Yes, intensives can be and are valuable tools. Some very memorable moments in writing history are made so by their use in the right way.
Tossing exceptionally crude language around just for the sake of being crude, in a distinctly non-central and non-climactic manner is not that.
I'll add that falling back onto continuous and excessive crude language as a standard will actively detract from the impact of its proper use at more important times... and that, I feel, is what this is doing, in this case.
I'll admit, my perspective is personal: even when I could talk, I never swore or cursed, and I'm even less inclined to it now that I speak with my hands - so my perspective is naturally coloured. I don't feel it's ever necessary to properly and movingly convey a character, setting or scene, and it rarely adds anything to doing so, unless it is made in contrast or at a striking moment. Littering the space with a background layer of extreme crude language in order to short-hand characterise a setting or group of people is lazy work, in my opinion - there are better, more compelling, and more effective ways of doing so, that leave space for harsh intensives to really have a strong impact later, when it matters.
((In direct particular, I'm also doubly not keen on vulgarities that use genitals as their mode of insult... so my response here was magnified somewhat))
Last edited by Niara; 16/10/21 12:48 AM.
