It doesn’t happen often, but I do occasionally get email from people asking—always very politely (well, almost always very politely)—whether I have ever considered producing a bowdlerized edition of my books.
Mind, none of them uses the word “bowdlerized”; I doubt most people under the age of forty have ever heard it. It comes from:
Thomas Bowdler (pronounced /ˈbaʊdlər/) (11 July 1754 – 24 February 1825), who was an English physician who published an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare’s work, edited by his sister Harriet, intended to be more appropriate for 19th century women and children than the original.
He similarly published an edited version of Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. His edition was the subject of some criticism and ridicule and, through the eponym bowdlerise (or bowdlerize),[1] his name is now associated with censorship of literature, motion pictures and television programmes.
[Source: Wikipedia]
Now, what these readers would like me to expurgate from my own work, in order to accommodate their desires and sensibilities, ranges from sex-scenes (one very nice woman wrote to ask if I could produce an edition of OUTLANDER from which all the sex scenes were removed, because she was very eager to be able to discuss the book with her fifteen-year-old daughter, but didn’t think her girl was quite ready for the original. By biting my thumb rather hard (she was very nice, and meant well), I was able to refrain from writing back and asking her whether it might not be a trifle simpler just to wait a year or two for her daughter to be ready for the notion that married people have sex, than for me edit and republish a 700-page book–always assuming that I could convince any publisher that there was a market for such a thing? (My guess is that unless her daughter has been living under a rock for the last five years, she knows a lot more than I’ve ever thought of putting in a book, but possibly her mother doesn’t let her watch television)) to Bad Words in general (“I notice people say “Fuck” a lot in your more recent books,” one reader wrote, rather censoriously. “Jamie doesn’t even know what that word means in OUTLANDER!” Well…he’s probably picked up a few expressions from Claire over the last twenty years. But Jamie’s not usually the one saying that word, even in the later books. It would be pretty common to Roger, though, as well as to some of the coarse folk who live in the backwoods), to—very specifically—the use of the Lord’s name (only “Jesus” or “Christ,” evidently. “God” doesn’t appear to bother these particular readers in this context, let alone local variants like “the Holy Spirit”.).
OK. Approaching these concerns from last to first:
I have every sympathy for someone whose religious sensibilities make them uncomfortable with blasphemy, whether casual or heart-felt. I personally am very disturbed by people who curse or use profanity and crude language in restaurants, and a terrible lot of people do these days. (I don’t think it’s just the places I eat in…)
On the other hand, I’m kind of bemused that not one of the people who take the Third Commandment so much to heart that they are horrified at seeing it broken in print are evidently bothered in the slightest by the shattering of the other nine commandments that goes on in these novels. Graven images, skipping church on Sunday, dishonoring one’s parents, bearing false witness, coveting oxen, asses, wives…theft, murder, fornication, adultery–yeah, we don’t mind seeing any of that. The J-word, though….
(Let me pause for a moment of didacticism here, in which I will attempt to explain the subtleties of the terms blasphemy, profanity, and obscenity. To wit:
blas•phe•my
Show Spelled[blas-fuh-mee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -mies.
1. impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2. Judaism .
a. an act of cursing or reviling God.
b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3. Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
pro•fan•i•ty
Show Spelled[pruh-fan-i-tee, proh-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1. the quality of being profane; irreverence.
2. profane conduct or language; a profane act or utterance.
3. obscenity ( defs. 2, 3 ) .
Profane
–adjective
1. characterized by irreverence or contempt for god or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2. not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular ( opposed to sacred).
3. unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
4. not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5. common or vulgar—verb (used with object)
6. to misuse (anything that should be held in reverence or respect); defile; debase; employ basely or unworthily.
7. to treat (anything sacred) with irreverence or contempt; violate the sanctity of: to profane a shrine.
obscenity – 5 dictionary results ob•scen•i•ty
Show Spelled[uh b-sen-i-tee, -see-ni-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.
1. the character or quality of being obscene; indecency; lewdness.
2. something obscene, as a picture or story.
3. an obscene word or expression, especially when used as an invective.
[Source for all of the above: dictionary.com]
Let me state for the record that no one in any of my books has ever pronounced the Tetragrammaton in the original. Not once.
And Jamie Fraser is on record as stating that he only _felt_ like God (while having sex with his wife); he never said he _was_. So I think we’re clear on those particular charges of blasphemy. I’ll get back to the question of impious utterances in a bit.
Now, if you read further on the dictionary.com site (and others), you’ll find that blasphemy, profanity, and obscenity are often used as synonyms for each other—and they often overlap, depending on usage–but there are differences.
The F-word (I’m sorry, I was raised as a Catholic and I have considerable trouble saying that word out loud. Fortunately most of the people in my books have no such scruples) is often obscene, and quite possibly profane, but not blasphemous. I.e., there’s no mention of God or anything sacred (well, not in the word itself. If you started applying it to sacred concepts—which a good many cultures do, in terms of insult (French-Canadian Catholics, for one)—then that’s different). (Ulster Protestants given to tattooing such sentiments as “F— the Pope” on their foreheads (no, I’m not kidding; some of these people feel strongly about their sectarian sensibilities) are not committing blasphemy _per se_, as while the Pope may be a person of reverence, he isn’t God. “F the P” is therefore mere profanity.)
Profanity can also be blasphemous, if an invocation of God is involved—but if you leave God out of it, profanity is not usually blasphemy. It’s just irreverence, and that’s pretty firmly in the eye of the beholder and the standards of the times. Go to, thou saucy fellow!
As for obscenity…the Supreme Court couldn’t do better than, “we know it when we see it,” and I don’t propose to try to top that.
Anyway, the point here is that it’s only blasphemy (or what is perceived as blasphemy) that concerns the “I do wish you would not take the Lord’s Name in vain” letters. One reader informed me that she had gone through my books with a black marker and obliterated all such usages, so that she could read the books in comfort. I congratulated her on her helpful ingenuity; genius often lies in simplicity.
But let’s look at that. Does any use of the C-word (the six-letter one) or the J-word that is not portrayed as a prayer or a scriptural reference constitute blasphemy?
I don’t think so.
Here we come to the “impious utterances” definition of blasphemy. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Well…what is “in vain”?
When we did catechism class back in the day, we were taught that “in vain” meant that you mustn’t use God’s name to curse somebody, in the “You g_d_ son of a four-legged what-not..!” kind of way. (Catholics, btw, do include “God” (and the Holy Spirit, for that matter) as being “the Lord’s name.”). Using God’s name as a casual interjection—“Jesus, it’s hot,” or “God, I’d kill for a beer,” was crude and thoughtless and a well-brought-up person ought not to do it—but it wasn’t blasphemy, either.
People in my books do in fact use this sort of casual reference fairly often—because men in certain professions (soldiering, for one) and in the exclusive company of other men, very frequently _do_ do that. (You notice that the women in my books don’t do this.)
In my experience (owing to unorthodox career choices, most of my colleagues and close friends were men, up to my early forties), men who do this are customarily calling unconsciously upon God to witness something, asking for casual assistance in a moment of stress, or merely expressing an intensification of emotion (amazement, shock, anger), and do not actually intend offense to their comrades or impiety toward the Almighty.
Now, plainly opinions differ on just what’s an impious utterance and what’s not. That being so, though, we’ve got a few different considerations going here:
1. The notion that a writer ought to try never to offend anyone’s conception of morality or decency.
2. Whether a writer should or should not portray offensive behavior (i.e., behavior condemned by a majority of the populace), and if so, under what circumstances?
3. The question of how far historic speech might differ from modern speech, and whether an historical novelist should take that into account?
OK, #1 is simple. Putting aside aesthetics and the moral imperatives of art, it’s flat-out physically impossible to write something that won’t offend somebody. Ergo, the notion that a writer should try to do so is ludicrous.
#2 is also pretty simple. People don’t always behave well; the briefest glance at the television news makes that pretty clear. If art (whether novels, photographs, or anything else) is going to serve as a reflection of or a reflection on humanity, it’s going to show people doing stuff that may not be moral by anybody’s compass. The essence of art is conflict. Conflict may be difficult to look at (or utterly fascinating. Sometimes both at once), but you can’t do without it and make art.
#3. Now, historicity. Language evolves, and so does social custom. What is obscene or blasphemous in one time often isn’t, in another. If you called a man a fig-licker today, he would probably merely blink at you, whereas them was duelin’ words in the 18th century.**
A writer dealing with historical settings has a lot of things to consider, and one of these is how much “historical” language or figures of speech to use, and how to portray historical characters in such a way that they seem realistic and empathetic to a modern audience, but still belong plainly to their own time.
Well, one of the ways in which you do this is to use figures of speech that are extremely common, and likely always have been, as well as those particular to a specific age. And calling upon the name of the Almighty in moments of strong emotion and/or casual conversation has probably been part of human speech since people discovered the concept of a deity.
Now, I could go on and on (well…even more on and on {g}) about this business, because I find it fascinating, but I do have work to do. I think the best I can do here may be to quote a bit from THE OUTLANDISH COMPANION. This letter was written as part of an exchange with a courteous gentleman who’d written to object to the F-word, which emerged from one of the audiobooks as he was driving with his four-year-old grand-daughter, and is included in the “Controversy” section of the COMPANION:
“Well, I have children myself (11, 13, and 15 at the moment), and we try not to expose them to “bad language,” either, in spite of the fact that they all know all the words already (there’s still some point to insisting that these are not suitable for civilized conversation, after all).
The thing is, though–my books are definitely written (and carefully written at that) for adults. When I do use bad language in the books (oddly enough, I never use it, personally; never), it’s because it seems to me to be called for, by the circumstances and character. In the case of the F-word in DRUMS (I did use that same word in all the other books, by the way, though sparingly), it’s used by a young man in the grip of angry (and sexually motivated) passion, in the late 1960s. Given this character, this time period, and this set of circumstances, his language seemed entirely appropriate.
Now, one reason for insisting that bad language not be used in everyday discourse is, of course, that it’s low-class and offensive. One other reason–equally important, in my opinion–is that such language does have its own legitimate purpose; that is, to express feeling that is also beyond the limits of normal civilized discourse. To use such words casually deprives them of their impact.
You can see that, in the scene in question in DRUMS. If Roger normally spoke like that, the reader wouldn’t have (what I hope is) the impression of a man driven almost beyond endurance, and holding on to his notions of decent behavior with great effort.
Okay. So, the point is that when I do use strong language, I have a specific reason for doing so. It really doesn’t seem reasonable to me to eradicate such language–chosen and used carefully, to a purpose–on the grounds that someone might someday wish to listen to a taped version of an adult book in the presence of a small child.”
(My correspondent very graciously thanked me for hearing his concern, btw, and agreed with my conclusion.)
Right. Well, moving backward from blasphemy and Rude Speech, we come back to the inclusion of sex in my books. I can honestly say that of a thousand letters I get that mention this, 999 readers think there should be more sex. {g}. But there is the occasional one who thinks that the inclusion of sex lowers the tone, impairs my literary reputation, or should be omitted so as to make the books more…um…acceptable {cough} to younger (or possibly older; you wouldn’t believe how many people think their elderly parents or grandparents would enjoy my books but be put off by the sex*) readers.
Well, I think my literary reputation will have to take care of itself; I can’t do anything but write the best books I can, and history and the readers will make of them what they want to.
I do think that the sex scenes are both necessary and integral to the story, or they wouldn’t be there. These aren’t romance novels, but they are (among other things) the story of a very long and complex marriage. Now, there may possibly be long and successful marriages that don’t include sex, but I don’t personally know of any.
Neither are any sex-scenes included for the sake of gratuitous titillation (any titillating that happens is purely fortuitous, I assure you), nor are any of them just about sex. They have structural and emotional reasons for being where they are, and the book would not be the same story, nor have the same complexity, without them.
Still, the bottom line here is the Eye of the Beholder. There is no book that will say the same thing to all readers. A good book will say something different each time it’s read, even by the same person. And each reader brings his or her experience, background, prejudices, desires, and perceptions to the reading.
That being true, there’s little point in bowdlerization. What offends one person will be revelation and elevation to the next. That’s why we have a great variety of books.
“If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out,” seems a trifle extreme here as a response—but if there are particular things in my books that annoy or offend a reader as an individual, the ultimate power to control these does lie with the reader, not with me.***
Thank you for reading!
*(I am irresistibly reminded here of a book-signing event in Chicago, where I signed books for a grandmother, her daughter, and grand-daughter (intergenerational—and multi-gender—trios are pretty common at my signings). I was chatting with the grandmother while signing a book for her grand-daughter, and she said, “You know, I was in the middle of VOYAGER and I turned to my grand-daughter and said, ‘I’ve just had the most terrible thought! We’re both lusting after the same man!’”)
**To save you looking it up, the modern equivalent slang would be “muff-diver.” Weirdly enough, I don’t think there’s a female slang version of this epithet, though there is a purely formal descriptive term. But when was the last (or the first, for that matter) time you heard someone called a fellatrix?
*** A good-quality Sharpie costs about $1.79.
Amen sister! Wow, the nerve of people. I can say that I love everything about the books especially the sex scenes. Why do people feel the need to try to change everything to fit their needs? There are other people in the world…that love the language, and the sex. Don’t like it, then grab a sharpie and leave everyone else alone.
I think I know how you feel. I am an artist (jewelry) and when people come to my art shows and start pointing at item 1 “I want this size” then point to item 2 “in this color” and onto item 3 “with this shape” —- I restrain myself from shouting at them that I am artist and not a short order cook. If I wanted to be a custom jeweler – I would be one. I am not, so what you see is what you get. I love what I read in your books (yes, more sex would be great but I am NOT complaining) so I sincerely hope you keep writing your books and I will keep buying your books.
This is so funny. My husband and I have a running joke. He asks me what page I’m on, I tell him; then he asks if “they’re having sex.” I’ve told him over and over that these aren’t that kind of book. The sex scenes for the most part are very discreet. I’ve read a few out loud and he’s been terribly disappointed that they weren’t more “chic porn” like most romance novels. The idea that anyone would want to censor them is bizarre.
So then he asks why I like the books so much, and I tell him I’ve “known” these people for over 20 years of their lives. He’ll never read the books himself, but I know he’d like the story itself – hoping for a movie for that one.
“So then he asks why I like the books so much, and I tell him I’ve “known” these people for over 20 years of their lives.”
Right before Echo came out, I decided to refresh my memory of this amazing tale. I had read Outlander, Dragonfly, Voyager and Drums as a young woman, but that was all there was of the series at the time. I lost touch with my passion of reading for a long while, and when came out of hybernation, I was pleasantly surprised to find that this wonderful saga had continued in my absence. I started with Outlander and read until I dropped – a true Gabaldon marathon. While waiting for Echo, I followed the escapades of Lord John, and promply devoured Echo upon arrival.
My co-workers watched in awe as I studiously ignored them for the better part of three months during my emersion. When I finally came up for air, they asked me why I liked these books so much.
The only thing I could offer was this. These people were family. They were my husband, my children, myself. They were my dearest friends, beloved, long-lost and returned to me. Their enemies were my enemies, their struggles and triumphs and anguish and joy were mine. Jamie and Claire were extensions of myself. ( I know, I need to get out more.) And isn’t that what we want from our fiction? To go somewhere else and be someone else and add to our life experience when we couldn’t possibly be there in person?
Obviously I’ve come back to reality and resumed my normal life. But I will conceivably start again at the beginning when the next book nears completion, if only to take another trip around the world with these people. Diana, I love everything you do and how you do it, and if it takes four years to do it all, then so be it. I will wait. What makes me sad is that it only takes days to consume four years worth of work. But it’s so worth it.
Reading this series as a seasoned wife of 16 years was a far different and more fulfilling trip than it was as a single teen. And from that stand point, sex is as much a part of life as death is. Come on out. You can do it, it’ll be ok. Hopefully it won’t bite, but if you ask nicely, maybe it will nibble gently.
With regard to reading material, as with anything else in life, be responsible for your own choices. Choose what is wise for yourself, and don’t shoot the messenger. Some of us like her just the way she is!
So I say, Diana, do whatever you do with passion, conviction and integrity. Be true to the story as it plays out in your head. Be true to your art and to yourself. Your work will speak for itself.
Oh, and BTW, the sexually squeemish and the Frozen Chosen should try to remember that God Himself wrote Song of Songs as a beautiful picture of what sex in marriage should look like. I challenge one and all to read it. If you’re too young, don’t worry. You won’t get it. And if you’re not too young, you’ll never look at pomegranates the same way again.
Dear Sharla–
What a lovely, eloquent comment! Thanks very much. {smile}
–Diana
Dear Diana,
Wow!… Just…. Wow.
Diana Gabaldon said I was eloquent.
I’m stunned and….yeah. Stunned.
And speechless. And terribly gratified.
Thank you so much!
I’m really so very humbled and have been in awe, for like, the last two weeks. I’ve wanted to post a thank you, and I waited until I could pull it together, but… no. It’s not gonna happen. I can’t wrap my head around it.
So, Thank You Soooooo Much! I’m totally psyched that you actually wrote me back, let alone liked what I said! And I’m also really grateful to Jenna and Laura and Hallie for responding as well. Wow. Thanks to you ladies too. This was the firt time I’ve ever commented to ANYTHING online. You made my day- month- oh, heck (pardon the profanity:) the WHole Darn YEAR! I’ve told everybody I like about it, and sent them the link, and I ALWAYS RAVE about my favorite author, Ms. Diana.
I’m just so passionate about this story and your writing style and your wit and irony, and the grit, the subtle nuances that temper the stark reality…. I just love YOU, Ms. Diana.
I’m stopping now before this babble becomes a run-on, and blows your whole image of me.
From my heart Sincerely,
Thank you.
~S
I whole heartedly agree completely. I do, however, make it a point to read the entire series at least once every 18 months or so. It is my “sabbatical” of sorts. I get lost on Fraser’s Ridge and go back to the simplicity (and complexity) of life without pretension. Sharla, you are so right about the characters being an extensions of oneself. I am a Christian too, and choose to see the book for exactly what it is; an amazing, exciting, beautiful, historical drama of life that is true. Life is complex and so are all these books and NOTHING should change.
If I could worship someone besides God, Diana, I would worship you for your writing. Alas, however, I will just remain, forever, an extremely devoted fan, who waits with great anticipation for the next book to arrive.
Blessings.
Dear Jenna–
Believe me, I’m _very_ happy just to have devoted readers. {g}
–Diana
Sharla,
I could not have said it better myself. I agree with everything you have said. Diana has created something with Jamie and Claire that is amazing. I have often felt like they are real people and I have cried when they have cried and laughed when they have laughed. This is the beauty of great writing. It draws us in and makes us love everything about it. I am anxiously awaiting the next book. As you said it is a shame that four years of Diana’s hardwork is consumed by us in only days. I have reread the whole series a number of times and I am sure I will again before the next book comes out and it is time well spent with old friends.
Holy cow! (How is that for some crazy profanity?) Sharla, VERY WELL said! I will just give you a high five, an Amen, and a hell ya! Great comment and Diana, as always, a wonderful post! This will go down as one of my favorites.
Patti,
Jeez, you didn’t know you started something, did you?!?
I love that you and your husband have that little back-and-forth thing! It’s a hoot! I can see it in my head.
“What page ya on? Are they? No? Well, what good is THAT?
Thank you so much for sticking up for the cause. Jamie and Claire are two of my best friends. We’ve known them forever, yes? Sometimes it’s hard to remember it’s just fiction.
Brava for your comment!
Sharla
I remember lo these many moons ago back in the dark ages I was in the middle of reading “Battle Cry”. I was 12, so okay I was a precocious reader. My mother asked me if she would like it, I had to tell her that there was possibly too much war in it for her, completely skipping over the many sexually motivated passages . Or the profanity even. The point being that my mother was not into war and that even at age 12 I was aware of that. I also read Colette at that age, LOTS of sex, but that wasn’t the point of her books either and I understood that instinctively.
I grew up to become a relatively normal adult, just ask the few friends I have left….snort, with a really good vocabulary in a number of languages….and I can spell in all of them, including the profanities should that be required. One of the most well traveled men (and my favorite college prof) I have ever known has never been out of the country. That is what reading should be about, experience and incidentally learning. Most of all though authors should write a jolly good story, one that makes you not want to turn off the light and go to sleep. Doesn’t matter if the author is Chaucer, Shakespeare, Ngaio Marsh, John Sandford or Diana Gabaldon.
And if readers spend all their time worrying and/or crossing out perceived slights/obscenities/profanity they have lost the story but most of all the joy of reading.
>>I can honestly say that of a thousand letters I get that mention this, 999 readers think there should be more sex. {g}. <<
For me, Jamie and Claire's deep sexual desires for each other helps to understand the depth of their love for each other. I like how they use sex as a tool in their marriage for healing, comfort, security and just plain old rough make-up sex.
I am a newcomer to the Outlander Series, I just started 2 weeks ago and I am finally beginning Drums. (Yes, I am addicted.) Jamie and Claire’s relationship is a demonstration of love, commitment, dedication and true faith. The sexual scenes between the married couple exemplify a pure love that seems to have been lost in our culture, but is supported by both the old and new testiment. I would rather have my 15 year old daughter be exposed to the enjoyment and fullfilment of sex in married life through the Outlander series than the horrible images our youth are being exposed through the main stream media. Sex is a joy and a miracle given to us through God. In its true expression, there is never shame in sex and through Ms. Gabaldon’s sexual depictions we are forced to acknowledge that even in marriage, there is a difference in our acts of love whether that be: fucking, having sex, or making love. Each aspect of the action helps defines us as partners, it has a place for comfort and healing in a relationship. We are human, after all.
Well said!
Well, if people don’t like your books why are they reading them?
They can read other books without sex-scenes or with always correct language. Maybe they should start to write books themselves.
Just my two cents about this theme.
<>> and where would these holier than thou folks FIND books that did not have any of that stuff? In the pre-school library?
Awesome. Your ways of saying things & explaining things are delightful! I love the “educationalness” quality about this post too! But I’ve got to say, I think taking a sharpie to one of your books is a bigger sin than the content in question, which I also agree is necessary to the story! Thank you again for your work, it’s brilliant!
I don’t expect to like every word that any author writes. I am a whimp when it comes to violence, torture and especially rape. I skip those details. I want to be in control of what I read. If I wanted to control what authors wrote I would venture into writing myself. I have no current plans to quit my day job.
I agree with you Nelson, in everything you posted.
LOL…people can be so funny. I have been blessed with a 30 year marriage and with that all the joys…hurtles…fear…love…desires and a few choice words. You cannot LIVE life without these!
The beauty of the written word is that you don’t have to read them if you don’t choose to!
I agree – the characters feel like real people who we identify with – not perfect or saintly! I think readers sometimes underestimate their parents’ or grandparents’ openmindedness – interest in sex isn’t a modern invention. Don’t change a thing, Diana!
Well written, Diana, but I’m sad that you felt you had to do it. I love your books, and wouldn’t want to see you ever cave to the moral minority. There are unfortunately some prudish and self-righteous people out there, and maybe the best thing to do is ignore them. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to read anything. Keep the good stuff coming.
Wholeheartedly agree with you Ruth-Ellen – the small minorities are attempting to change everything in our lives from worshipping God in our schools, courts, changing our christmas festivities , I could go on and on – and now they want you, one of the best authors I have ever come across, to change her writing style ! Are they kidding us?? You, out there, who needs to control and change this world – be careful what you strive for – you may get your wish. Remember, Hitler tried to censor us too! Get off your bandwagon – if you think you can write as well as this lady — go ahead and try! Bet you fail…
Keep up the good work Diana – I just wish I could write as well as you and have your imagination — it must be quite a thrill to watch where your characters are taking you – and they are taking you on quite the journey. I’m just glad I discovered your books and that I’m priviledged to be there for the ride. I have a cousin high high up at Paramount pictures and I suggested that they consider putting your books on film – she hasn’t answered me yet.
Can’t wait for the next book (I read all your books in 2 months – boy did my eyes hurt).
You said it right on! Jamie and Claire’s relationship is a deep, all-encompassing love with everything that goes with it. If you don’t want emotion, devotion, love and sex then read a book on financial statistics. I read Outlander for the first time three months ago, promptly read the rest of the series, immediately started over and read them all again and am now listening to the audios. Also read all the LJ series and the anthologies. Can’t wait for #8 and LJ&SP. Don’t change a thing!
Can you imagine if Claire had said “Oh my” at the beginning of Outander when she spilled the tea? It just wouldn’t have wrung true. I probably would have put the book down then and there. But she said, well, what she said, and we’re off to the races, so to speak! There are times when “Oh my” or “Darn it” just won’t do.
“**To save you looking it up, the modern equivalent slang would be “muff-diver.” Weirdly enough, I don’t think there’s a female slang version of this epithet, though there is a purely formal descriptive term. But when was the last (or the first, for that matter) time you heard someone called a fellatrix?”
You’re driving me crazy, Diana. I can’t find the word or phase in question. Did some of your footnotes get messed up during editing?
Dear Frankie–
Er…
“Fig-licker” = “muff-diver”. Fellatrix would be the female–but non-derogatory–equivalent.
–Diana
Okay, I found it. I always thought that a muff diver was a lesbian, but the Urban Dictionary says it can be male or female. Live and learn.
Haha – as I read this I did wonder just which men would be offended by the title! Could this be why you’d assumed lesbian – perhaps assuming that if aimed at a woman who wasn’t at least, she may…?
Dear Kylie–
What…? Oh, you mean “muff-diver”? I didn’t realize that was applied to women, until someone said so here in the comments.
–Diana
Hmmmph. I ‘d have thought (apparently wrongly) that a “fig-licker” would be a male homosexual who enjoyed giving oral sex… somehow testicles strike me as being more fig-like than is comparable female anatomy….
Diana – I think your entire post was enoyable, informative, and right on.
Well said, Diana! I agree with you completely.
Don’t people know that blacking out words with a sharpie requires reading them?
There are quite a few free novels on Amazon’s Kindle store that would probably suit some of these folks a little better. Perhaps you should direct them there! Though some would say that I could put a trucker and a sailor to shame, I’ve never been offended by your use of “bad language” however I did turn off Pulp Fiction for that very reason. Thankfully you have nothing in common with Quentin Tarantino.
Fine piece, though I must admit I’m confused by one part.
“Does any use of the C-word (the five-letter one)”
I know four-letter C words, and six-letter C words, and ten-letter C words, but I’m at a loss to think of a five-letter one.
Dear Sharon–
Teach me to write late at night. {g} You’re right–it’s _six_ letters. Thanks!
–Diana
Priceless! Thanks, Ms. G. I’ve come to anticipate your blog entries nearly as much as I look forward to the books and short stories.
I totally agree! Your books are wonderful and complete just the way they are.
I always feel smarter after reading your blogs!
It seems to me that if people are uncomfortable with your writings they should be searching their hearts. Many are probably motivated by religious sensibilities and if they are feel that certain material is inappropriate enough that they are contacting the writer to express those concerns, they probably shouldn’t be reading the material at all. It seems like a displaced reaction to possible conviction they are feeling that certain aspects of the books violate what they believe the Lord would want them to allow to enter their hearts and minds. Where they should simply be putting the books down and not returning to them, they are hoping, in some cases, that you can alter your writing in order for them to feel better about consuming it. I understand this desire, to be able to enjoy a great piece of fiction, for example, without compromising the high standards that God calls us to. But sacrifice has always been a large part of following Christ, be it the sacrifice of time, money, energy, or, in this case, a form of entertainment. Rarely can you have your cake and eat it too.
Hi and hallo,
sometimes it is easier in Germany – I am sure, there are not so many people with this wishes to an author.
My opinion: You are the creator – your books, your acting persons. You made the decicions how they act, what happend and what they do and say.
If people do not like the way you are writing – sorry – no one is enchained and forced to read a book with 700 pages….. Readers love your books because of everything you put into your books.
I am sure, there are lots of books suitable for prude or bashful readers.
Sometimes this people had to make a decision – and it is their decision – they cannot shift the responsibility on to you. If they want to read a Gabaldon-Book – then there is one issue – not the “Nickelodeon teenage version”, the “christian-reader-no-sex-version”, the “cut to the bone-version” for readers not ready for very long stories…..
Take it or leave it!
(sorry for mistakes….. I know – my english – really bad….)
Wendy
Dear Wendy–
Your English is _much_ better than my German. {g}
What you say is true, of course–and yet the people who write to me do it because they really do love the stories; they just can’t get past whatever their particular difficulty is. So I can’t really blame them for _wanting_ “Gabaldon Light” {g}–but on the other hand, when I get one of these letters, I’m in the habit of waving it at my husband, saying, “Would _you_ write a letter like this to an author you liked?” It isn’t that they aren’t polite–they mostly are–but that I’d never in a million years think of writing like that.
–Diana
Mh – smile – when I was at school, I attended a convent school for girls (catholic, very common in bavaria….) and the first year I was at the boadring school. When homework was done, but study time was not over, we could learn or…. read the bible….
And – I remember – old testament was much more inappropriate for a 11 year old girl than a real Gabaldon…. I survived school without problems, many books with rude language, some movies R-rated…. It seems I have a very stable mental health:-)
And “mean well” is the opposite of “done well”…..
Wendy
First, THANK YOU! I read your blogs regularly and enjoy them immensely. You are a highly Intelligent, Creative, and Thoughtful Soul. We are fortunate to be able to live vicariously through you and your experiences as well as your creative outputs.
Now, to all the critics. Freedom Of Speach, Freedom of Press and Freedom of Choice. Put the book down, turn the audio off and step away from the computer. We know how long it takes for the next book to come out and and we are patiently waiting. Move along and stop irritating OUR Author of Choice! Yes you can express your ideas, but the bigger question is SHOULD you?
Oh I so agree with you there! Our esteemed author needs all the time she can get to write the next novel for which we all yearn! Credit to you Diana for responding so beautifully to these questions and requests and I must admit, although frustrated at the craziness of it all, I love to read your answers!
Like the gentleman who agreed with your conclusion of why you use such language, I think most of us do agree with you. It’s only the select few, those squeaky wheels, who cause such disjoint. I’m still trying to figure out what the 5-letter “C” word is? No need to inform me, I’ll know it when I see it. I love your stories.
Dear Shey–
The five-letter C-word would be “Christ.” {g} I’m figuring you know the four-letter one. {cough}
Well, “Christ” is six letters, but who’s counting?
(Sorry. Not trying to nitpick, honestly! Someone on my blog pointed this out and I’m just passing it along.)
Karen
Rotfl….. my thoughts
I read that and thought, hmmm. I know the 4 letter word. I know the 6 letter word. What the f*** is the five-letter C word?
It’d be fun to run an algorithm on the OED and find all the naughty 5-letter C-words we can.
Dear Kate–
Sorry, I miscounted–it _is_ six.
–Diana
Those who refuse to accept the fact that: A) Married people (and LOTS of un-married for that matter)have sex.. and….B) Swearing, unfortunately, is a common thread in the venacular of man in the 21st century as well as the 18th, etc. My only question for them is, “What color is the sky in your world?”
This ubiquitous and universally accepted HUMAN conduct always has been and always will be. Period. Your books would not be believable if these things were omitted. Sorry Grandma.
Brilliant, as always…effin’ brilliant.