I have one question about the use of the word, and I haven't read the book. How is the dog being bitten on the scrotum relevant to the story? Does the dog have to be neutered after that? Could the dog have been bitten on the tail and the story have been the same?
I don't know, because I haven't read the book, as I said. But, if the dog could have been bitten on the tail and the story wouldn't change, then it seems like the choice to use the word scrotum may have (and I say may have, because I don't know the author's thinking) been for sensationalism more than anything else, especially if this happened on the first page of the book. (I have no idea where it occurs.)
To me if it was necessary for the dog to have been bitten on the scrotum for some reason it's no big deal to use the proper word. However, if that word was used for the sensational aspect and the publicity it might bring (and it certainly has caused a fury), I have a problem with that. Too often objectionable language (objectionable depending on the person) is used for the shock value.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm okay with the occasional "objectionable" word (and objectionable means something different to everyone, I'm not saying scrotum is objectionable to me, although it may be to some) when it's necessary to the story. I do have a problem with it when it's not necessary, just as I have a problem with having gratuitous sex in a book for no good reason, cursing, killing, etc. If it's necessary to the story, moves it forward, etc, fine. If it isn't necessary, then I have to wonder why the author put it in there.
Frankly, I don't think I would have even thought twice if I'd seen the word scrotum in a book, but the author had to know that some people might object.
My question is, was the word necessary to the story? And is on the first page, where it would attract more notice, or is it in the middle of the book somewhere?
anita