Not "Wire"-d

Hmmm, interesting. Haven't heard of the show, myself, but I'm fairly sure my tolerance for this sort of language is considerably lower than yours, Rod, so I'd probably have lasted even less than twenty minutes.

I don't think it's codgerly or prissy to have a distaste for this sort of language in dialog, whether written or spoken, as opposed to real life. Writers make choices about the words they put into their characters' mouths, and language that is purposelessly and relentlessly foul is bad writing not because of some prudish standards, but because after a very short time it loses all impact, and becomes meaningless gibberish. I consider it to be the laziest form of writing, worthy of the most immature student in a creative writing seminar, because almost always the writer mistakenly assumes that slinging epithets and vulgar passages around makes the writing "edgy" or "real" when all it really does is lower the whole discourse down to the point where the reader or audience loses interest in anything the characters have to say.

The use of profanity in fiction writing, whatever the media, is rather like the use of the exclamation point. It should be used sparingly if it's going to have any impact; it should be used for a specific purpose (dramatic effect, an emotional outburst, or for comedy when used by someone the reader/viewer doesn't normally associate with such speech). Using it constantly out of a misplaced sense of verisimilitude forgets that the reader/viewer is more likely not to know how real cops talk than to know how they do, and more importantly that in the absence of other marks of verisimilitude the language becomes mere posturing.

For example, I've never yet seen a "cop show" that portrays cops in an extremely realistic way. People watching these shows come away with the impression, most of the time, that police officers can get away with speaking to their superiors with a total disregard for their own subordinate roles, that the drudgery of the job (e.g. paperwork, internet searches, communications with various external law enforcement agencies, etc.) occupies only a tiny amount of their time, and the rest is taken with high drama and hair-raising adventure, that homicides occupy the vast majority of the police department's attention in even the smallest town, and so on. The reason, of course, that cop shows are the way they are is because they are fiction, and as good fiction they can't simply be about paperwork and petty theft; but just as the demands of verisimilitude don't require the reader or viewer to spend dreary hours on fruitless stakeouts or endless report-filing, so do the demands of verisimilitude not require that every cop should have a filthy mouth or sardonic disposition.

There is nothing wrong with a writer wanting his fiction to be realistic; however, there is everything wrong with the writer forgetting that his fiction is fiction, and that the rules of good writing, especially good dialog, aren't suspended just because his characters' real-life counterparts aren't known for elegant or eloquent discourse. The challenge is to make them speak well without causing the reader or viewer to wonder whether cops really talk that way--but the subtle tension produced by the pull of art opposed to the pull of reality is what creates the fine and fragile bridge called the willing suspension of disbelief.

I haven't seen the show, but I'm tired of F-speak. It was funny coming out of the mouth of the Piranha, in Liar's Dice (about the boom in junk bonds).

But, like ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING in comments, F-speak very rapidly gets old and even annoying, or else needs to become ignored.

I think it also means the only way to express disapproval of somebody or something becomes an even more personal attack -- just using F* speech isn't "strong" enough.

Like a little hypocrisy being an oil to allow much easier movement, F* speech should be an outlet for strong emotions. Otherwise the outlet becomes ... Bush Derangement Syndrome (from folks whose F* speech expressions aren't provocative enough.

Also, as a father, I don't allow my kids to use foul language.
"Potty mouth" I call it, and potty mouth it is.

I'm not familiar with the show either, but I find that my choices in entertainment come down more and more to what you said in Crunchy Cons about surrounding yourself with beauty. Great art sometimes involves the contrast between ugliness and beauty, so I don't think we should insulate ourselves completely from all things profane; but immersing oneself in it, especially for several hours of a DVD, seems like too much. There's plenty of quality art and entertainment out there that manages to be dramatic and meaningful without profanity.

Not sure how you can judge a show on 20 minutes. Sure, I can see how the language is a shock. For me it was just a challenge to understand. Maybe the first show was worse than the average episode? It's not something that bothers me that much, so maybe I don't notice it as easily, but I don't think the use is that heavy typically. And I wasn't 'hooked' until maybe halfway through the first season, but like so many other people, I now think it's a great show.

You do yourself a disservice to not give it more of a chance.

My tolerance for the heavier vulgarities isn't what it used to be, either, and all to the good. But it's going to take electroshock to get "dammit" out of my system.

Re: a good show to get hooked on.

Battlestar Galactica (2003-present).

I don't care if you don't like sci-fi. It doesn't matter. You will be hooked.

And the profanity quotient is no real problem.

I have the first season of the Wire on DVD, but haven't watched it yet, mostly because I've been pretty busy.

Theoretically the kind of language Rod objects to should not necessarily impact the value of the show as art. That would depend on how and why that vulgarity is used as it is.

When Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, many people were shocked by the nudity of all these writhing bodies, and some painting over was even required. (I guess no one in Rome in that time had seen genitalia or something. Or wanted to admit it anyway.) Does this factor detract from the value of that painting as great art? We don't think so from the vantage point of our culture now.

That's not to deny the validity of the reaction of people at the time; it's just to say that that reaction might not be of universal importance.

The only show I watch is LOST. It's not for kids, of course, but the profanity level is low. There is sex and violence, more than I'd like, but from the little I know of other shows, it could be worse. And last season's ending beat the Sopranos non-ending by a mile.

(I should mention that I came to LOST late. I saw the pilot episode as a rerun, then saw a few episodes here and there, until I saw much of last seaon on tape. Not everything is riveting, but the twists and turns in the plot have me hooked.)

I worked in profanity-rich environments, juvenile corrections and professional kitchens, for twenty five years. I struggle often to reign in my tongue. Heavy doses of profanity and obscenity simply make me tired after awhile. I think that I, too, am trying to fill my life with the good and beautiful, because it sure seems to me that the world is getting colder and coarser. Television is mostly a sewer. If not for sports (watched with the mute available for the wearisome Viagra ads) and the PBS high-def channel, I doubt we would watch television at all, and we certainly refuse to pay for it. Go Seahawks!

I don't understand the obsessive need for foul language.
Turner Classic Movie channel is my favorite channel, and I'm
always in awe at how fine the old movies were, without
any of the bad language, the over-the-top violence, and the general
cartoonishness of today's movies.

Susan, I think there's an eternity of difference between the Sistine Chapel and HBO. One is dedicated to truth and glory, the other is not.

That's debatable. HBO at least makes no pretensions to being "dedicated to truth and glory," but the real motivations of the people who funded and created the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were mixed at best. "Dedicated to truth and glory" gives all concerned WAY too much credit.

Art may challenge its audience-- indeed, it's often the hallmark of successful art. But art will fail at this measure if, in its challenge, it repulses its audience. And some television is simply repulsive (cf. Tila Tequila).

Again, not necessarily. Works which have (later) been recognized as successful art have often "repulsed" the audience, the Sistine Chapel being only one example of many. Of course that doesn't mean that everything repulsive is good art, or art at all, but "repulsing" the audience doesn't necessarily disqualify a work either.

Furthermore, please do not confuse art and entertainment. Indeed, art can be entertaining, but not all acting is art, not all actors artists, not all script writers are poets. Sometimes it's just about shooting, cussing and making an edgy show.

Indeed. But I'd argue that art which is not "entertaining" (in painting we call it "beautiful" or "interesting") has failed as art. Literature which is boring to read is not good art. In all ages, including ours, probably 99% of material of all sorts which is produced as "art" is a failure artistically, usually a miserable failure. (By this same token, probably 99% of TV, like all the other arts, is junk.) I haven't watched The Wire, so I can't opine one way or the other on its status as good art. But the fact that it offends some people, or even a lot of people, doesn't at all disqualify it.

And because television programming (HBO notwithstanding) is basically designed to keep us watching between commercial breaks, I look at it as their responsibility to come up with something worthy of keeping us watching.

All art (painting, music, drama, TV, dance, whatever) has a "responsibility" to keep our attention. Otherwise it is forgotten/ends up in the trash bin behind the gallery/the theater closes the show, or whatever method of discard is appropriate to the medium.

Rod, you most definitely should give The Wire another chance. At least 3-4 episodes, as it takes a while to build, just like all the great novels do. It's an epic, gritty, morality tale that's extremely well-written with great, complicated characters. I was an English major who loved Dostoevsky, Dickens etc. and to me The Wire is on that level. Seriously, give it another try. Especially someone like you who is concerned with issues of culture, morals, etc., I think you'll really like it.

Yes, a lot of the language is foul, but after awhile though you don't notice it. At least I didn't, which is rare for me because I hate profanity and don't allow it in my house. I will turn off an R movie in a MINUTE if I find my "sensibilities" being offended. We don't have regular TV in our house either -- no cable -- so all we do is watch rented movies once a week or so. But we recently got all four seasons of The Wire from Netflix and were absolutely hooked. It's a really great show.

Rod,
My wife and I had the same reaction and always had to look back at our 4 yr old's bedroom door while watching it (he has a bad habit of getting out of bed). And I'm not even commenting about some of the sex yet. But The Wire is worth it. Grittier version of Homicide, which was also great.
Mike

ChuckDFW;

"sticks and stones" is a lie. Words matter. Words hurt. Or you wouldn't flinch if someone called your mother a whore. Or else try this: say, out loud, to other people, that you hope someone you love - your children, your spouse - will die a horrible, painful death. Come on, now, it's only words. And words can never hurt you, right?

I know how you feel, Rod. My wife and I had the same reaction when we tried to watch Vin Diesel's "Find Me Guilty" a while back. We didn't even get to a single courtroom scene; the profanity was so aggressive that we turned it off after about ten minutes.

I'm reminded of something I've heard Michael Medved say: nobody leaves a theater saying "The movie was OK, I guess, but it didn't have enough profanity in it."

I blame the religious right for all the swearing. ;)

No, actually, I'm only halfway serious, but a lot of the swearing on cable shows is an overreaction to the straitjacket that broadcast media has been in forever.(1)

Sometimes you watch certain shows and you know someone just 'really' swore there and the fact they didn't throws you out of the moment. I remember watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and 'knowing' that Faith just swore, because that's who she is.

So the lack of profanity, being something that has removed 'realism' from quite a lot of characters, was, and is, seen as realism. The more the better.

As TV shows become more and more disconnected from broadcast in the first place, this will probably 'self-correct' over the next decade.

In fact, it really already has. There are plenty of shows on cable where swearing is used sanely. Look at The Daily Show. (Which they beep for some reason.) Or the only Showtime series I've ever really gotten into, 'Dead Like Me', where you had maybe two or three instances of swearing an episode.

1) Incidentally, current regulations are absurd. The airwaves are supposed to be regulated for our benefit, not regulated to 'protect' us. The FCC should spend more time going after infomercials and less time going after profanity and nudity. It shouldn't care about the content of the show, only that people enjoyed them or were educated by them. It is not the job of the government to tell us what content we're allowed to see over 'our' airwaves.

The Wire is my favorite show. Ever. It seems that every episode has enough twisting plot lines to fill three episodes of another show.

I come from a family of cops and inner city school teachers and they swear by it, too.

But I can understand how the swearing would turn you off. I wouldn't encourage you to watch it; there's too much you couldn't handle...