I believe that constant swearing is inappropriate. As a matter of fact, in that book it decreased believability for me. An educated astronaut, faced with a possible extinction, would want to leave a worthy testament/diary, and not an expletive-riddled notes.
I felt the opposite actually. To me, the swearing made it more believable -- sure, the guy is leaving a diary, but for all he knows, nobody will ever find it. Being stranded on Mars and facing one's own death seems like the perfect occasion for swearing.
I thought the swearing in that book was very tastefully done. For me it added a bit of lightness and humor to the whole thing. I'm actually pretty disappointed that they cut so many of the swears from the movie.
This. The profanity, in my opinion, is really well used in the book. It gives it a raw and authentic feel that you wouldn't otherwise get. You can really see yourself there because he's talking like a human, not some politically correct ideal of a person.
I think your point is fair, but there are also some humans (who are not just politically correct ideals) who don't lace their speech or writing with swears, even under duress or stressful conditions - they're still talking like humans, too. It would be no less raw or authentic if the character was one of these people.
To be clear, the character is a foul-mouthed variety of person. But if he weren't, and the book were absent of swearing, it would not seem any less authentic to me.
more relevant, astronauts mostly grow up outside of the Bible belt, hence they swear. People in the Bible belt pass this kind of laws to warp reality and make the big city seem like a dangerous lawles place.
“The consistent findings across the studies suggest that the positive relation between profanity and honesty is robust, and that the relationship found at the individual level indeed translates to the society level,” concludes the final paper, set to be published in the journal of Psychological and Personality Science:
Literally the central point of Watney's character through the whole book is that he refuses to accept he's going to die there and does whatever he can to prevent it.
Sure it was inappropriate. Many educated people swear like sailors exactly because it's inappropriate. His profanity was part of his character, and other characters reacted exactly as though it was inappropriate.
I'm with you. At times it seemed too forced--as if the author thought, "Oops, I forgot to add something to this sentence...a period? No, it needs a 'shit!'"
In some cases it really felt like they were just going back over text and adding them in as an afterthought.
Why do we require shirts and shoes at work? Why do we tell our children to say "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am"? Why do we not wear hats indoors?
Yes, words are just words. It doesn't matter if you replace Fuck with shit or damn or pussy. The expression of the word is, in some situations, completely disrespectful of those around you.
I don't really want to be seeing some person's genitals, mainly because we live in a culture based around hiding your junk (which I'm not opposed to). someone's words, however, are totally transient and I'm free to tune them out. I'm not exactly free to not look at somebody.
I can put headphones on. I can't put a blindfold on.
hats indoors? really? you think that's disrespectful?
there's a severe lack of common sense nowadays, and uppity folks are proof of it. fuck words. :P
Yes, clothes in public are disrespectful. Ever been to a public bath house?
"Hats indoors" is a superset of "hats in a theater" (ignoring outdoor theaters). Saying that something applies to a subset isn't an argument for why it should apply to a superset.
There might be a good argument for them being rude. The theater isn't that argument.
Having expected patterns of behavior smooths interaction between people. Bringing things back to the book: The dude's in a tough situation, with much less reason to self-censor thoughts he might be having. It makes sense that social niceties would be out the window.
Used in a science curriculum, you're studying the science, and may as well get rid of distracting elements. Bowdlerizing it in the context of a language arts curriculum would still be "in schools", and I'd go the opposite direction there. In that context, I'd say they're an important part of the book, establishing the character that the author wanted to portray, and that you'd be losing lessons on contextual appropriateness of different registers of language.
The fact that both situations would occur in a school setting is completely irrelevant to me. I don't think that it should play a part in the "abridgement" decision (although I recognize that it would, and that my opinion on the matter is likely to be controversial). It's more important to me how closely it fits the purpose that it's being put to. In the case of my two examples, scientific vs artistic truths.
I don't think it's inappropriate as much as I think it's just pure laziness. Can't find a more descriptive word? Drop an F-bomb. Yeah... get on with your bad self!.
