Is So Much Swearing in Novels Necessary?

So often in literature today swearing is somewhat lazy -- the easy way out -- and intended to sensationalize. Of course in Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms" swearing proves realistic during a war. But then one could argue that it's not all about a writer's word choice but realizing his characters and situations well -- which indicates the language they use. The writer can't make choices about character expression independent of the character's own reality. Swearing in context can enhance a novel and give it the intended reality of the author. But can't one describe the faces of their characters, or depict the hatred of one character for another, and make a clear indication how insulting a fight/argument is between characters without swearing? A writer can offer a description of a character as dirty-mouthed without spelling out the swear words in a given situation.

A reader finds the C-word in D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover." But he employs the word in a manner that makes it a good word. Lawrence isn't trying to provoke the reader with the word...be negative about it...but illustrate how characters using the word revealed their sexual passion. Swearing has to reflect the tone and voice to be necessary. While a writer needs to use some self restraint with swearing in novels, he can't back away from the reality people swear, either. Isn't word choice and diction a totally imperative element of style? I just don't think one can reach literature's higher heights with swearing.

Isn't swearing the likely initial resort of the inarticulate?

I suppose it is a universal concept that so many find swearing offensive. Otherwise, it wouldn't be blanked out so often in assorted media. And yes, swearing may prove useful for strong characterization if appropriate--along with reflecting one more facet of man's character, which all relate to. Literature is about telling the truth. It sort of comes down to common decency: consideration for the sensitive folks (you really don't want to upset those folks turned-off by swearing in print). Although we all agree vulgarity for vulgarity's sake merely offers cheap shock value, the writer still retains the freedom to express himself however he wants.

Swearing basically involves a writer's diction choice and in reality has nothing to do with offending someone or not. It's okay if the writer uses the diction (swearing) appropriately to get his meaning across. In essence, a writer doesn't want to create reader displeasure with swearing's mere shock value. But he also should not totally avoid swearing if deemed appropriate to the subject...unless writing escapist literature. Or for the sake of argument...would it really even be about "escapism?" Maybe literature without swearing reaches the higher heights of literature by designing something greater than duplicating every detail of daily life. Personally, I think the real optimal idea behind good literature is to allow the reader a view that reaches beyond daily life. Perhaps a writer should give his characters much more than realism--an imaginative realism that makes them a lot more real than real. Doesn't that make good art?