Bad Language in Discovery

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

Exactly. I cited those examples on purpose, to illustrate just how refreshing Tilly's "fucking cool" was by comparison.

Don't get me wrong. I like Shakespeare and literary allusions as much as the next bibliophile, but Trek was arguably in danger of equating "progress" and "enlightenment" with a certain stuffy, upper-class notion of "culture" and "refinement." (Which is one reason that I like the way the new movies have injected some much-needed rock-n-roll into the proceedings.)

Heck, even Picard liked his hard-boiled crime novels, which were no doubt considered "vulgar" pulp trash in their day. And somehow I doubt that Dixon Hill that was shocked or offended by strong language.

And I must respectfully disagree. Tilly's outburst is marginally excusable by virtue of exuberance of youth. Stamets' parroting made me cringe and served no other purpose than to say "We dropped the f-bomb on Star Trek! FIRST!!!! :lulz:"

Contrary to many opinions here, it is possible to tell a good story without resorting to vulgarity.

 

[Greg Cox]

No one is saying you CAN'T tell a good story without profanity. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has no "fuck" in it; doesn't hurt it one bit. But you can also tell a good story WITH profanity, too. It's just another tool in a writer's toolbox, that's all. It's not a negative to be avoided; it's just an option.

Flashback: I'm suddenly remembering the first time I had this conversation. It was 1972, I was twelve years old, and I'd picked up a horror-movie novelization that had a fair amount of crude language in it. My dad read the book too and took as this as a learning opportunity to have a discussion about the pros and cons of profanity in literature.

As I recall, he wasn't entirely comfortable with the language in the book, but also pointed out that sometimes authors needed to use profanity for the sake of realism, depending on the characters and situation. It was a judgment call and there were no one-size-fits rules.

In short, it was an admirably nuanced approach that surely influenced my own attitude toward such matters. (Thanks, Dad!)

 

[Tim Thomason]

And I must respectfully disagree. Tilly's outburst is marginally excusable by virtue of exuberance of youth. Stamets' parroting made me cringe and served no other purpose than to say "We dropped the f-bomb on Star Trek! FIRST!!!! :lulz:"

Contrary to many opinions here, it is possible to tell a good story without resorting to vulgarity.

Tilly is (at least in this scene) acting as an audience avatar. She's excited about what's going on, and says something that is not the norm for Star Trek, or rather, professional for a Starfleet officer-to-be.

Stamets, her superior and a senior officer, shows her that it's okay to let her emotions run high and get excited in the moment. That you don't have to be stuffy and professional all the time. He's the cool dad, and he shares her exuberance and let's it be known by repeating her unprofessional, "vulgar" phrase.

It's really a sweet scene about two (three, I guess. Burnham's a little stuffy there) characters sharing a nice moment while "discovering" something very exciting and groundbreaking. The use of the phrase is not vulgar in this context, even though you and I, and presumably even Tilly and Stamets, have been taught that it should always be so.

 

[Vger23]

Tilly is (at least in this scene) acting as an audience avatar. She's excited about what's going on, and says something that is not the norm for Star Trek, or rather, professional for a Starfleet officer-to-be.

Stamets, her superior and a senior officer, shows her that it's okay to let her emotions run high and get excited in the moment. That you don't have to be stuffy and professional all the time. He's the cool dad, and he shares her exuberance and let's it be known by repeating her unprofessional, "vulgar" phrase.

It's really a sweet scene about two (three, I guess. Burnham's a little stuffy there) characters sharing a nice moment while "discovering" something very exciting and groundbreaking. The use of the phrase is not vulgar in this context, even though you and I, and presumably even Tilly and Stamets, have been taught that it should always be so.

This is precisely how I viewed it as well.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

I've gone round and round with my editor about including more "adult" language in my work. I simply don't see the point in it. If I can tell a good story without resorting to crude language, then I feel I've done my job. Yes, I will use the occasional mild expletive. I'm telling tales set during the Golden Age of Piracy. The only people unhappy with my stance are looking for pirate porn, and I happily direct them to the Harlequin web site.

Star Trek doesn't need to plumb Carlin's seven words you can't say on TV to be successful. Their use of the f-word was pure gimmick, nothing else. And it fell flat.

 

[Kor]

One of the episodes will feature Lorca and Saru traveling back in time to retrieve Stamets, who has been suffering psychological effects from the tardigrade gene transfer. Lorca will fall deeply and madly in love with somebody who has to die in order to preserve the timeline. They have no choice but to let the person die.

The episode will end on a somber note as Lorca, Saru and Stamets make it back to the 23rd century. Lorca says nothing while his officers verify that everything is back to normal, and then...

BURNHAM: Captain, Discovery is up there. They're asking if we want to beam up.
LORCA (grimly): Lets get the f-!@$ out of here.



Kor

 

[Nerys Myk]

One of the episodes will feature Lorca and Saru traveling back in time to retrieve Stamets, who has been suffering psychological effects from the tardigrade gene transfer. Lorca will fall deeply and madly in love with somebody who has to die in order to preserve the timeline. They have no choice but to let the person die.

The episode will end on a somber note as Lorca, Saru and Stamets make it back to the 23rd century. Lorca says nothing while his officers verify that everything is back to normal, and then...

BURNHAM: Captain, Discovery is up there. They're asking if we want to beam up.
LORCA (grimly): Lets get the f-!@$ out of here.



Kor

It's Discovery. Lorca will be the one to kill them.

 

[Tim Thomason]

It's Discovery. Lorca will be the one to kill them.

Lorca also fell in love with Edith Keeler.

He was the guy driving the truck.

 

[Greg Cox]

I've gone round and round with my editor about including more "adult" language in my work. I simply don't see the point in it. If I can tell a good story without resorting to crude language, then I feel I've done my job. Yes, I will use the occasional mild expletive. I'm telling tales set during the Golden Age of Piracy. The only people unhappy with my stance are looking for pirate porn, and I happily direct them to the Harlequin web site.

Star Trek doesn't need to plumb Carlin's seven words you can't say on TV to be successful. Their use of the f-word was pure gimmick, nothing else. And it fell flat.

Speaking as an editor, a lot depends on the genre and the target audience. Believe it or not, despite my posts here, I've asked authors to delete profanity from their work--but only if I thought a book had serious kid appeal and a stray "fuck" might keep us out of school libraries and book clubs. On the other hand, if the book is a hard-boiled occult thriller, aimed at adults, and nobody says anything harsher than "blast it!" I might raise an eyebrow there.

There are no hard-and-fast rules. Sometimes you want less profanity; sometimes you want more. It all depends on what serves the story and the characters (and the market).

With media tie-ins, I think it's best to follow the lead of the source material. I wouldn't use "fuck" in a TOS novel because they never used it on the original show, but for DISCOVERY . . . all bets are off. Different era, different standards.

Funny story: when I first started writing the UNDERWORLD books, which is an R-rated franchise, I actually got a note back wanting to know why nobody was swearing when they were being attacked by werewolves. I realized--to my embarrassment--that I had been writing STAR TREK and superheroes for so long that I had started automatically censoring myself when it came to profanity. I got over that real fast!

 

[ralfy]

That's not how it works.

Why not continue your argument by explaining how it works?

 

[ralfy]

No, it simply means that network Standards and Practices wouldn't allow it, that's all.

Sometimes real-world explanations are enough--and don't require some kind of in-universe rationalizing.

I mean, showing gay crew members on prime-time network TV was impossible back in 1966 because it was 1966. Does that mean we have to accept as "canon" that no gay people existed in the 23rd century? Or that homosexuality somehow became "obsolete" by Kirk's time? Of course not. That would be silly.

Same thing with assuming that "fuck" vanished from the future just because, in the real, world, you couldn't say that on TV before.

But the franchise also produced several film features, with more recent ones targeting global audiences. Were broadcast standards and practices also involved there?

Also, why are you referring to homosexuality? The thread is about bad language.

Finally, didn't many words, and even languages, from the past disappear from common use today?

 

[ralfy]

Speaking as an editor, a lot depends on the genre and the target audience. Believe it or not, despite my posts here, I've asked authors to delete profanity from their work--but only if I thought a book had serious kid appeal and a stray "fuck" might keep us out of school libraries and book clubs. On the other hand, if the book is a hard-boiled occult thriller, aimed at adults, and nobody says anything harsher than "blast it!" I might raise an eyebrow there.

There are no hard-and-fast rules. Sometimes you want less profanity; sometimes you want more. It all depends on what serves the story and the characters (and the market).

With media tie-ins, I think it's best to follow the lead of the source material. I wouldn't use "fuck" in a TOS novel because they never used it on the original show, but for DISCOVERY . . . all bets are off. Different era, different standards.

Funny story: when I first started writing the UNDERWORLD books, which is an R-rated franchise, I actually got a note back wanting to know why nobody was swearing when they were being attacked by werewolves. I realized--to my embarrassment--that I had been writing STAR TREK and superheroes for so long that I had started automatically censoring myself when it came to profanity. I got over that real fast!

Your argument concerning eras and standards are based on those of viewers and producers who want to profit from them. Following that argument, all bets are off not only for STD but for any prequel, remake, sequel, reboot, and re-imagination of the franchise approved by the owners.

 

[ralfy]

Exactly. I cited those examples on purpose, to illustrate just how refreshing Tilly's "fucking cool" was by comparison.

Don't get me wrong. I like Shakespeare and literary allusions as much as the next bibliophile, but Trek was arguably in danger of equating "progress" and "enlightenment" with a certain stuffy, upper-class notion of "culture" and "refinement." (Which is one reason that I like the way the new movies have injected some much-needed rock-n-roll into the proceedings.)

Heck, even Picard liked his hard-boiled crime novels, which were no doubt considered "vulgar" pulp trash in their day. And somehow I doubt that Dixon Hill that was shocked or offended by strong language.

In my case, I see nothing refreshing about it because that's the lingo I hear around me daily.

Also, isn't it obvious why Trek was equated to such? The characters are living in a time characterized by an abundance of resources and so many worlds and cultures to explore. That is the opposite of what we live in, which explains our fascination with commercial mass entertainment and popularity, which in many ways explains our view of equating being cultured and refined with stuffiness.

Finally, given the point that Tilly and Picard are accessing lingo and pop texts that are for them hundreds of years old, then what should be refreshing for us is lingo used and texts written centuries ago.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why not continue your argument by explaining how it works?

Greg did a perfectly fine job of doing that.

 

[ralfy]

No one is saying you CAN'T tell a good story without profanity. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has no "fuck" in it; doesn't hurt it one bit. But you can also tell a good story WITH profanity, too. It's just another tool in a writer's toolbox, that's all. It's not a negative to be avoided; it's just an option.

Flashback: I'm suddenly remembering the first time I had this conversation. It was 1972, I was twelve years old, and I'd picked up a horror-movie novelization that had a fair amount of crude language in it. My dad read the book too and took as this as a learning opportunity to have a discussion about the pros and cons of profanity in literature.

As I recall, he wasn't entirely comfortable with the language in the book, but also pointed out that sometimes authors needed to use profanity for the sake of realism, depending on the characters and situation. It was a judgment call and there were no one-size-fits rules.

In short, it was an admirably nuanced approach that surely influenced my own attitude toward such matters. (Thanks, Dad!)

In this case, the outburst looked odd, especially from Tilly. That's why the event reminds me of Lenina Huxley from Demolition Man, who is fascinated by ancient slang and pop culture, if not Spock dealing with similar in Voyage Home. In which case, I would have come up with a malaprop to lighten things up.

 

[ralfy]

Greg did a perfectly fine job of doing that.

You should read the rest of my posts in the thread.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You should read the rest of my posts in the thread.

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[Greg Cox]

Finally, given the point that Tilly and Picard are accessing lingo and pop texts that are for them hundreds of years old, then what should be refreshing for us is lingo used and texts written centuries ago.

By that reasoning, all Star Trek shows should feature some exotic future lingo with no slang or casual idioms from our time. But STAR TREK characters have always spoken twentieth- century English for ease of understanding. So "fuck" is no more unlikely than, say, McCoy saying "In a pig's eye" or any other ordinary twentieth-century expression. "Everybody remember where we parked." "Guess who's coming to dinner?" "Go to hell." Etc.

As for the movies, simply replace "standards and practices" with the Motion Picture rating system and you have the same real-world explanation. You didn't hear a lot of "fuck"s in the movies because Paramount wanted a PG-13 rating . . .for sound commercial reasons. It had nothing to do with the abundance-based culture of the 23rd century or whatever. They were just trying to avoid an R rating, that's all.

And I didn't say that Tilly found archaic language refreshing. I said that I, as a viewer, found it refreshing to hear a Star Trek character saying "fuck" like a normal person. It felt very human and down-to-earth and, yes, not too stuffy. It was refreshing because it was new and different for Star Trek--and isn't that what we want from a new Trek show: a fresh approach that we haven't seen before?

And, yes, Star Trek is always going to keep evolving and changing with that times. So all bets should be off when it comes to future iterations of STAR TREK. If there's one thing that science fiction teaches us, it's that nothing stays the same and the future is constantly mutating into some new and strange.

STAR TREK is no exception.

 

[Kor]

In my case, I see nothing refreshing about it because that's the lingo I hear around me daily.

Also, isn't it obvious why Trek was equated to such? The characters are living in a time characterized by an abundance of resources and so many worlds and cultures to explore. That is the opposite of what we live in, which explains our fascination with commercial mass entertainment and popularity, which in many ways explains our view of equating being cultured and refined with stuffiness.

Finally, given the point that Tilly and Picard are accessing lingo and pop texts that are for them hundreds of years old, then what should be refreshing for us is lingo used and texts written centuries ago.

We can't really predict how language will change over the next few centuries. It is rather implausible that people will be speaking exactly the way they do today. But make up some words, and it runs the risk of sounding awkward and silly.

But I think I will start using Shakespearean colloquialisms in my daily life so that people will find it refreshing.

BTW, multi-quote is your friend.

Kor

 

[Greg Cox]

We can't really predict how language will change over the next few centuries. It is rather implausible that people will be speaking exactly the way they do today. But make up some words, and it runs the risk of sounding awkward and silly..

And semi-bleeping the fucks, like they do on No-End House and Good Behavior, is arguably more distracting.

"F-- you, you f--ing bastard!"