Swearing in reviews/articles

[icycalm]

Does that bother you? I find that when I allow myself to write in a perfectly relaxed and free manner (as I do in forum posts, for example), my articles/reviews end up full of all sorts of colorful language and obscenities, so I just want to find out if this is a problem for anyone here.

[Phalanx]

For me, it depends on the place my review ends up on. If it's a more relaxed website, where the average review (outside of my own) is more free, then I'm all for it. But if I wantt that semi-professional looking review, then I leave the profanity out.

[icycalm]

I meant when you are reading reviews, not when you are writing them.

[Flying Omelette]

I personally don't care so long as the whole gimmick of the review isn't "SWEARING IS FUNNY!" People should write reviews the way they normally talk and if that includes an occasional swear, then so be it. Heck, even Roger Ebert has from time to time.

[Phalanx]

I meant when you are reading reviews, not when you are writing them.

My answer is still more or less the same. If the article in itself is not over using profanity, and uses it selectively (where as you really don't notice it), then it's all good.

But if every other word is one, then I'm sure the actual message of the piece gets swallowed in the constant swearing. If the writer goes out of his way to swear, then it's a problem IMO. Because I've always felt swearing was the lazy way out of finding a way to get your thoughts across.

[Jedah]

Call me a weirdo but I don't relate profanity with decent or relaxed writing. I find profanity a quick way to express feelings. I like reading articles where the author expresses his anger and disappointment with richer language, than the occasional "fuck", "sucks balls" etc. I must admit that profanity is funnier and occasionally hilarious, that's it. Expressing critique and opinion, wishing other people take notice, requires a more formal writing.

[Molloy]

Consolvania tended to swear quite a bit, especially in their Batman Begins review and it's priceless.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y2PtFGO0g-4

Fuck Oaf Batman!

If someone is a good reviewer and uses bad language then it works. If they're not and they do it just comes across as crude.

I'd be inclined to say that bad language has different connotations depending on where you're from. In Ireland, Scotland and to an extent England people tend to apply it in a different way. It's less about provocation or aggression, and there often isn't a sexual implication whereas as I understand in the states and other places it's different. I was in Singapore with my brothers family and I had to turn down my language several notches because what I could say to my grandmother or parish priest in Ireland would seem downright rude over there.

[Topdrunkee]

Profanity doesn't bother me at all. Especially when it comes to video game reviews. Most videogame reviews I see these days sound like they were written by robots, or as I like to call them hype machines.

It all goes down to what Chomsky called manufacturing consent. It seems that these days game critics only keep their jobs so long as their reviews reflect the public majority.

The reason I can't get enough of Insomnia reviews is because the pieces that are written here remind me of a mag that I used to read when I was growing up (Die Hard Gamefan). Both Gamefan & Insomnia aren't afraid to let some of their personality seep into the pages of their writing. As a result of that, I find their reviews more reliable & fun to read. I don't even bother to read reviews in most other sites, because they all basically parrot the same exact bull shit (over and over). Repeat a lie many times over and you'll eventually believe it as truth. Which is why most of todays so called "triple A" games tend to suck ass, in my opinion.

Of course that does not mean that I condone senseless cussing just for the hell of it. For example I think most of his reviews suck ass:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Armake21

The best review from him is the one about "The Ring" on Dreamcast. Mainly, because that game was so horrible that you could see why he kept repeating f-bombs.

Best use of profanity in my opinion was the Insomnia NMH review. Not sure if it's a good idea to mention that review though. Considering all the controversy it stirs. What attracted my attention to that review was how Icy said the game sucked without hiding behind some gay ass poetic metaphor just to speak out his opinion. It's not everyday that you see a video game review that gets right to the point.

So in other words when it comes to game journalism/reviews I prefer bluntness and straight forwardness over flowery (GAY) metaphors and indirectness. I love metaphors and indirectness when I'm reading a book or playing a text adventure game, but I don't want to walk into some post modern pos if all I want to do is read up on the game mechanics of the game in question (see here: http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=190).

[Flying Omelette]

Which is why most of todays so called "triple A" games tend to suck ass, imo.

A friend of mine once said "Triple A" is one of the most annoying phrases in videogame journalism and I'm inclined to agree, mainly because I feel it's a meaningless term. I've even seen game journalists describe movies as "Triple A", but I've never seen any movie critic use that term.

[bullethell]

It depends. When the review/article is interesting or detailed enough to make me to read it to the end then I don't care encountering small bad words inside it. But when the review is boring then yeah I find that very disturbing because it is just a cheap way to emphasize words/opinions/statements or make things interesting again.

[JoshF]

It seems that these days game critics only keep their jobs so long as their reviews reflect the public majority.

You don't think they're the ones who mold the public majority? It's really no different than any other form of corporate media, your job is to convince people that shit tastes good.

[Flying Omelette]

It's really difficult to tell exactly where bandwagon opinions get started. It's something we've been mulling over for years but there doesn't really seem to be any distinct answer.

In the early days of the www, Circa 1995-1998, there were no "professionals" in game journalism (and even when they first started showing up, they certainly weren't as popular as they are now), and yet bandwagon opinions still existed.

I did notice around 2000-2001 a really disturbing shift in trends on message boards wherein people would get really upset if you dared question or criticize anything a professional site says, whereas before that it seemed an accepted practice to debate each other's opinions. I was once part of a large gaming community and that right there was a huge factor in its eventual downfall. About half the people felt that anything on the internet was fair game to be questioned or disagreed with whereas the other half felt anything written by IGN or GameFAQs was untouchable.

[icycalm]

You stumbled on one of my word sensors there! I just put them in.

[Flying Omelette]

Yeah, I got a laugh out of that.

But I might advise not going too crazy with it. There was an NES forum I used to go to that did that, and at first, I thought it was amusing when things like "Star Wars" would turn into "Golden Girls", but eventually they got so carried away with it that I couldn't tell what people were really trying to say anymore.

[icycalm]

I can still see the comedic aspect of not being able to tell what people are saying, especially if we are talking about a board on which people are saying nonsense to begin with. But yeah, only two censors so far, and they are both pretty reasonable.

[JoshF]

It's really difficult to tell exactly where bandwagon opinions get started. It's something we've been mulling over for years but there doesn't really seem to be any distinct answer.

I don't think corporate media tells their employees what opinions to have, you're hired if your opinions support their financial backers and aid in the accumulation of capital. That's why IGN is looking for someone who will heavily criticize the latest big-budget interactive storybook (the type of people who will hate arcade games) like CNN is looking for a communist. :D

So it isn't anything intentional on the reviewers' part, they're just part of a bigger plan.

[icycalm]

Never resist a sentence you like, in which language takes its own pleasure and in which, after having abused it for so long, you are stupefied by its innocence.

[Afterburn]

I love obscenities and cursing-- sometimes there's nothing like a well-timed "Fuck!" and this extends for me to video game reviews.

[EightEyes]

Swearing's just another colour in the palette. Since you're someone who chooses words carefully, I see no reason for you not to be able to use all of them.

I must admit, however, that I am slightly bothered by two habits you have in your writing. I only say this here because you're explicitly asking for feedback.

1. "Gay" or "fag" as a pejorative. This doesn't actually sound like an insult to me, not in the way you seem to intend it. I get what you mean, for example, when you say "artfaggotry", but I think the insult you're dealing actual "faggots" by the comparison is actually more cruel than the one you're dealing to the critics you're addressing.

2. "Retard", "retarded", etc. This might just be a bit close to home for me, but it makes me stumble a bit when I come across these words, which often seem to be used simply to refer to common, garden-variety stupidity.

Too sensitive? Possibly. I'm only chipping in since I like everything else about your style.

[Kuzdu]

EightEyes said exactly what I would have. Those are the exact instances that catch me as well. It's never a huge deal, but it's always a little jarring and I inevitably end up wondering for a bit about your opinions on topics other than the one you're writing about.

[icycalm]

You guys will really hate the truth, if you actually ever manage to realize it. Calling regular people stupid is just as cruel as calling retarded people stupid. It is just as unfair, just as unjust, because no one is responsible for being constituted the way they are -- not retarded people, nor stupid people of the "garden variety". The only logically consistent definition of stupidity we have, after all, shows us that there is no fundamental difference between regular stupid people and people with learning disabilities -- the latter are simply more heavily disadvantaged than the former.

All I am trying to do with my articles is be as offensive as possible, as unjust as possible, as unfair as possible, in order to have the greatest effect possible. In a universe in which every action is fundamentally "unjust" this is the only way to maximize effectiveness.

As for gay people, again, you would be deeply unsettled, to say the least, if you understood what I (and Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, etc.) really think about them.

[icycalm]

Perhaps it would help if I quoted myself from my upcoming philosophical book:

Harsh truths can only be communicated through harsh words. But harsh truths are what philosophy exclusively deals in! Consequently philosophy can only be communicated through harsh words.

You can substitute 'cruel' for 'harsh' if you like. It's the same concept, only in the first case expressed by the weak, in the second by the strong.

[icycalm]

For perspective, note that Nietzsche called the Christians "blood-sucking vampires", and "subterraneous dwarfs", Baudrillard called humanity "dumb beasts", and Schopenhauer called them "vermin", among other things.

Would you rather have someone call you gay or vermin? lol

[Volteccer_Jack]

Clear writing and clear thinking go hand in hand. I'm fine with just about anything you care to say, as long as it's well-written, which your stuff always is.

[Kuzdu]

I apologize for misunderstanding the question, I should have read more carefully. You were asking about profanity/swearing, not pejoratives in general. In which case it doesn't really bother me. However, if your goal is actually to bother the reader, then I think that your use of pejoratives is really the only thing that's going to pique a contemporary reader; I don't know anyone who cares about profanity anymore.