something i wrote to one of my lists this evening

From:"Tom Murphy" <tm823my@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: adbooks@egroups.com
To: adbooks@egroups.com
Subject: [adbooks] That Word
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:54:56 CDT

I might be treading into dangerous territory here, but I feel a need to push this question a little farther. If you guys don't feel the same need, feel free to ignore me.

I'm talking about that word that starts with an F and sounds like a duck but doesn't quack. That Word (TW). I would use it here, but I know its power to offend...and I have no desire to do that.

It IS an offensive word. I don't want my own airwaves polluted by it without good cause. But it can be found everywhere. If I stopped to bust every student who spoke it as I walked the halls of my Catholic School, I would never get to my classroom. (That doesn't mean I ignore it, but I have to be selective.) It is everywhere.

So what is The Big Deal when an author chooses to use TW in his/her work - to serve his/her artistic purposes? (As you note in Werlin's book.)  Why is a single occurence of TW enough to cause a teacher to avoid using a particular text which in every other way is A Perfect Text?

Who is being "protected" from TW? What lessons are being taught?

When I work with The Catcher in the Rye, we have cause to discuss TW and its power over some people. When kids have a chance to see TW in action in a literary context, something that has been perhaps a mindless part of
their own speech comes into sharper focus. A door is opened for a thought to occur. I think - only half in jest - that there should be a regular unit in language classes on TW. Why does the traditional curriculum ignore or flee from such a powerful expression as TW? The obvious answer is that it has something to do with Sex - and that topic, along with its buddy Religion, is way too risky.

So these are my first thoughts on TW. Anybody care to jump in?

Tom, who probably should not have had that second cup of coffee.