And You Thought I’d Been Grumpy Lately
Between struggling with my “hormotions” today (which one of you coined that great word?) and my busyness with school and family, I wasn’t sure what I was going to blog about this evening, if anything. I haphazardly puttered about the internet, looking at links in my sidebar for inspiration. I decided to visit the Brothers Judd to see if any literary greats I admire were celebrating a birthday. Nothing exciting there. Then I thought I’d read a couple of their book reviews. This one tickled my funny bone. Maybe I put too much effort into my book reviews.
Now I’m curious about what grades they gave the other 99 books on the Modern Library’s Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century list.
August 27th, 2004 at 11:18 pm
Oh, this was too funny and I’ve never even heard of this book. It reminded me of one of my favorite websites. If you need a laugh, you need to visit Book-a-Minute… ultra-condensed abridgements of books!
http://rinkworks.com/bookaminute/
August 28th, 2004 at 8:10 am
Thanks for the morning laughs. My guess is the Valerie(Kyriosity) coined that word.
August 28th, 2004 at 9:10 am
"Hormotion" sounds like something Kim would say. I would just like to state for the record that I am really sad Kim stopped blogging. KIM!! You didn’t even give us a chance to talk you out of it
That is quite a review! Honest, funny and straight forward.
August 28th, 2004 at 9:10 am
Oh how FUNNY!!! Carmon… that site uses vulgar words!!! I thought I was the only one who would link to snarky stuff like that!!!!
My question is: why didn’t that guy review Jane Eyre?? I love Jane Eyre, so if he had reviewed that book favorably, but Wide Sargasso unfavorably, it would help me a great deal. But now that I know that there’s a PREQUEL to Jane Eyre I may just have to rush out to the library and check it out!
Keep up the light humor!
~k
August 28th, 2004 at 9:53 am
I cannot claim credit for that most excellent neologism, but will henceforth employ it.
Like Kolbi, I am now tempted to rush out and read Wide Sargasso Sea.
Like Janet, I wish Kim hadn’ta quit. But I wouldn’ta tried to talk her out of it. I just wish I could have said goodbye. :^(
August 28th, 2004 at 10:04 am
Ephesians 4:29 says "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear."
I don’t know, y’all. I don’t mean to be a prude, but I’m very uncomfortable with the phrase, "That sucks." I’m sure you’re all old enough to know what it means [comment edited for PG rating], and to me saying something "sucks" is a bit like using the F-word. Sex within marriage is something ordained and blessed by God and we don’t need to be carelessly throwing around (or laughing at the use of) phrases like that. It’s neither reverent nor ladylike.
If we should be taking care to reform our speech by not using the world’s minced oaths with regard to things sacred, shouldn’t we also take care not to find humor in the use of crass slang, all in the name of "light humor"?
I’m fairly new to the world of blogs written by Christians and regularly check in with a few favorites. However, I’ve noticed that with some of them there seems to be a real "edge" with the humor. Dry humor and irony are great, as humor is truly a gift of God. But as women of that same God who created laughter, no matter how intelligent or witty we are, shouldn’t we raise the standard instead of condescending to the world’s terminology? Surely I’m not the only one who feels this way (?).
I am submitting this comment somewhat anonymously, not because I am ashamed to be identified with my thoughts or because I am afraid of dissenting views, but because I am new to this blog community and it’s not my goal to just charge in and start stepping on toes.
August 28th, 2004 at 1:23 pm
R.S., I feel admonished and rightly so in my case. I DO hate that word and never use it personally, but for some reason I laughed. Probably because I hear it often (in Christian circles) and I have grown calloused. It is sad to be calloused. Sincerely, Janet
August 28th, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Okay, Mr(s) R.S.,
The truth of the matter is that Carmon herself used no foul language on her blog. Well, and even if she did, I would not bat an eyelash.
The totality of a person is who they are within their hearts and souls. I cannot fathom that you would think that Carmon is less of a Christian lady for linking to (or even using) a questionable word such as "sucks." Continue reading through her blog, get to know her as a person and see what you consider her heart to contain. Make your judgement based upon that.
I follow many blogs penned by fabulous, Christian women. Each one has her own snarky side. This makes them more human, more easy to follow. Why must we ALL behave a certain way and only present ourselves as perfect and sinless? Christianity can be the height of stuffy staunchness, especially those of us who are Reformed. Heaven FORBID we confess to finding something even SLIGHTLY or even POSSIBLY off-color humorous.
Example: My dh attended his first class at seminary (Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida… I’m sure no one in our Reformed circles has any problem with that!) last week. The professor, who is a paragon of Reformed theology, was trying to drive home the fact that he wanted the students to call him "Richard" instead of "Dr. Pratt."
He told them that if any of them called them Dr. Pratt more than twice, he would kiss them, kiss them on the LIPS and wait until the perfect time to do so! He said that one poor soul who had insisted upon calling him "Dr. Pratt" got the lip-kissing AT HIS GRADUATION while his wife was taking a photo of the commencement exercises!
He went on to drive his point home: "The only person who calls me Dr. Pratt is my WIFE when we’re making LOVE!"
The above is off-color, sure, but still humorous. It got his point across! Why do we all have to be perfect and flawless, finding nothing but perfect, flawless humor funny? How boring!
~kolbi, whose blog would GREATLY offend you, but who loves the Lord!
August 28th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
Oops! I’m probably next on the "edited for PG rating" list!!!
~k
August 28th, 2004 at 2:09 pm
First — Kim turned her comments back on, so everybody go say goodbye, or argue, or whatever.
Second — That particular word is a difficult one to make a call on. I don’t think when most people use the word, they have anything sexual in mind. I know I don’t. Yet I’m aware that some people do have a problem with it, so I do try to steer clear of it.
That said, following are some definitions I found online. PLEASE NOTE: I looked in slang dictionaries for definitions. Some of these references are not exactly G-rated, so I wouldn’t necessarily recommend browing through them. But if the word in question did necessarily have a filthy connotation, let’s just say these references wouldn’t be afraid to say so.
FIRST DEFINITION
v 1. to be inadequate, displeasing, or of poor quality. ("Final exams suck.")
SECOND DEFINITION
Not good. Bad.
The early Jazz musicians would say that a guy could really "Blow" if he had a good sound when playing the horn. If he couldn’t play very well then they would say that he was "Sucking" on that horn. That’s where the term "Suck" as being something bad came from.
He plays that horn so poorly that he must be sucking on it.
He doesn’t blow, he sucks. [If that derivation is correct, then worries about sexual connotations are unfounded.]
THIRD DEFINITION
suck: to be bad and unacceptable.
"That song really sucks!"
FOURTH DEFINITION (My Random House Unabridged)
11. Slang. To be repellant or disgusting: Poverty sucks. [There is no note that this is considered a vulgarity. That is noted with other entries I won't mention.]
FIFTH DEFINITION
Vulgar Slang. To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive. [That's the only reference I found that did note that use as vulgar.]
I think this is a case of overcautiousness, incorrect backward derivation, and fear of making junior high school boys giggle crudely. Another thing to note is that I’ve seen it used in specifically non-sexual ways. Many years ago, when I was going through a particularly difficult time at work, a friend gave me a card that read, [front] "My job is like an alligator with its jaws wired shut." [inside] "It sucks swamp water." One of the best cards I’ve ever gotten, and I never thought for a moment that there was anything wrong with it. Basically, I think most people use it quite innocently as a synonym for "stinks."
But again, it’s not an issue I’m going to press. My freedom is less important on this particular point that others’ consciences. Just don’t make me sing "the ox and lamb kept time" instead of "the ox and ass kept time." That’s just prudish. ;^)
(And sorry for the dissertation-length post!)
August 28th, 2004 at 2:11 pm
And while I’m at it, I would also like to point to excerpts of Susan Wise Bauer’s article (the author of _The Well-Trained Mind_, a graduate of Westminister Theological Seminary and a pastor’s wife and worship director in Williamsburg, VA) discussing vulgar words in Christianity and Christian publishing:
______________
Christians only swear occasionally and under great provocation, and they feel guilty afterwards. Christians, after all, do not willingly indulge in fits of temper, and they resist the impulse to use demeaning language about other people. Christians are polite.
This is a cultural definition of Christianity; and cultural standards ("Four-letter words aren’t polite!") certainly should not be elevated to theological positions ("Four-letter words break God’s law!").
But what about the occasional Bad Word, uttered on an appropriate occasion? An acquaintance of mine had a seminary professor [at Westminister Theological Seminary]who once proclaimed, in great exasperation, "Gentlemen, sometimes s**t is s**t, and all you can do is tell people that they are full of it." Is such a statement automatically beyond the pale of Christian behavior?
Martin Luther writes that he first understood God’s justice while sitting in the latrine: in his own words, "This knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower." Lest you think this is frivolous, let me point out that Luther’s revelation came to him while he was in the most humiliating position available to any mortal; thus he tells this story in part to illustrate the nature of unmerited grace. For those who protest that Luther didn’t actually use vulgar words, he in fact referred to himself as a ripe s**t in the eyes of God. (Well, okay; the German equivalent.)
_________________________
Also, we have to bear in mind that the Bible itself is, if examined in its original language, chock-full of language (especially in the Hebrew) that we would all probably find OFFENSIVE.
Susan Wise Bauer’s article can be found here:
http://www.susanwisebauer.com/badwords.html
~k
August 28th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
P.S. to R.S. — I hope you don’t feel ganged-up on or unwelcomed. I think the vast majority of the ladies (and gents, though there aren’t so many of those) who post here seek to honor God in all things, including their speech. I’m sure there is no one here worse than me for lack of control over her tongue, and I welcome the exhortation in general to exercise more self-control over my words. :^)
August 28th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
Kolbi, we have liberty and freedom and should act Biblically according to our conscience HOWEVER, shouldn’t we look/act differently than the world? I commented a few days ago that I believe too many Christians like to stand on the edge of what is Holy and most often cross that line. We are to be Holy, set apart from the world and this is one way we as Christians can act differently.
I completely agree that R.S. should not judge Carmon on one post. From all I can tell
Carmon is both reverent and ladylike to the 100th degree.
August 28th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
I have to say I agree with R.S. in believing the term "suck" to be offensive.
As far as laughing at off color jokes, I believe Ephesians 5:3-4 addresses that issue when it says "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."
Ladies should try their hardest at keeping their hearts and minds pure. Hearing an off color joke or comment should cause embarrassment, not laughter. Instead of adding more coarse joking of our own, we should change topics as quickly as possible when caught in such a situation. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a sense of humor, but that we should keep our humor clean, especially as Christian ladies.
As far as Mrs. Friedrich’s link goes I believe the original intent was finding humor in the shortness and bluntness of the review and nothing more. I hope that R.S. continues to visit the site and see that this is far from the norm.
August 28th, 2004 at 3:36 pm
I didn’t know that "sucks" had a sexual connotation. I agree it is an ugly word that I try to avoid but it never occured to me that it was sexual in nature. Maybe it depends on which decade you were born in…
I just assumed it meant that something was yucky.
Valerie, the Jazz definition seems plausible for our current usage of the word.
RS…I can understand not being comfortable with the sound of the word, I just never thought of it like that.
August 28th, 2004 at 3:49 pm
This is an interesting discussion. I don’t use the phrase myself, but I really don’t think that anyone associates the phrase with fellatio anymore. Can I say that here? :*/ :*)
August 28th, 2004 at 3:49 pm
I think it might be Jess who coined the term hormotional.
I wrote a limerick today in honor of any ladies who find themselves in that state.
As far as occasionally using off color language, the ideal is probably not to do so, but most of us fail in the pursuit of even the most noble ideals. I’m sure that even ladies who would never let such a word slip from their lips or would never laugh at something off color, have questionable behaviours they occasionally fall into. If they don’t, they wouldn’t need a saviour.
I know that with children most of us have to deal with at least some measure of bathroom humor. I know that there are people who would *never* allow such things to be deemed funny in their homes, but then they become a source of unnecessary embarassment. I once had a Christian lady friend ask me, "Why is farting so funny?" I had to answer, "Well. number one, it makes noise, number two, it smells, and number three, it comes out of your b*tt". What else could I say?
I know there are levels of off-color humor, too, and bodily function was not the one in view here, but I was reminded of it. And, for the record, I never knew that the term sucks come from *that* source.
August 28th, 2004 at 4:17 pm
Whoa.
Here I leave to do something as genteel and ladylike as work on my photo album at a cropping party, at the invitation of a dear friend (who would never use *that* word, ever), and I come back to THIS discussion!
For the record, let me say that I also never use *that* word, and I cringe if I hear it used in my company.
For the record, I found humor in the review, precisely for the reasons Corin mentioned…its terseness and the invitation to vamoose to those who happened to like Wide Sargasso Sea.
For the record, I’m sorry if it offended anyone. I should have thought more carefully about the word which does appear crude, depending on your circle. Although Kolbi makes some excellent points (life is sometimes "snarky"…did you make up that word, Kolbi?), I do purposely avoid such language and certain references here, though I obviously do not avoid controversy. So, R.S., please forgive me for not being more careful in this post, though I can’t guarantee that I will never offend…as you can see, even in our like-minded group, there are many opinions, and not everyone will always agree. That’s why we strive to be kind to one another, showing love and forbearance always.
I hope you will not judge this site by this one post. Feeling "hormational" may have interfered with my little gray cells and made me a bit punchy. Y’all could give me a break when I confide such personal details ;-).
Oh, and thanks to my dear husband, the Supreme Prairie Dawg, for editing for a PG-rating. Be careful little eyes…
August 28th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
If the word "sucks" has no sexual connotation, then it really cannot be labeled a "bad word." Why would it be? If something is wrong, it will, by definition, have a reason for why it is wrong. Therefore, it is irresponsible to simply say, "I don’t know why it’s wrong, but it is, so I won’t do it." I’m not saying you cannot operate on assumptions - if many mature Christians say something is wrong, it’s often a safe bet to go along with them - but to display a lack of interest in finding _reasons_ for why something is wrong is irresponsible.
Two clarification notes are necessary.
First, sex is not bad. I hardly think anyone posting here will debate this. It is the corruption of sex that is bad. Many things that were created good became corruptable after the Fall.
Second, it seems that "sucks" has the negative sexual connotation attached to it. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the corrupt of this world define the meaning of words, so many of us are surprised when we discover (Oh my!) that a seemingly-innocent word has a dirty meaning stuck on it.
The word itself is not evil. "Suck" is what you do through a straw to drink your soda, for instance. No negative connotations there. "Damn" and "Hell" aren’t bad words either, contrary to the beliefs of many Christians who haven’t given any thought to the issue. To call those words "bad" is also to infer that the word "God" is bad, since God is often used in conjunction with "damn" and "hell," in a casual swearing context. Of course, this is false. God damns people to hell. There is nothing "dirty" about the previous sentence, though the misuse of the words found in it should anger us far more than casual use of the F- and both S-words, bodily function words. Someone who casually uses the F- and S- words is just crude and rude. Someone who casually uses "God," "Damn," and "Hell," risks the wrath of God, because he flippantly uses God’s holy Name, and invokes eternal damnation on another human being - an act of judgment reserved exclusively for God.
The F- and S- words profane God’s Creation. "God," "Damn," and "Hell," when used wrongly, profane the Creator.
August 28th, 2004 at 5:30 pm
Kyle, you make good points, and I definitely agree that using God’s name inappropriately is far more serious than being crude. However, for the sake of propriety, and in order to behave in a mature manner, it is usually inappropriate to use terms which are crude, if only to behave in a way that would not offend others. That does not mean that whenever someone is offended by what we do, we must stop (preaching the truth is offensive to many), but out of love for our brethren we should carefully weigh our speech and we should always speek in love and gentleness. All through Proverbs there are instructions about our speech:
The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, and adds learning to his lips. Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the bones. ~Prov. 16:23-24
Thus, both speech that profanes God, and that which is considered profane, are best to avoid. Often, the temptation to use the latter comes when we are experiencing sinful attitudes such as inappropriate anger. I know that I have enough difficulty controlling my tongue, and I don’t need any excuses to see how close I can get to the line without crossing over!
August 28th, 2004 at 6:04 pm
You wanna know how prudish I am?? lol!
Any reference to the derriere = bottom
Shut up = be quiet; hush
far*ing (can’t even stand to type that word) = passing gas
darn = rats, phooey, etc.
We don’t say s*ck in our house because I think of the se*ual term when I hear it. That’s what I’d always understood it to mean as a non-Christian. I think in the area of language we know in our hearts what’s right. You read Scripture enough and you know what goes beyond it. Why tread the line? It seems that Christians these days are questioning everything we’ve held dear as believers. I’m honestly tired of all the nitpicking over things that shouldn’t even be addressed because of their obviousness. Bleh! This type of discourse is going on all over the Internet by Christians and it just appauls me. Instead of seeing what we can get away with, why don’t we see how much we can do to uplift and edify the Body of Christ AND the world! Stepping down now *sheepish grin*.
August 28th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
Now that we’ve heard from Kim, who has said some very wise things, I think this conversation should draw to a close. I’m not comfortable with continuing this discussion in "mixed company," and if anyone wants to debate that or call this Prairie Muffin a prude, feel free to do so…on another blog ;-).
August 28th, 2004 at 8:38 pm
Just for the record, I agree that Christians should avoid using the term. I do not use it myself.
August 29th, 2004 at 5:39 am
That was a lovely post Ruth.
Misunderstandings are awful aren’t they?
Internet communication can be tricky.
Please come back!
(((Hugs)))
Donna Boucher
August 29th, 2004 at 7:26 am
Ruth, you dear girl! First of all, you don’t need to apologize, second of all, I accept.
You were not ungracious in your comment and you pointed out something that has great merit, about our communications. It started a conversation where some interesting ideas about appropriate words were bandied about with a few nuggets of wisdom here and there. I ended the discussion because it was getting a bit too detailed about a subject which I prefer not to have my 15-year-old daughter reading, and I prefer not to have such discussions with the opposite sex (unless I’m married to them!)
Thank you for your openness, Ruthanne. I don’t usually have a problem with people being anonymous or using pseudonyms on the internet, unless it’s for a hit and run attack, which you were not doing (are you there, Mr. Knightly?) Please stay and continue to give us your insight and opinion, even if it is not in agreement with what I say. None of us needs people to always agree with what we say!
August 29th, 2004 at 12:48 pm
I know Carmon is closing this discussion and there is a good chance my comments won’t be posted, but I’m going to try anyway, as I must own up to my thoughts.
Two things have been eating a hole in my heart all day.
The least important of the two has been that I posted my original comments in anonymity. That was not only just plain stupid and illogical (for I ended up stepping all over quite a few toes anyway – What exactly was I thinking?), it was also quite uncharacteristic of me. I think it was just my way of “testing the waters”, but the discussion quickly took on a life of its own (as internet discussions often do) and it blew up in my face.
The far more important of the two things that have kept my heart from being at rest is that I inadvertently hurt someone I was hoping to consider a new friend, and I put them in a bad light. The point of Carmon’s blog entry was not lost on me (referring to Corin’s comments), but that little phrase in the book review made me wince. Though I stand by the essence of what I wrote, I never meant for it to be a judgment against Carmon. This was not at all where my heart was, and I was blind to the fact it would be seen that way. I exhibited a sheer lack of wisdom and graciousness. Carmon, I am so sorry. Will you please forgive me?
No one needs to convince me Carmon is a lovely, godly lady, nor do I need to go back and read her archives to find that out, for I found that out myself two weeks ago at the Uniting Church and Family Conference in St. Louis. We only spoke for about five minutes at the doorway of the Crystal Ballroom, but she treated me with such kindness and personal hospitality. As I began to tell her how much I enjoyed her blog, she immediately recognized my name from my nametag and remembered that I had dropped her a quick email a few weeks prior. I was surprised she actually remembered my note and was delighted at how sweet and down to earth she was. Now what have I gone and done to repay her for that sweetness? Like a dolt I went and jumped into a blog conversation as a newcomer and immediately stuck my foot in my mouth, cluelessly insulting the blog’s author! No one is more aware than I am of how much I need to learn about being wise and gracious.
For some time now, my husband and I have listened to or read a lot of cds and tapes from people like Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, Jeff Pollard, R.C. Sproul Jr., Richard “Little Bear” Wheeler, Stacy McDonald, Jennie Chancey and so many wonderful others. We’ve learned so much from and have been so inspired by these people as they’ve exhorted us to look deeper into the Word and raise our standard of Christian living. (You know, that orthopraxy thing.) So when I read that book review, the desire to inspire others the way those mature Christians have inspired me welled up in me and I posted what was on my heart. I didn’t post it in an effort to throw stones but in an effort to encourage us all — myself very much included, for I violate Ephesians 4:29 far too often as well. I realize now that I should have said nothing, said it in a different way, or left the “saying” up to those much spiritually farther along than I. Proverbs 17:28 tells me, “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.”
I am sorry for charging in and stepping on toes (precisely what I didn’t want to do), particularly those of Carmon herself. I humbly ask that you would all forgive me and pray for me that God will help me become wise and gracious, two needs that are ever before me.