You may not have heard of the Ig Nobel Prizes. They are an
offspring of the magazine
Annals of
Improbable Research, and are intended, as the web site puts it,
“to celebrate the unusual, honour the imaginative – and spur people's
interest in science, medicine, and technology. And one of this
year’s prizes – in the category not of Medicine, but of Peace! – was
given to a team from Keele University whose research provides hard
confirmation that swearing can help relieve pain.
The Ig Nobels are often portrayed in popular media as acknowledging the
heights of pointless or just plain dumb research, but the quotation
reproduced above gives the lie to that caricature. The research
on swearing, for instance, is helpful not simply in itself (as proving
that no amount of “Dang!”s or “Poots!” when you hit your thumb with a
hammer will give as much relief as, say, “JESUS FUCKING
CHRIST!!”). It also indicates in more general terms that there is
positive value in transgressive language. It dismisses (I was
abut to say “once and for all”, but alas, that can never be) the
priggish argument that “there’s no need for such language”.
Crossing the boundaries of propriety on occasion serves to reaffirm
those boundaries.
Judgemental
Some readers may already have guessed where I am heading with this
argument. Yes: I’m heading to Quentin Letts’
Daily Mail review of Nina Raine’s
Tribes. Quentin often gets
het up about swearing when no-one else notices it, and this is one such
occasion. To be fair, John Nathan and Georgina Brown both refer
in passing to one character as “foul-mouthed”, but neither makes
anything of it. In contrast, Quentin’s entire review becomes
about it, and the
Mail headlined
it in those terms: “Family saga sullied by foul words”. Granted,
too, Quentin portrays this at one point as a matter of effect rather
than propriety: “Miss Raine,” he writes, “uses bad language so
promiscuously that the words lose their potency and simply become
litter.” It’s a valid point in theory, except that the entire
vocabulary of the sentence – “bad language”, “promiscuously”, “litter”
– belies the claim by being judgemental from the very start.
He argues that “We also say ‘um’ and ‘er’, yet seldom are these
included in theatre scripts.” Perhaps he should read more
scripts; it’s a matter of authorial preference. Moreover, such
particles almost invariably carry no meaning, unlike expletives, where
the transgression is the point. It seems downright perverse to
argue that we should forgo an entire category of significant and, yes,
often necessary language on grounds simply of taste. It’s also
bitterly ironic that this broadside should be occasioned by a play one
of whose major themes is the value of a variety of modes of expression,
how such a plurality can increase communication, deepen the bonds
between people and strengthen individual senses of identity. And
most of all, it was simply spectacularly bad timing, since a bare few
days later Quentin was back in the Court’s Upstairs space reviewing
Red Bud, which packs 300 or so
expletives – a good 80-90% of them indisputably redundant and serving
simply as more profane spaceholding equivalents of “um” and “er” – into
little more than an hour. It rather gave the impression that he
had fired off his blunderbuss too soon and at the wrong target.
Dreary
Language matters. The point underlying Quentin’s argument – and
another aspect investigated by Raine – in her play is that, where
language is limited, it is much harder for thought to operate on an
abstract level. If there is no vocabulary of transgression, it is
harder even to conceive of transgressing. And sometimes it simply
makes things more interesting. Kate Bassett, for instance, goes
against the critical flow in championing Martin Sherman’s
Onassis as “an outstanding venture
in the commercial West End [with a] story [which] incorporates major
issues”. Yes, but it doesn’t do so at all vibrantly. The
language is sometimes highfalutin, but it never comes alive. At
least, not that I saw. I must confess that, since I wasn’t on
Financial Times duty, I left at
the interval… not because play or production were bad, but because they
were ineffably dreary. Which, given the salaciousness and
sensation of the subject matter, is quite an achievement. I
simply didn’t believe that I would have a deeper, wider or fuller
experience by staying for the second half.
Sometimes language matters on a solely pedantic level. Michael
Coveney praises Robert Lindsay as an actor “whose career is bookended
by brilliant performances” in
Me And
My Girl and
The Entertainer:
if that were so, his performance in
Onassis
would be some time after the end of his career. It’s
tempting to be flippant on this score, but I shall resist…
sometimes a word suggests itself for one reason but ends up in context
suggesting something quite different. Mark Shenton, not in his
review but in a posting online, described the plot of
Flashdance as “a kind of adult
Billy Elliot”. This is true
in as much as the principal characters are grown-up rather than
children; however, in terms of social and economic insight and
complexity, it’s Lee Hall’s script for
Billy Elliot that is the more
mature and
Flashdance that
reduces things to the level of a gritty fairy-tale.
Written
for Theatre Record.