Age ratings and books

[AE35Unit]

A thought just occured to me while reading a section in Consider Phlebas. DVDs and games have age certifications on them,12,15,PG etc but how come the same ruling never happened to books? Some of the scenes in this book are quite horrific and the language,very colourful and yet there's no distinction in book shops other than the books being put in relevant sections. I'm not saying it should be done but was just curious as to why it isn't

 

[Overread]

I suspect its because in most books you don't get a graphic depiction of the scene - rather you get a worded one instead and for many that makes it "less real" than watching a film where someone gets their heads chopped off or in a computer game where you run around half naked killing vampires.

I suspect that has helped keep it out of the stoplight of the "PC" brigade as well as the fact that most people who read tend to have a reasonably decent level of intelligence.
Then of course comes the harder part of defining the line for a rating system in the first place - most people would see it as a reading age limit rather than a content limit (and we have a rough age limit/recomendation on many books as it is). And then you would have to classify things - I mean just how violent is cooking an old hag in a cooker - 18+ for that then

And I guess the nursary rhimes have saved us a lot from this - they are bloody and nasty - and no matter how many times mothercare try to rewrite them they will still be such - and if you can take that at such a young age then well - I can't think of many books that would get an 18+ on them (Barring the Karma Sutra)

 

[Rodders]

There is a possibility that the people who are likely to be affected by such depictions of violence are less likely to read book. Perhaps they prefer the quick and easy injection of game/film materiál?

Comics too can be quite graphic. I've not seen any age restictions on those.

 

[AE35Unit]

And yet some music CDs have adult content warnings.

 

[nixie]

Yes OR has hit on the nail. Nursery rhymes and children's fairy tales do prepare us for a lot of violence in the written tale. Wicked witches, step mothers who arrange death, wolves that eat little girls etc. Although thinking back to when I was younger a lot of what I read went straight over my head. Graphic descriptions of death and torture never bothered me but details of sexual encounters always made me a little uneasy. So maybe books with a high sex content should be given an age guide.

 

[Overread]

I suspect the sex angle is something that female readers would feel more personal about than males. But the thing is at what age is it "bad" to read about that stuff? That would place an 18+ on pretty much every encyclopedia - heck even the dictionary would have a rating (considering the words in there I think it would get that 20+ rating in the USA).

I just can't see a feasable set method for giving a guiding age - plus what happens when a book gets a high age rating but its reading level is way lower - or the reverse - a low age rating book but with a high degree of reading difficulty.

 

[kythe]

It's not a "rating" per se, but The AR (Accelerated Reader) program used by schools measured reading level of books. I don't like how strictly schools use this system for grading purposes, but I have found it a very accurate guide for measuring comprehension level. You can experiment with AR book levels by searching titles/authors here:
AR BookFinder - Welcome

For example, if a book is on a rated on a 5.4 level (5th grade 4th month), it not only is on that reading level but it is geared toward kids of that age. Thus, you won't really find books on a reading level that are not appropriate for that age.

The only time you may run into problems is with younger kids who read on a more advanced level, say a 3rd grader reading on a 5th grade level. They may encounter scenes in books that are above their maturity. Harry Potter books are an example of a controversial one, where they measure around 5th grade level but for some may have more mature content.

 

[AE35Unit]

There's an aspect of this that has potential for confusion,young adult fiction. Now to me that Harry Potter territory and yet on shop bookshelves it is often sat next to more adult material,especially if a simple alphabetic order is used. So in this instance it might be between Alastair Reynolds and Geoff Ryman. And yet if you go into a papershop and look for say Judge Dread magazine or Xmen comic it is on the bottom shelf while the adult stuff is on the top,often next to the photography mags which also used to annoy me!

 

[thepaladin]

Rating books for sexual is a sure way to drive purchases by young people.....UP.

You know kids.

 

[Rodders]

Personally, i never believed in the ratings system anyway. How old was i when i first bought Cigarettes? How old when i had my first pint in a pub? How old was i when i bought my first, ahem, Gentlemans special interest magazines? I was below the correct age on each one.

I think this is down to people putting too much stock in the fact that violent content in games/films leads to violence in real life. It's about blame.

 

[manephelien]

Yeah, exactly. Besides, it's so culture-dependent. For example, my parents bought me the first three books of Jean M. Auel's Earth's Children series for my 15th birthday, and those books are pretty graphic, both when it comes to sex and butchering animals. Never did me any harm.

It's partly about blame and partly parents who think that their teenage kids are "innocent" and need protection from exposure to sex and violence (the latter in my opinion is worse).

The problem with ratings is worse when the kid is less mature than his or her peer group. Some 15 year olds can't handle PG13, while some 10 year olds can. That's why the ratings should be guides rather than absolute limits.

 

[j d worthington]

I'd say both culture-dependent and dependent on individual upbringing. Those who are raised with a fairly easy-going attitude about sexual matters -- that is, where it is handled in a matter-of-fact fashion not much, if any, different from other aspects of life, and where the reasons not to engage are not backed by lots of negative non-verbal signals -- are less likely to find such matter in books either offensive or overly stimulating (though there will be exceptions).

On the other hand, the majority of people have so many quirks on this subject, that a ratings system based on sexual material would be the very devil to get a consensus on....

I'm none too fond of any ratings system, though certain types of ratings may be helpful guidelines to the parents as to the sort of material included.... Unfortunately, such systems tend to be things you have to search out, as the ones most easily available are generally about as reliable (on any level) as getting your news from the National Enquirer....

 

[Saeltari]

I think its because those easily offended find reading to be more work than they want to put into life.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I can't even believe this thread. Movies and games-even music CDs-are affected by stupid ratings.

Books are the last refuge to the freedoms of speech, expression, and choice. They shouldn't be censored or restricted as well.

All parent protection does is delay the inevitable. Why shouldn't kids be allowed to see sex, violence, drugs, or hear hard language? I did as a kid-such as Dracula when it came out in 1992, I was six then-and I turned out just fine.

 

[BookStop]

When publishers put books out, dont' they usually put a sort of rough age guide on the children's books? Generally, if the book has been written for the YA or younger crowd, it will be obvious. If it's written for adults then the adult needs to be responsible for educating themselves on what they can handle. Parents need to be aware of what thier kids are reading, that is not to say really over-restricting books, but perhaps have general rules like, "If you are interested ina book that is not in the YA section of the shop, run it by me first." It's not terribly difficult for parents to keep themselves current on what their kids are reading. Personally, I like to read alot of the same books as my kids, so I know what they are reading and what they like, and they have someone to discuss books with. win,win

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

So, am I the only one, if I had kids (gods parish the thought) that I would allow them to watch, read, and play whatever they wished?

 

[BookStop]

not all kid are creted equally, and not all kids ca handle everything they are exposed to. there is something to be said for letting a kid be a kid just as much as letting kids lives be enriched by education. I believe there is a balance, and all or nothing attitudes are a bit shortsided.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

not all kid are creted equally, and not all kids ca handle everything they are exposed to. there is something to be said for letting a kid be a kid just as much as letting kids lives be enriched by education. I believe there is a balance, and all or nothing attitudes are a bit shortsided.

That's true, B, but there's no balance in the world for anyone once on their own, and some adults are far less mature than some kids, yet they're allowed, due to chronological age alone, to enjoy "adult" privileges where a kid able to handle it far better isn't?


I'd rather show my children what the world is like right away rather than have them live a fairy tale.

 

[BookStop]

I'd rather show my children what the world is like right away rather than have them live a fairy tale.

And as a parent, that would be your right. Parents who have any sense at all and are the least bit involved in thier kids lives, should be able to judge how well a kid can handle literature and media.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Well, take it a step further and see if kids themselves can judge what they can handle and not. Seriously.....I think one problem with the world and why people are so stupid for the most part is because as children they were never given any freedom to discover this or that on their own. Yes, take a look over certain things as a parent, but certainly not everything. (Not the same discussion as before-I mean even laying physical sight on something here.)