Home > eNotes Book Club Group > Discussion Board

Sigh...I can see both sides of this debate, and it's so frustrating!  I agree that an author should accurately portray the time period, culture, people he/she is writing about.  To do otherwise is to lie, or simply be a pretty poor author.  So I agree that Will and Steinbeck and any other author out there should write what they know, and accurately depict what they're writing about.

I think what frustrates me is that profanity is so widespread...thus making it necessary for authors to depict it so accurately.  I'm not saying that Clarke's book is bad because of the profanity (in fact, I think it's a great book and have his other book on order right now!).  He has said that the world in which Travis lives is cluttered with those excesses, not only of language, but of money, drugs, alcohol, etc.  It's a culture of excess, and that is what bothers me.  Not that Will depicted it so brutally well, but that there is such a selfish, amoral culture out there to begin with.

I've finished the book already, and can hardly wait for "The Worthy" to arrive in the mail!

Thanks for putting it into perspective. I guess I'm sensitive to the language issue because I've been battling my yearbook staff over what is appropriate and what is not. Most of them are in a club that went to its state convention last week. With me only a few feet away, they discussed--not in whispers, mind you--how to hide alcohol in their luggage. Something to do with a Pringles can. They were shocked that I busted them to the principal. They couldn't understand that if they got caught and that word got out that they made their plans in my room in my presence, I could lose my job. Do they just not care about my being unemployed?

Today, I wrote discipline reports on all 10 of them. I told them after the Pringles incident that I have zero tolerance for inappropriate conversations. Believe it or not, their topic of conversation was how much a guy's penis burns when he pees after drinking too much. These kids are honor students and came highly recommended.

In reply to #30:   A writer like Faulkner, or Steinbeck, or Clarke,  chooses to render speech as s/he hears it, not moralize about it. 

As for worrying about little ears, well, I say that it is up to the parent to monitor their child's leisure activities.  Some things are for children, some aren't.  Don't take (or rent) an R rated movie, don't put a computer in a closed room. 

In reply to #28:

I hope that readers do not see the Krishna brand of Hinduism as Hinduism itself. Just as with any religion there are many different views and practices within the religion. The "Vishnu Temple" in the book seems cultish and almost absurd. For the Hindus in my family, religion is personal and respectful.

Will-  We were talking on the discussion boards about Travis' mental state.  Were you at all influenced by Joseph Heller's Catch-22? (Particularly, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."_

In reply to #34: I should have been more sensitive in my reply.  I have been to the Krishna temple here in Dallas that Clarke describes, and my take was almost identitical to his. As you continue to read the novel, you may see how cultish indeed this sect can be, at least for some of the adherents.

On the flip side, I have also been to Hindu temples in Irving, where the tone and respect was altogether different from the Krisha experience in downtown Dallas.

I don't pretend to know as much about this as you do.  I think we would all welcome the learning about Hinduism that you could offer, as well as pointing out strengths and weaknesses in Clarke's rendition. I also encourage you to address any discrepencies or uncomfortable moment (or indeed, accuracies) that you find to the author. 

Hello again, Will. This might be a dumb question, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. Have you read Greg Bear's book Blood Music? The reason why I ask is that your discussion of sentient DNA reminds me of that book. It's all about how a researcher discovers a way to develop intelligent bacteria, which then set about changing all DNA cells in all living things. Just wondered if that might have been an influence for you.

In reply to #17: I have been thinking a long time how to word this without being offensive, but I completely disagree.  Profanity, without purpose, is just profanity.  It's not fashionable.  I feel I need to clean my ears and Clear Eyes my eyes after each reading, although the story has merit.  It seems to me (not just because I live in the "fly over" states where the Bible belt is thickest) that of all the millions of words in our language, you could have said the same thing more beautifully without making it seem so dirty in the process.  Stephen Crane does this with Red Badge, Bill Cosby does it with stand up, and there are many other "dirty" subjects which can be explored without the "dirty" language to accompany.  I'm sorry you feel that profanity is the "new black."  That kind of attitude just further sullies the waters for our future generations and makes it harder for them to determine what is right and what is wrong.

In reply to #38: I made the mistake of trying to read the book during my breaks at school. The other day, I was reading during my planning period, and a student came in to ask me a question. I just happened to be on page 23 at the time. I quickly closed the book, but not before the student saw the chapter title. Needless to say, I was very embarrassed.

In reply to #34:

I agree. Ikshu was an American, a crazed one at that, who had taken Hindu beliefs and bastardized them to fit his own apocolyptic mythology. 

Hopefully readers will no more see Ikshu's brand of fanaticism as Hinduism any more than they would see David Koresh as representative of Christianity.