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.
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.
See the Apollo 10 logs: https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS10_CM.PDF
https://4f46691c-a-dbcb5f65-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/micha...
In some cases it really felt like they were just going back over text and adding them in as an afterthought.
besides, a loud expletive is sometimes required in certain situations. :P
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.
Respect. There's a severe LACK of it now-a-days.
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
"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.
It's less censoring and more of an abridgment.
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.