to words you identify as such.) Was Ezekiel given a special privilege--an exception to the rule--to rightly use such language or was he wrong in doing so? Couldn't he have portrayed "the depravity of man without such language", as per your argument against the comic?
That having been said, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I think I may understand your position now. You think that it's permissable to ingest crude language by watching a movie (as long as it's a good one), but it's not acceptable to ingest it in print. You would argue that the medium is not the stone in your craw, but, if it is not, then I don't know what is.
You wrote, "You must admit though, to watch/listen to swearing on a movie that one rented vs. posting such language on a blog for all the world to see are two different things."
I do agree that they are two different things. One is public crudity expressed in the medium of a comic, the other is private crudity expressed in the medium of film. If it is the language itself, though, not the way one uses it, that you believe to be wrong, then its location merely categorizes the wrong as a public one or a private one; they're both wrong.
I am a prudish, prudy prude. And that's not a typo of Purdy, Teman! :)
I guess I just don't understand people who react so strongly to the use of language but not to other portrayals of sin. (And I'm not picking on you here, Matt; I'm thinking of those on the thread John linked to who objected to the foul language used to abuse the girl--which demonstrates realistic depravity and one facet of her abuse--but stated no qualms with the physical violence--which also demonstrate realistic depravity and the one facet of her abuse). The same, film-watching people who find swearing offensive in all of its forms often don't react as strongly or even at all to portrayals of murder, verbal viciousness sans swearing, or emotional adultery sans physical adultery. If it the occurrence of wrong alone and not its intent or context, what makes the use of swear words more offensive and worth speaking out against than these gross sins?
"One can portray the depravity of man without such language." One can portray the taking of life without showing the moment when the knife plunges in, the bullet enters the flesh, the face turns purple, the blood flees the body. I don't think that this is always gratuitous, but what makes harsh language superfluous that doesn't make these portrayals also superfluous? Collateral (a movie I name only because it's one of the few movies other than Sound of Music that I know for certain you've seen--any movie with violence graphically portrayed will do) could have portrayed the ruthlessness of its protagonist and lost life without displaying it all so nakedly onscreen.
Films dealing with human need and failing often portray sins of all sorts. If this language is wrong and murder is wrong, what makes you tolerate one without even making mention of the other?
I write all this in a spirit of friendly debate over a glass--small, mind you-- of Framboise. (I think I asked the same question three times, which shows that my mind is not well-trained.) I trust that if you and Rebecca were already finished with Corynn's classical education, even she would sniff in disdain at my lack of clarity. :) Sigh. I hope all meaning isn't lost in the fog of too many words.
So, this morning, I figure "Let's check the referrer logs!"
"Hmm. What's this? Someone linked to my blog from a comments section. I wonder what blog that is?"
And so I click through and find myself here, where I find my story fragment being debated.
I don't even know any of you. :-)
The Internet is a weird place.
FYI, I finished the conversation with Aaron face-to-face (an advantage of knowing the person to whom you are speaking online), and, even though we still do not agree, I believe that we are at peace. I say this to encourage all of you as you continue this discussion.
P.S. I just posted a couple more Jenna fragments, if any of you are interested. The language remains intact, for those who are concerned.
forgot to write in the last post about theft in drama. It’s not a violation of any law because nothing was stolen. Just like watching murder on TV isn’t a violation of the 6th commandment. So then, could someone violate the 3rd commandment while acting? True he/she may just be reading a script and saying words, but does that matter?
Secondly, my past is showing through. I was raised to view using profanity as lacking self-control and clarity.
I agree with Teman's post above except:
"Most people seem to think that all that have to do is say that a word is obscene and puts an obligation on the artist to defend its use."
Well sure, the artist must defend everything he/she does. There must be a purpose behind or explaination of their art, whether it be paint, cinderblock, or words. The burden of proof is on them, it makes no sense to place it elsewhere.
I'm tired of bandying back and forth, if you can believe it. Here’s a post of mostly general, rambling thoughts, and this may be the end of my word deluge! (I hear those cheers…) Besides, the question I asked three times in my last comment remains unanswered, so this might be the place of impasse. :)
To answer your last question, Matt, I think actors can and do break the third commandment. (But the ugly words spurring this discussion don't apply...) You're right that some sins can be portrayed without actual sin taking place, and I agree with John that some actions onscreen, like sexual sin, always involve actual sin.
I also agree that swearing usually does show a lack of control and clarity, but that's not what makes it wrong (which I think you also believe, because you agree with Teman’s last post). If the characters in this comic strip expressed themselves without swearing but with just as much cruelty, would it have been offensive or simply a sad story? The language itself is the sin or rather the undergirding violence, hatred, and disregard for one's neighbor? How could this flippant cruelty be expressed more succinctly than it was?
What does a thorough examination of gut reactions against swearing reveal? What prompts this reaction? Scripture? The ugliness of the words? Cultural connotations? Parental rearing?
I don't like coarse language, and my parents raised me in an environment devoid of it. My parents raised us pretty nicely untouched by "leaven" in books and film, and I didn't even go to a movie theater until I was 18. (It was one of the most banal movies I've ever suffered through, too.) I do believe, though, that a story on book or film can use this language rightly, as everybody knows from my previous comments.
And as Teman wrote in his posts, it's not a simple matter of only reading or watching that which is solely noble, pure, right, lovely, etc., for if it was, parts of scripture would fail the test, as would any novel or film which includes, even rightly portrayed, any expression of the unlovely, impure wickedness of man and his need for God.
Oops, girls are awake!
p.s. Welcome, Seth! I'm usurping John's rightful role as first greeter, but he's at work, and I don't want it to appear as if I just ignored you. :)
and my most important and solidly irrefutable defense is...[insert static noises here]....[insert the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher here]....
This conversation has moved to Matt's blog...
*&#@$ (why even bother)
Post a Comment
<< Home