I have no idea why anyone thinks swearing betrays a lack of imagination

[very_improbable]

1) If it were 1929, and you were British, and you wanted to call someone a fuckup, what would you actually say?

2) If you were Harriet Vane, and you wanted to say "piss off", what would you actually say?

(Neither of these answers has to be DELICATE language, as though grown-up people who work in the liberal arts and live together in highly irregular fashion would never actually use a bad word in each other's presence whatever the era--they just have to belong to the proper, you know, idiom.)

Comments

Re: Basically, PB is an asshole.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

I don't think there was a word for "loser" in that sense, back then. I mean, there was the expression "lame duck" but I'm not entirely sure even Boyes could apply it to Peter, who is, presumably, merely mentally fucked-up, not socially?

I suppose, if he wanted to be really horrible, he could say she was susceptible to "witty men who are NYDN" (which stood for "Not Yet Diagnosed Nervous" and was used on medial reports in the War to refer to soldiers who were suspected fo being shell-shocked).

Re: Basically, PB is an asshole.

[very-improbable.livejournal.com]

I suppose, if he wanted to be really horrible, he could say she was susceptible to "witty men who are NYDN" (which stood for "Not Yet Diagnosed Nervous" and was used on medial reports in the War to refer to soldiers who were suspected fo being shell-shocked).

Whether I can make use of it in this context or not, I am absolutely delighted to learn that piece of vocabulary.

Re: Basically, PB is an asshole.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

It's lovely, isn't it? So redolent of WW1 "lions led by donkeys" stupidity.

By the way, I meant to say that I, too, really enjoyed the snippet and am delighted that the AU is continuing apace.