Fuckity Fuck

F**k, F**k, F**k.

How did you read the first three words of this post? Of course, you read ‘Fuck, Fuck, Fuck’. So what is the point of putting in the gobblies ‘**’ in order to somehow disguise the word and its meaning?

F-U-C-K as four separate letters has no meaning other than they are just four letters of the alphabet. But when put together they can have any number of meanings. For instance, “Fuck off�? expressed with appropriate nuance leaves you in no doubt as to what is meant. “Fuck me�? can express great surprise (like you’ve just won a million on the Lotto) or even indicate an invitation to become ‘extremely’ intimate.

So, you have an editor sitting at their keyboard doing what editors do, deciding what is the best word, phrase or sentence to convey a particular meaning or message. When considering the ‘F’ word they have three choices - use ‘fuck’, ‘f**k’ or leave it out altogether. The principal concern, I imagine, is how the reader will react.

Let’s say, for example, that it’s an Irish Times writer, very respectable paper, very establishment, but with a whiff of rebellion about it, a bit of “we can be dangerously liberal if pushed�? attitude. The writer decides to use ‘fuck’ for impact, but to reduce that impact (in case any retired archbishops are reading) by substituting the letters ‘uc’ with the gobblies ‘**’.

This choice and mindset is, of course, bullshit. Everybody, including the retired archbishop instinctively and without even considering the meaning immediately sees ‘fuck’. So why bother trying to utilize the impact of the word ‘fuck’ and at the same time try to conceal the word - it’s hypocritical. Either use the word in its full glory ‘fuck’ or use another word like ‘feck’, ‘bejasus’, or ‘by golly’.

Just this week I read the word ‘c**t’ in a newspaper article. I wonder what that word could be? Perhaps ‘cant’, ‘cart’, or maybe ‘cast’? No my friends, the word intended was ‘cunt’. So why couldn’t the paper just say so or use what it might consider to be a more acceptable word (unless they are quoting)? Obviously, the paper wanted to use the word for its impact but did not want to accept responsibility for its generally accepted meaning, so the word is disguised and in so doing attempts to transfer the use and real meaning of the word to the reader. The reader then becomes responsible for any negative interpretations of the gobblied word. “Hey, we just published some gobblies bracketed by two letters, if you automatically interpret them as ‘fuck’, ‘cunt’, ‘shit’, well… you know… it’s not our fault.”

What do you think reader? Am I right? Is it really just a case of editorial cowardice or am I just plain wrong? If you think I am then ‘fuck’ you. ;-)