Age Ratings for books

Cactus Col

I was just wondering if anybody out there thought that books should receive age ratings similiar to those used for films. Afterall, books can have a much bigger influence on people, and can go into much greater detail.

A parent wouldn't allow his / her 13 year old to rent out American Psycho, but would they object to him / her reading it, especially as the book is much more powerful and graphic.

garthv

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
NO
*censored* censorship *censored*,give it up!

edit:

Cactus Col

GaRtH_V wrote:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
NO
****** censorship *****,give it up!

It's not censorship though. The books remain intact.

nesf

Books are different to films in that the reader has to be at least knowledgeable of the concepts to understand them. IE a kid who doesn't know what the euphenisms of sex are will have no idea of what the author is referring to in your average fiction novel that mentions the subject.


And I agree with the above statement, I'm opposed to censorship in all it's forms when concerning normal material, ie exclusions to this would be like kiddie porn and other sick **** like that.

Cactus Col

nesf wrote:

Books are different to films in that the reader has to be at least knowledgeable of the concepts to understand them. IE a kid who doesn't know what the euphenisms of sex are will have no idea of what the author is referring to in your average fiction novel that mentions the subject..

To be honest I wasn't actually thinking about sex when I started the post, more about violence and drugs. And I think part of the problme comes when a kid might not understand precisely what's going on in a book e.g. A thirteen year old reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" may come away with a different impression then an adult.

But you're right sex is another area that could affect kids.

nesf wrote:

And I agree with the above statement, I'm opposed to censorship in all it's forms when concerning normal material, ie exclusions to this would be like kiddie porn and other sick **** like that.

Not to be rude, but that statement means you are not opposed to censorship in all it's forms. But I am in total agreement with the forms that you would support.

And like I said before, putting age ratings on books isn't censorship. Parents could use them as guides, so they have a better knowledge over what their kids are reading. (if parents cared).

aniascor

nesf wrote:

Books are different to films in that the reader has to be at least knowledgeable of the concepts to understand them.

I agree with nesf here - a child's literacy levels already determine what he or she can read. The reason age restrictions are necessary for movies (and even TV programmes) is because they are so much more accessible. You just need to be able to sit in front of a screen to watch something, but you need to be able to read at a certain level in order to access the information and concepts in a book. I think that in general children aren't interested in reading "adult" novels anyway. So I guess what we're really talking about here is stopping 14 and 15 year olds reading books that wouldn't be considered "suitable". And I don't really see the need. The thing about censorship of any kind is that it is difficult to draw the line on where to stop.

As for age ratings providing guidance for parents, books everywhere are organised according to age - in libraries and in book shops, you'll find a children's books, teen books, young adult, and adult books section. For any parents interested in controlling what their kids read, this should be enough to help them decide whether something is suitable or not.

Blitzkrieger

I remember Rats by James Herbert was one of the most popular books in our school library..........once I pointed out some of the dirty bits to some friends.

I think parents should be aware of what their children are reading and not let them have books they don't think are suitable, but in a way it's self limiting. If there's sexual content the child has to be already aware of what's happening in order to understand. If there's violence, it can only be as graphic as the child's imagination. Drugs and other themes can be more of a grey area but I don't think any book is going to ruin a child's life.

chewy

i think we should start up a campaign to age rate books:), apart for lady chatterlys lover or whatever that book was I can't think of when a book has caused outrages like GTA

also many books contain pictures? there isn't a age rating for say magaznes, a good example is people complaining about half naked women being in ads for arena in the back of empire magazine?

i think part of is snobbishness , they mostly compalin about tv video and games, probably thinking to themeslves why can't a kid just read a good book?

simu

No! I learned a lot of interesting things about sex etc from books when I was a kid. Books require interpretation whereas films blast everything into your face. Even if books describe violent acts in great detail, possible interpretations are more subjective and easier to fit into a person's existing worldview.

billy the squid

age certification of books? no

Movies are different to books in that books unlike movies can only be read comfortably by one person, where as with movies, you can put a DVD on and a whole room can watch it at the same time. as well as that kids are not going to get bored reading a 500 page novel unless they have a general idea of what the book is about. plus there is no graphic images in your average paperback.

skinbooks, well its pretty obvious what they may contain just by reading the cover.

chewy

"well its pretty obvious what they may contain just by reading the cover."

couldnt the smae arguement be made for a film or a game too?

widen the question out to printed material...

theCzar

GaRtH_V wrote:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
NO
****** censorship *****,give it up!

I fail to see how age ratings is tantamount to censorship.

cen·sor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snsr)
n.
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.


I doubt there's much point in age restrictions myself, unless it's to encourage young scamps to read more...

nesf

theCzar wrote:

I doubt there's much point in age restrictions myself, unless it's to encourage young scamps to read more...

Hmm a cunning plan but I doubt it'd work.

To be fair I'd veiw an age rating on books as ludicrious. People read at different levels. When I was very young I read well above my age, I read books containing violent material, but as (quoting an above post) they didn't fit in my worldveiw I wasn't particualrily reviled or disturbed by them and they had little impact on me.

DadaKopf

Yeah, I think Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings should be at least 15's, they're violent and gruesome and give children ideas about doing evil.

Gimmie a break. If anything, children have to engage more in these themes provided a good moral context.

Every generation has its media evil. First is was the plastic arts. Then it was the novel - Ulysses was banned in Ireland but now it's a universal literary masterpiece. Then it was movies (still is), then television beaming amorality into our living rooms. Music, like punk, caught a lot of flack in the 1970s. Now we've got a ludicrous media 'debate' about computer games. It'll be something else in a few years.

I've been allowed to watch whatever I wanted, read whatever I wanted, listen to whatever I wanted since I was 10 or something and I haven't turned into a crazed murderous drug fiend.

theCzar

nesf wrote:

I wasn't particualrily reviled or disturbed by them and they had little impact on me.

Well, it seems like most people are the same, as youngsters we see plenty of material that some would deem unsuitable, and it only really serves to expand our mind (......heavy man).

If something is unknown to you, it's much more interesting, that's probably why most popular children's books are fantasy, since children's authors can't play with exotic concepts like murder and sex, they have create exotic world's in other ways.

Since i'm on something of a rant here, and to tack back to the original topic anyway, i'll take the time to mention that part of Harry Potter's success is that it does deal with issues involving murder, hate revenge etc... all things which would probably warrant a 15's rating if we had age ratings on books

phew

sorry

theCzar

DadaKopf wrote:

Yeah, I think Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings should be at least 15's

i hate it when you take too long writing a post and sombody beats you to your own point...

bcKay

DadaKopf wrote:

I've been allowed to watch whatever I wanted, read whatever I wanted, listen to whatever I wanted since I was 10 or something and I haven't turned into a crazed murderous drug fiend.

Yet

As for adding an appropriate age level, I think, in childrens books and young readers books, it'd be much more benificial to state the reading level of the book...that way parents aren't buying their 15 yr old Judy Blume because they "remember it so fondly"....
When I was working in a bookstore I remember one kid who was 16 and would only read Goosebumps. Now THAT is a problem....

I think parents should be able to tell general content of books by reading the back or the dust jacket to find out what it is about. There is the rare occation where 6 yrs olds are reading at a young adult or higher reading level and it becomes very hard to find appropriate reading materials...but what's wrong with reading a book before your child reads it if you have any concerns. The problem now days isn't that kids are reading inappropriate books, it's that they're not reading books at all....

and the comics they have are probably less 'appropriate' than any book they could get their hands on...

Then there is the argument of a 13 yr old reading "Eat Me"...but again...unless the parent is clueless ....

LoLth

Just to throw a spanner in the works....

I always read at a level above my age (not boasting, it's just the way it was) and tbh reading (and learning from) eric van lustbader novels - I was big into japanese stuff then - at the age of 10 was a little bit off. I dont agree with age ratings for books but I can certainly see why people would consider it.

For example (and I'm making this one up): what if a book describes in great detail how to prepare cocaine - maybe as part of the gritty realism the author is striving for - and this is read by a 12 yr old. Or perhaps the book aggrandises the effects of mind altering drugs. Now, technically a parent should know what their child is reading but in reality, many parents read less books than their kids as they dont have the same time available.

nesf

I agree with Lolth for the most part. I think it to a large extent is a personal issue and should be "policed" at a personal level. But that might just be my wish to reduce censorship to the decision of individual parents and adults. I personally learned alot by reading in my youth and it was a major teacher for me in alot of subjects.

And i didn't turn out too bad.....honest.....

impr0v

LoLth wrote:

....reading (and learning from) eric van lustbader novels - I was big into japanese stuff then - at the age of 10 was a little bit off...

Heh, I remember reading a particularly steamy section of 'The Ninja' in a room with my parents when i was about 12 or so and thinking 'god, if they only knew what i was reading.' I used to buy my father other Nicolas Linnear books for his birthday even though he wasn't in to them, and then read them before him.

I too would be against the idea of age classification on books. In my view if a child/adolescent is advanced enough in their reading ability to seek out and read 'Fear and Loathing..' then he/she is advanced enough to be able to deal with its contents in a rational manner. Surely we should be doing everything we can to encourage kids to read, and to not be afraid of books which are aimed at age groups above their own, especially when there are so many much more accessible and instantly gratifying activities competing for their attentions. Such a scheme might contribute, in some small way, to more kids opting out of reading. Of course an age classification system could conceivably have the opposite effect, an '18+' sticker on a book would surely incentivise a book to some!

Drakon

Ratings for a book is pointless in my opinion. Who is to say what age rating is appropriate for a book. Children develop at different ages and while we may consider a child too young to read certain material it doesnt mean they havent already learned about it elsewhere. Books are meant to be an education even if they are fun, they tend to talk about real issues that concern everyone. Race, Sex, Violence, Drugs. All these are things kids should learn about. At least in writing the issues are not as glamourised as they are in movies or tv. Books tend to reflect the realities of life more closely. Even if they are fantasy or science fiction, the issues dealt with are very real and while couched in a fantastic setting they prompt people of all ages to think on the matters being discussed.

As an seperate thing would you put a rating on the Bible. There tends to be plenty of violence and hate in there though it is usually offset by the messages of goodwill? Most books use difficult issues to make the message of good that more powerful.