I agree with you, but this is the reality of it. I'd much rather kids have a censored version of this book than not have it at all, which is the choice we actually have given how most schools are run.

And it's not like the swearing is in any way essential to the work. You're not destroying a great work of literature by replacing "fuck" with "crap." So while I agree we shouldn't be so uptight about swears, I'd say we also shouldn't be so uptight about removing them here.

  First they came for the swears . . .

We should be very concerned about a precedent where we adapt or censor potentially objectionable content.

Next is content not in alignment with the schools ideologies or politics, for what is essential to a work?

These aren't abstract tin-foil hat concerns either: In 1982 Texas banned a geography textbook for mentioning evolution [1]. Publishers are financially incentivized to publish. These mechanisms enable those in power to control the information presented to children and students to suit their agendas (even while their own children attend private schools not subject to their decisions).

>According to Time magazine, the list of the most banned books of all time include . . . “Brave New World,” by Aldous Huxley; “1984,” by George Orwell

We should be pretty uptight about censorship.

https://ncse.com/cej/3/4/censorship-evolution-texas

https://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/Censorship...

https://www.lehigh.edu/~infirst/bookcensorship.html

This is a standard slippery slope argument. Is there evidence that the slope is actually slippery? Do we know that removing swear words leads to ideological censorship?

I think you can see it in self censoring of kids and adults in modern day conversation.

"The F word." "The N Word." "Eff that." "Effed in the A." "They want the D." "That scene was hot af."

Pick a better word, or demonstrate your lacking vocabulary. But the self-censorship makes one sound like a tool.

You'd get a better reaction saying, 'They want the orange dust-encrusted phallus.'

Your evidence only demonstrated the existence of the bottom of the slope.

It's hard playing moral arbiter. On the one hand, you want to make it accessible to as many students as possible as well as teach them the core of what you want. You could probably replace much of the cursing without changing the underlying narrative.

But I also totally understand your point. Why is every marvel movie jam packed with gratuitous violence. To the point where fighting is the entire point of the narrative. Characters will die in fantastic ways but is still equally traumatizing. But portraying love or swearing is too adult for children. Makes no sense to me.

Yeah, I see what you mean. But while the profanity probably could be removed, I think it would really take something from the character. The swears give the story a real, raw feel somehow -- they really make you feel as if it's actually happening.

He talks like the rest of us, not like a robot.

There are plenty of people who don't really swear though. If Weir was cool with the changes, he must've felt like the profanity wasn't crucial to the story.

Well it could be argued that the author's intention is no more correct than the audience's interpretation.

> On the one hand, you want to make it accessible to as many students as possible as well as teach them the core of what you want

Then use it. These kids aren't going to be damaged by hearing the word fuck.

see the second part

> for the sake of a few minor swear words

There are two F-bombs in the opening sentences, and over 160 swear words throughout. I'm not cool with my 8 year old walking around dropping F-bombs, and I'm not sure why you think it's your place to tell me I should be...

I can't wait for my son to read this book, but in it's original form it was completely inappropriate for him. I'm glad to hear this is available now - it's going on the Kindle soon.

They are talking about eighth-graders, not eight-year-olds.

"profanity and obscenity entitle people who don't want unpleasant information to close their ears and eyes to you."

- Kurt Vonnegut

So long as some parents would be upset or uncomfortable it would limit the reach of a very important story. I also think that while the language lends authenticity, it's not at all necessary to the story.

Eric Idle should now write an entire Math textbook series based on the word Fuck. Really, you could just have them be comedic supplemental material to another textbook. I bet a talented teacher could use such material to really liven up a math class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixxYx9fklM

(For those who don't know, writing songs based on Fuck has kind of become one of Eric Idle's things.)

Agreed. I assume as a classroom tool, this book would be appealing to early high school (8/9 grade). By that age, a student ought to be capable of reading a swear word or two in context without being injured.

To be fair, it's a bit more than just "a swear word or two in context". Here are literally THE FIRST THREE LINES of the book:

> I'm pretty much fucked. > That's my considered opinion. > Fucked.

Trust me, you start your lesson in an 8th grade classroom with that, and you've lost fifteen minutes to giggles.

Ha! I didn't remember that.

But, hopefully they aren't reading to each other in the middle of science class. I imagined the book would be homework or read in silence.

Totally agree. I have kids, and the book would certainly be inappropriate for them now. That said, the simple solution is to wait until they're old enough before exposing it to them instead of attempting to dilute the book.

The swearing adds some color to the book, but it definitely doesn't take away from the content. I'm OK with this tradeoff as long as it becomes more accessible to students.