Asimov's Unfit For Schools?

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Someone pass me my copy of Fahrenheit 451...

the article:
http://woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201645394


Granted that the magazine may be better suited for an older (college) readership.

But, I find the article's tone of advocacy while refusing to put the magazine in a fair perspective (it is after all not aimed at a juvenile audience, and SF has gone beyond the 'stories for geeky teens' phase) highly offensive. The people at Asimov's were not given a chance to react and only negative views are quoted.

Leaving aside my love for SF and approval of such a magazine, this is not what I was taught is the spirit of fair reporting, either by my father, a journalist all his life, or in my own studies on the subject in college.

 

[dwndrgn]

After reading the article, I'm still a little confused. My first question was about the fund-raising drive itself. I've been visited by high school students for years with lists of magazines (children's and adults) for sale to raise funds for their schools. I've never seen a fund-raising drive that was marketed only to the kids themselves - it wouldn't succeed in any case! In other words, were the magazines only supposed to be sold to the kids themselves? If so, then yes the school itself is at fault, they alone are responsible for knowing what the kids are doing to raise funds for the school. Not the marketing company, not the magazines. Otherwise, the parents should have been aware - you can't purchase a subscription with cash so a check or credit card would be needed. I didn't see that the article was against the magazine itself - they asked the mag for comment and as the mag's people said, their magazine is geared for an adult audience. However, the quoted portion sounded odd. Was it a list of 'things she saw' in the magazine or was it a direct quote from the mag itself? That was confusing. I'm not sure why they wouldn't just say that the content was not appropriate for children? Why would they need to spell it out? Aren't news channels/webpages accessible by teens too? It seems as if they contradicted themselves.

At the end though, I was astounded that they were going to check up on the magazine to ensure they post disclaimers. How ridiculous! The magazine is geared for adults and shouldn't have to do this type of thing. I was actually impressed that the magazine would promise such a thing when they clearly don't need to and weren't at fault in this matter. And then for the newsperson to insult that 'above and beyond the call of duty' action by the magazine by checking up on it.

Shall we all be completely offended and write 24 Hours News 8 and tell them so?

 

[riffraff]

any one up for starting a petition?

 

[littlemissattitude]

Sigh. I've been reading quite a bit lately about censorship and First Amendment issues, so this hits quite close to things I've been concerned about lately.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit upset that the magazine has agreed to put disclaimers on all its stories with "adult content". We seem to be moving closer and closer in this culture (the U.S.) to a position where the only acceptable literature, films, music, art, etc. will be that which is acceptable for a three-year-old. Speaking as a writer, I don't want to be limited to writing about Sunday-school picnics and purple dinosaurs.

Certainly, I'm not advocating that strongly sexual or violent material be available to small children. On the other hand, it seems to me that it is up to parents - not publishers, not television stations, not schools - to make sure that their children don't see what they (parents) deem unacceptable. I don't know what this television station was doing when it decided that it needed to "warn" other school districts about this magazine. That really isn't in their job description, I don't think Aren't they suppsed to report the news, not make it?

It reminds me of how, when the old, original James Bond (Sean Connery and Roger Moore vintage) films are shown on broadcast (as opposed to cable) television here in the states, there is always a disclaimer shown that the films contain adult content. Well, when I was young (elementary school age) and these films first came out, my family always headed for the drive-in to see them as soon as they came to our town. Nobody worried that my parents were exposing me to something that might damage me. If anyone had suggested that, my parents would have laughed at them and said, "You know it's a movie, don't you? It isn't real. Our daughter knows that."

More appropriate to the article knivesout posted, my parents never, ever censored anything I read. The library tried to - so I just ended up reading things they wouldn't let me check out while sitting in the library. I read "The Graduate" that way, as well as "Rosemary's Baby" and "MASH", among other books, around the time I was in fifth or sixth grade. If I came upon anything that I didn't understand or was uneasy about, I knew that I could discuss it with my parents, and I did. Maybe that's the problem - nobody talks to their kids any more. Maybe if they would, things like this article wouldn't ever come up.

 

[dwndrgn]

More appropriate to the article knivesout posted, my parents never, ever censored anything I read. The library tried to - so I just ended up reading things they wouldn't let me check out while sitting in the library. I read "The Graduate" that way, as well as "Rosemary's Baby" and "MASH", among other books, around the time I was in fifth or sixth grade. If I came upon anything that I didn't understand or was uneasy about, I knew that I could discuss it with my parents, and I did. Maybe that's the problem - nobody talks to their kids any more. Maybe if they would, things like this article wouldn't ever come up.

Indeed. Plus censorship creates a buzz about something - forbidden fruit and all that. My parents never did anything like this either (except forbid me to watch the Three Stooges - while mom was in the room - for some reason they gave her the creeps ). No big deal. Although I might have approved of censorship if it had kept me from seeing 'Devil's Rain' a cheesy horror flick as a young'un that still gives me nightmares .

If parents became more involved in their children's lives, the world would most definitely be a better place. People say they are too busy. Whatever. My mom had three kids, a husband that was gone for 80 hours out of every week and side jobs of her own to help pay the bills. Yet I never felt that she didn't spend enough time with me, or that I couldn't talk to her about anything.

This article and the Janet Jackson debacle are perfect examples of people just going overboard.

 

[riffraff]

very true. my librarian was wary of letting me read gulliver's travels when I was 11 because at one point he pisses all over a building. how are kids meant to develope adult vocbularies if they're still stuck with reading spot or the babysitter's club when they're secondary school? no wonder the average vocabulary is constrained to phrases such as "y'know" and "like".

in any case, how do you accurately censor anything? you can't tell what effect it will have on the child. I had no problem with Titanic, where lots of people die very traumatically and which has nudity, swearing and sex scenes, and neither did my younger sister who was way below the age limit. but some of the bits is disney films? like that bit where simba's dad dies? that is a seriously upsetting moment

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

My parents had a good approach to this. They did tell me to ask before I took a book from their shelves to read, and if they felt I was not ready for it, they would explain why.

I remember that they didn't let me read Asimov's Naked Sun when I was 7, but they made sure to remind me of it later, when I was around 11. They explained to me that there were a few things in the book that I may not understand yet, and suggestedan alternative - in this case a collection of Asimov's own short stories.

Similarly, my father did not let me read his copy of Helter Skelter till I was past 12, explaining quite clearly that it was about murder and that he wanted me to be a bit older before reading about such things.

The same went for movies.

None of this was a problem for me - at times I wished I was older already, so I could read those other books, but on the other hand I appreciated the fact that they were letting me read a lot of books most children my age would not have access to. This is when I read my first SF and fantasy, as well as other authors I continue to enjoy like Huxley, Orwell, and so on.

So I have to say that parental involvement is really what is needed.

Plus, perhaps we need to re-assess exactly what is not appropriate for children. Keeping children in a false state of innocence is not doing them a favour - it's just a way for grown-ups to live out their own picture-perfect childhood fantasies and, perhaps, not have to deal with troublesome questions.

I don't suggest that we inundate children with gory or prurient content or imagery - but when neither disgust/fear/titillation or whatever is the prime aim of a given book or movie or song, it makes more sense to talk to the child about about why, while certain things may be a part of this particular expression, it is not something the parent approves of or reccomends in real life.

That would certainly lead to individuals with a better developed sense of personal choice and responsibility.

 

[Brian G Turner]

They explained to me that there were a few things in the book that I may not understand yet, and suggestedan alternative

A most excellent approach.

 

[riffraff]

my dad just vetted my reading by placing the books he didn't want me to read until a certain age on a shelf I wouldn't be able to reach until a certain age. this had the double effect of initially controlling my reading material, and becoming more enterprising in the ways in which I could reach the top shelves

 

[dwndrgn]

So I have to say that parental involvement is really what is needed.

Plus, perhaps we need to re-assess exactly what is not appropriate for children. Keeping children in a false state of innocence is not doing them a favour - it's just a way for grown-ups to live out their own picture-perfect childhood fantasies and, perhaps, not have to deal with troublesome questions.

I don't suggest that we inundate children with gory or prurient content or imagery - but when neither disgust/fear/titillation or whatever is the prime aim of a given book or movie or song, it makes more sense to talk to the child about about why, while certain things may be a part of this particular expression, it is not something the parent approves of or reccomends in real life.

That would certainly lead to individuals with a better developed sense of personal choice and responsibility.

You've been reading my mind...ok not really if you had it wouldn't have come out quite so clearly stated .

I don't recall any books being held back from me. My early delve into a box of dad's old books (that were on their way out) was commented on but never hindered. Also where I discovered my first sci fi novel, Alan Dean Foster's Nor Crystal Tears. Of course, we never had a bookshelf or a collection of novels so I doubt there were any controversial titles around the house to keep me away from. By the time I was reading dad was reading manuals for work and mom never had time to read.

 

[dwndrgn]

The magazine responds!

http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0403/response.shtml

 

[littlemissattitude]

I think they should have demanded a written and broadcast apology from the TV station that blew this whole thing so far out of proportion. But of course that will never happen.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

In our opinion, Ms. Andersen and the News 8 channel are not practicing journalism, but sensationalism. They know, better than most, that "sex sells."

A most palpable hit.

In many ways, I think Asimov's has scored more points by stating their opinions and not demanding an apology. Still, it would be interesting to see what News 8's response would be.

 

[erickad71]

I have been a subscriber to Asimov's for years now and I also have two children. Asimov's is a great magazine, it's where I get my short story fix . My son just turned 14, and I probably won't let him read it for a little while longer. It just depends, after all he just finished Dune not very long ago.

Asimov's is a classy magazine, and to me their response proves it. It seems to me they are probably better off without having to sell through QSP.

 

[manephelien]

I strongly disapprove of any parental censorship when it comes to children reading. My parents never interfered, and if I read something that was a bit too mature for my years, it usually went right over my head. I take great pleasure in re-reading stories I read as a young teen, with more understanding of adult issues. Also, I had a good enough relationship with my parents to discuss things I didn't understand right away, and get them explained.

Sex and violence aren't going to disappear just because parents pretend they don't exist. Just go into any school yard at recess, and you'll hear 8-10 year olds cursing like sailors (unless there's a teacher or supervisor right next to them).

Asimov himself was pretty vehement in saying that most kids certainly have the understanding to read adult fare. Admittedly there's very little sex and violence in Asimov's stories, and almost no cursing, but some very sophisticated, and sometimes frightening, concepts.

 

[steve12553]

I don't think I would necessarily put Asimov's on a middle school reading list. Yeah, it might be a little mature but I suspect they had to hand pick words out of several paragraphs to get the references they talk about in the article. It's not a Larry Flynt publication. It's not anything by Hugh Hefner. I suspect Science Fiction grew up 2 or three decades ago but there are big differences between mature and obscene.

 

[Lith]

Haven't read Asimov's magazine, but I have quite a high regard for Asimov himself. I think it's admirable for Asimov's to go over and above what they need to do here to inform readers of possible offensive content. I'm well into my adult years now and I still like to have a little warning before I stumble into something obscene. Sometimes you're just going along great and then- wham! Right in the middle of something you didn't want to read.

I also agree that it's the parents' responsibility to keep tabs on what their kids are up to, but honestly they can't monitor everything a kid comes across. Some of the responsibility is still shared by everyone. I know of only two cases where my mother told me not to read something- one after I'd already read it. So much depends on the manner in which you do it, whether the parent is forbidding something or reminding the child to be mindful of things that can harm them. The first rarely works because the child doesn't gain an understanding of why it's bad, and the second is just responsible parenting.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[j d worthington]

Hello, Lith, and welcome to the Chronicles!

One problem I'm having here, though, is in the phrasing:

I'm well into my adult years now and I still like to have a little warning before I stumble into something obscene.

There's a world of difference between mature or even explicit and obscene. That one's been thrashed out long since, else we'd still be having controversies over such things as Jurgen or Ulysses (not to mention hundreds of other books). I seriously doubt -- though I'll admit to not having read the particular story under debate -- that the magazine has published anything that meets the criteria for obscenity, but it may indeed be explicit in content, and on that level (especially given the current climate) it's probably an especially wise idea to give warnings of mature content, just to be safe.

 

[Lith]

Explicit would have been a better word. Though there is not always a clear line between the two, with the way some like to push the envelope and simply cause controversy. But that's a debate nearly without end. "Mature" can be a tricky word to use, so explicit is probably the best.

I doubt Asimov's has much offensive content; Asimov kept his own work pretty clean. (I know the magazine and the man are different, but still...)

 

[Urien]

Before I read or see anything obscene I demand military strength klaxons go off, fireworks fill the sky and the Chinese army erect a cordon.

I had to have all the mirrors in the bathroom removed. I was disturbing the neighbours.