Thoughts arising from a thread elsewhere on the board, which touches on the innocent / naive use in published prose, of words with a “non-innocent” – usually sexual – connotation.
This tends throughout the English-speaking world, to happen with writings from say a century ago, or earlier: when seemingly, certain words did not have their modern alternative “off-colour” meaning; or if they did, that circumstance was ignored by polite people in public discourse. It seems that in those now-gone times, sundry things could freely be expressed in their innocent sense, without the need for the writer to fear being overwhelmed by a torrent of sniggers and “nudge-nudge-wink-wink”. There was no problem in referring to bundles of wood for burning purposes, as “faggots”; a high and imposing building could be called an “erection”; a character giving vent to excited exclamations could be said to “ejaculate” those expressions; “promiscuous / promiscuously” could be used of non-sexual actions carried out haphazardly and plentifully here-and-there; people could “toss” on their beds, meaning simply that they were restless and having difficulty sleeping – or if they were mariners, they could “toss” on the rough and wild seas: all of this, without a loud chorus of smutty-meaning-focused ridicule from readers.
Though I am no puritanical regarder of all things sexual, as wicked – the above-remarked-on present-day tendency, in my view verging on the obsessive, toward leaping to highlight the “dirty” significance of expressions which also have legitimate meanings without that baggage: becomes, to my mind, tedious – a joke which gets flogged to death. I find myself experiencing some nostalgia for the early twentieth century, and previously: times before a variety of useful and pleasing words effectively ceased to be employable because of their perceived “mucky” connotations – and that not even because of misguided moralistic zeal, but because of the low-class-humour factor. I find this a needless constraint upon language use – and wonder at times: when did we all turn into dirty-minded twelve-year-olds?
Does anyone else find the phenomenon described here, foolish, irritating and regrettable – or am I unique and odd in harbouring this particular peeve?
You should indeed read more Shakespeare, where nothing was certain to be impure, country matters least of all; why, you can even speak of such quaint things in mixed company these days, even in the very presence of a man’s stables, and none will raise their pistol at you, or other wise try to get you to die.
Re thoughts in OP: response would suggest that in being bothered by the stuff about which I posted, I am indeed odd. Fair enough…
The matter of “intercourse”, as above, is another instance of what bugs me about this general thing. Tangentially: I gather that there is a small town in Pennsylvania called Intercourse – which name, needless to say, has people in fits of laughter. One is given to understand that the name derives from the town’s being, when it was founded, located between two racecourses.
Shakespeare is making Malvolio, the pompous dullard, say “cunt” and “pee” so that that Toby Belch and Andrew Aguecheek can laugh at him: as a playwright, Shakespeare was pretty much a dirty-minded 12 year old.
Yeah, I have found it annoying at times. One board I was on, you couldn’t say something was ‘hard’ without causing sniggering and ‘that’s what she said’ type remarks. I never think of second meanings to things, so my posts were always getting laughed at. I don’t post there any more.
Penfeather – and Derleth – I am not totally unacquainted with W.S.'s works; and am aware of his propensity for – subtly or not-so-subtly – keeping the rabble, admitted for a penny per head, happy with an admixture of choice filth into the plays. In my probably weird perception, though, that’s a rather different thing, involving switching between “dirty mode” -on, and -off. It’s the seemingly automatic, every-bloody-time, leaping on to double-entendres – however far-fetched or out of place – which wearies me.
Nice to find that there is somebody who’s peculiar in the same way as me ! It strikes me as a “there’s a time and place for everything” issue – it’s the every-time knee-jerk “sniggering” reflex on the part of many people, that becomes truly tedious.
You may think that this “tendency” is mostly fueled by folks misusing words to make double entendres. I think it’s more likely to be a manifestation of the Euphemism Treadmill. Folks decide a word is dirty or just not nice. A euphemism or gentler phrase is used instead. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the word that was considered to be bad, it was the concept, and so over time the nice word becomes besmirched and needs another euphemism to take its place. Collateral meanings of the now-besmirched euphemisms sustain collateral damage.
Yes: I’m English, lifelong UK citizen. I tend naturally, to write in a florid and convoluted style; which fairly often brings adverse criticism on me on message boards.
When I was in high school I was in a theatrical production that was some low-rent no royalty version of the King Arthur / Lancelot story.
So there was the big sword battle scene towards the end - not onstage but described by the performers watching. Lots of dialogue about Lancelots magnificent weapon and his mighty powerful thrusts. Then I was supposed to deliver my line, a comment on the deadliness of the battle … my line was “ there will be many stiff from this” . Delivering that line with a somber face was possibly the most difficult thing I’ve ever done. And I’m pretty sure it was all unintentional - just based on the horribleness of most of the high school plays.
They were horrible because we couldn’t perform most works because the school would have to pay royalties. So the teachers found all this royalty free stuff. Most of it sucked.
ALL books are dirty books (though recent books are bolder)
For smut, I’m pleased to say, is in the eye of the beholder -
I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
AND the Wizard of Oz (there’s a dirty old man)