Having read the book something like five times now[0] I'm actually okay with this.
The swearing and cursing does make it a better book, but removing that doesn't remove the beauty of it. The film adaptation was okay without it (though it lost some scenes I'd have loved it to have included, and I'm only somewhat okay with Matt Damon in the lead role).
Kids with cool parents will buy them the better version, and they'll get to show it off to their friends. Now it's not about who is reading the book, but who's reading the cool version of it.
[0] I bought it as a KDP novel for $0.99, somewhere between it being a free book online and it being picked up by a mainstream publisher. Every now and then I want to re-read some small part of it, and accidentally re-read it all. One of my favourite books, honestly.
PG-13 movies are allowed two uses of the word "fuck." The Martian had Matt Damon use them fairly early on, first, when Watney yanks the piece of the antenna out of himself ("FUCK!"), and second, when he makes up his mind to survive ("Fuck you, Mars"). They allude to its use in many other places, though, such as the memorable shot from outside the Rover where you can clearly see his lips saying "What the fuck? What the fuck?" Then there was some "censored" text in the chat logs, a reference to Watney telling the botanists to "have sex with themselves," and so forth.
Wow I think we all need to step back and chill when it comes to swears. It's actually a really brilliant book in its current form, why would you change it for kids for the sake of a few minor swear words that the kids probably know better than you anyways.
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.
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
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?
Sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate a non-fallacious usage of the slippery slope argument. Simply because it's a slippery slope argument doesn't make it fallacious - though such accusations are very good at silencing.
Perhaps you can provide an example where increases in censorship do not make it easier for the types of problems listed above to occur, a place where the misuse of power is unheard of.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I remember from being a kid that the etiquette I quickly figured out was that kids don't swear around adults and adults don't swear around kids. Where does this come from? Are there any anthropological studies about this?
Kids around kids can swear as much as they like, same with adults around adults, and they use exactly same swears, maybe adults with more awareness where did the swearwords came from, since they have better understanding of sex.
I swore much worse and much more as a kid than I do as an adult (I curbed my swearing around high-school). I haven't met an adult that swore as much as we did as kids.
Swearing is artificially powerful language, and kids are especially prone to abusing any shred of power they can get (because of fully justified insecurity about how much power they have). So if you allow swearing it they'd just ruin the artificial language power hierarchy for everybody.
It's good that kids will get to read this as part of their class, but America as a country needs to relax when it comes to swearing. How much damage can reading the word fuck do to someone who is 13-18 years old?
It's not so much that "America" is uptight about swearing is that the minority that is uptight about it cares very intensely, and the people that aren't also aren't nearly as upset about what needs to be done to placate that minority as the minority is if not placated, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I don't think America as a country is particularly uptight about swearing. I hear swearing all the time, everywhere I go.
We have a cultural norm that adult authority figures do not swear in front of children or provide them with educational materials containing profanity.
I can see why this norm may be irksome to some people but I don't see how it is harmful.
Obviously there is no damage, but part of schooling is teaching children how to behave in our culture. Our culture believes swears are unprofessional and crass.
I certainly wouldn't have any problems with it for 13-18 years olds, but I can see why there is some push back.
Especially in an age where saying "son of bitch" could be construed as a perpetuating hostile workplace environment for women.
I've got a filthy mouth and I sort of wish I didn't.
I'd also be against cleaning up important classic works that use language that isn't really allowed anymore. That is whitewashing history.
> Our culture believes swears are unprofessional and crass.
Who is 'our' here? Cursing is part of the language in many industries. They are just words with added emphasis. Saying something like 'crap' is akin to saying 'awe shucks' and does a bad job conveying the seriousness of the situation. Using a word like 'fuck' in the same context does convey an additional seriousness of no other word.
I don't curse that much, but when I do it is to make a point. If I was stranded on Mars looking at the road ahead as this character did, I absolutely would be cursing.
I don't know what age the coursework around the book will be targeted at, but my son could absolutely devour the book at 8 - I held off due to the language. I will be getting him a copy of the friendly version as soon as he's done with the series he's reading now.
My son read it a couple of times when he was ten and loved it (he'd seen the film first and we wouldn't let him read the book until I'd read it first)
Yeh, there's some swearing but ultimately it's partly about context, and partly about parents expectations of their kids and he knows we wouldn't accept the same language from him.
Well, if parents got to choose their kids' schools rather than being forced to accept what the State gives them, then this wouldn't be an issue (or, rather, it'd be an issue for each school to consider on its own).
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!.
To be honest, I was actually distracted by the the swearing because it really was unnecessary writing. Like there are places where as an editor I would have told him to cut it too. --E.g., when he finds out what re-runs his crew member has and immediately follows the sentence with some cursing. It just would have been better with a lot of other literary devices.
Although some books will lose something if you subtract the harsher language, this is not one of them.
It's not necessary in any real sense, but a foul-mouthed astronaut who doesn't swear isn't a foul-mouthed astronaut. It's a trait that works well with the character's irreverent attitude.
I don't remember the language from when I read the book, so it must not have bothered me. I think given the situation the main character was put into, cursing makes a lot of sense. He's basically talking to himself day after day and clues the reader into his cowboy (in addition to science geek) like attitude. It also served as a bit of comedic relief for the character and reader.
Something was off about the swearing for me as well. Kept distracting me while reading the book. I’m perfectly OK with Bruce Willis foul mouthing his bloody way through a skyscraper. But for me this astronaut’s fucks are unimaginative, emotionally dull and repeating ad nauseam. I am reminded of Tourette syndrome.
It's simple. The teacher/school would have to get permission from parents. Many parents would refuse to give permission. This would force the teacher/school to provide alternative material. That becomes a pain when part of the class is reading one thing and part is reading a different thing. Its just easier to avoid the situation all together by either "sanitizing" the book or using a different book.
By the way, thanks for the link. I just ordered a classroom version of the book for my kids to read (yes, I would be one of those parents who wouldn't give permission for their kids to read the original version.)
Picking battles and all that. I don't think it's worth keeping this book out of the hands of more kids for the sake of a few swear words. It's not exactly Catcher in the Rye.
Yeah this wouldn't be allowed in UK schools because of the swearing. "Crap" would be allowed, and "shit" might be in the context of a piece of literature being reviewed in an English class, but in a science class there's no need for it and it is considered inappropriate for children. For context, saying 'the f-word' or equivalent in earshot of a teacher would usually result in punishment.
That's not true. I just went through secondary education in the UK and we've studied pieces of literature with quite raw swears in them. It's not a massive issue.
As I said in my answer, literature study is the place where it would be acceptable, but it wouldn't be appropriate in a science class where the point is not analysing the language.
On the other hand, Australia has actual censorship backed by law.
>RC (Refused Classification) – Contains material that is considered offensive to the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified. Classification is mandatory, and films that are Refused Classification by the ACB are legally banned for sale, hire or public exhibition, carrying a maximum fine of $275,000 and/or 10 years' jail if an individual/organisation is found to be in breach of this.
south American countries have 14yr kids read books on a band of criminal, murderous, rapists orphans living in the outskirts of the city.
But, most countries there are suffering State coups recently and some even removed science (geography, chemistry, sociology) to add State doctrine classes (where kids 6 and up are educated on their duties but never on their rights as citizens)
> But, most countries there are suffering State coups recently
Since 2000, there have been coups or attempted coups in two countries in South America (Ecuador several times, plus Venezuela). You have to take a very unusual view of "recently" to make the idea that most countries in South America have "recently" had coups.
This makes me think of Peter Watts' experiences regarding making one of his books 'classroom-friendly' [1]. Briefly, a high-school teacher wanted to use his Blindsight in her English class, and got his reluctant permission to produce a censored version. It never got off the ground, because there was parental protest at teaching from a book that at one point had profanity in it.
Yeah. Let's water down the shit out of this. It's a fantastic book even without the profanity and if this is required to get it into the classroom, well, then so be it. The original language makes it even more attractive to some younger readers though. "I'm pretty much fucked." as the very first sentence? Cool, I'll keep on reading.
Try going to any social media outlets like Instagram or Twitter or Snapchat and suddenly swear words like "fuck" and "crap" will seem normal. These kids have access to social media these days. Innocence was long gone with the advent of open social media. Good luck modern parents.
Honestly, all the swearing is pretty good training for future jobs. In my experience, engineers swear almost as much as financial analysts and sailors. "It behaves fucky" is probably our most used technical term.
My son read it in 3rd grade, after I helped him read the first chapter. It was the first adult book he'd ever read. He was so excited to then be able to see the movie.
I'm wildly supportive of the PG version of the book. There are a lot of prudish parents out there, and public schools naturally have to be inclined toward folks who complain the most.
It would be tragic to allow a few bad words to keep such an inspiring book from millions of children who wouldn't see it otherwise.
If I buy The Martian in a year will I get the normal version of the safe for our precious children version? If I buy it on Kindle will it magically update in the future to protect my brain from the badness?
Or will there be an adult version and a child version?
IDK, I find this kind of thing really stupid and pointless[1], but then again I don't have kids so I doubt my opinion matters on the subject to those that do.
[1] Kids swear like trains when they're 10, or these days probably younger.
All the people here saying "I don't get what the big deal with the swear words is" are far more stupid than the teachers who went and got the changes made so they could actually use the damn book in their classrooms.
When millions of people have some harmless feeling you think is irrational, the thing to do is work around it, not whine about it on Hacker News.
No, the teachers are idiots who would censor literature "for the greater good".
The people who have a problem with a kid (I'm guessing this would be 8th grade plus?, so teenagers) reading a few swear words in a book need to get over it.
Yes we should cover statues and paintings , and rewrite books so that some people don't be offended. Yes it is really a good plan, submit to the beliefs of some people and change reality so that it's nicer to them.
So somebody just locked in a made-for-school monopoly on the 'safe' text, and schools will now likely pay a premium. All to protect middle/high schools students from swear words they can hear in the halls everyday.
I hope we get a sanitized version of Django Unchained for my high school U.S. history students. It really is a good story, but the constant use of the N-word is a problem.
Not sure if the N-word is a problem. I read uncensored versions of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Tom's Cabin in high school. Actually, I think I read the former in elementary school. The problem with Django would be the ultraviolence and lack of historical accuracy.
A travesty? Is the story materially hurt by these changes? I see a lot of people saying we shouldn't worry about kids seeing swear words, which I fully agree with, but no one seems to be putting forth any good arguments that these edits are in any way detrimental.
If the original text hadn't had him swearing, would you have walked away thinking "Gee, that was nice, but it seems odd that he never said 'fuck'. I'll remove half a star from my rating for that'? If not, why is this edit in any way a negative, let alone a travesty?
Stuck alone on Mars? I'd say that the "appropriate behavior" for that situation is pretty well undefined. It seems like a good opportunity for teachable moments: "Okay, Jenny, let's not use our Mars-language at the dinner table."
If the parents and other authority figures in the child's life aren't already providing good models of social behavior, then the kid's got bigger problems to worry about than the rough language in the book, and if they do have good models, then I don't see the problem, as long as the context gets explained to them at some point.
So that makes it OK to use expletives in an educational setting? Sounds pretty unprofessional to me. Now, they may have overdone it in this case, but in general, I think that expletives should remain outside of professional settings (classroom/workplace/lecture hall/etc.).
We are talking here about reading a book, not the teacher's words, i assume that children are not that stupid as to not see it. I guess you are in favor also to cover statues/paintings penises and tits in art books and to rewrite Tintin in Congo and many other books because they are not politically correct.
I understand you, and people defending it, but i wanted to point that it's a dangerous decision , where do we stop doing it? Who can decide where's the limit between censurable and not?. So Tintin in Congo(they wanted to rewrite it some years ago) it's censurable because it's a comic but Huckleberry Finn not because it's a classic? . And sorry , didn't want to look like was attacking you.
I agree with you. I don't know why I agree with you. I strongly don't want my child swearing until he's ready to do so. I recognise that this is irrational, and that it's just sounds. Especially because I swear a lot.
(Although I feel like this I would support a teacher who chose to use the uncensored version of The Martian in school. )
You hear someone at work say: "Fuck this bug, what a shitty compiler, let's go back to using clang". Or you hear them say: "I'm tired of this bug, what a terribly designed compiler, let's go back to using clang".
The second one gets the same message across in my opinion, but without resorting to obscene language.
Now imagine a professor saying that during a lecture; sounds even worse to be honest. You mentioned that you grew up in a foreign country. Is it normal to hear your professor or boss speaking like that in a professional setting?
> The second one gets the same message across in my opinion, but without resorting to obscene language.
Same denotation, different connotation and emotional content (assuming both sentences are spoken by the same person). There are people at my work from whom the first example is heard daily, and people for whom it would be severely out of character.
> Is it normal to hear your professor or boss speaking like that in a professional setting?
Only one or two of my professors, out of a couple dozen, but probably 3 of the 5 bosses I've worked under would occasionally use that kind of language.
But it actually does not get the same message across. The clean version convey calmness and, well clean. The cursing version conveys the site is down and I've been up 24 fucking hours working around the fucking compiler. Completely different meaning by using words that convey a higher degrees of frustration.
Now, I can agree with you if you're talking about using curse words just as a standard course of business. They are words with meaning just like all other words. Use them to convey what you are actually trying to convey.
It depends on the person. I did have a amazing high school math teacher who became interim director of the school who quite frequently used swear words. However, he did it usually in a entertaining rather than raging way. He was very popular with the students and a very effective teacher. Others would never swear and yet others occasionally. Just like normal people outside of a school setting. No parents ever complained are were concerned about it. They were just happy their kids were learning shit.
Considering I once worked at a company (in the US) where one programmer had for his Do Not Disturb sign a page that said "FUCK OFF" in giant letters, um... yeah? Granted this was in the video game industry.
But actually even in my current corporate business application development job there's a healthy amount of swearing within the department, even from the boss. We don't use it when communicating with people outside the department though (well, usually).
Because some parents are incapable of and/or unwilling to teaching their children right from wrong and will rely on the public education system to do it for them.
The swearing and cursing does make it a better book, but removing that doesn't remove the beauty of it. The film adaptation was okay without it (though it lost some scenes I'd have loved it to have included, and I'm only somewhat okay with Matt Damon in the lead role).
Kids with cool parents will buy them the better version, and they'll get to show it off to their friends. Now it's not about who is reading the book, but who's reading the cool version of it.
[0] I bought it as a KDP novel for $0.99, somewhere between it being a free book online and it being picked up by a mainstream publisher. Every now and then I want to re-read some small part of it, and accidentally re-read it all. One of my favourite books, honestly.