Say no to book age banding

[Quackinator]

Hi all, I'm not sure if this has come up already round here, and if it had sorry for bringing it up again, just ignore me.

But recently publishers have been considering putting age ratings on the front of books.

However many people including myself think this is stupid.
Certain books can be enjoyed by people of all ages and banding by age will alienate readers

A reader may get teased about reading a young aged book even if that is all that is within their capability, or an older person revisiting a childhood favorite may be put off.

Why do we have to be told what we should read, reading is about freedom of choice and mind, and this will only create restrictions.

Many authors, notably including Phillip Pullman are against this, and Pullman has created a website for petitioning against it. http://www.notoagebanding.org/index.php?home

I hope you agree with me, and show your support by signing up.


(Note I did not create this website, obviously)



thanks all! I hope I can benefit you all (Even if you dont deserve it)

[hicks]

I'll definitely sign up for this, when i was 12 i was reading books like the Hannibal series and books by Robert Harris which were certainly above my supposed reading age, yet i did read them and thoroughly enjoyed doing so, and conversely i enjoy reading the Alex Rider books still which would be considered too young for me, putting ratings on books is silly because if a book is above someone in terms of age they ultimately just wouldn't be able to read it.

[malcolio]

Wow, never heard of this before, sounds very daft! Why need age ratings when you have the back of the book, the author's biography on the front etc to give you a good idea what kind of book it is?

Oh, and I dig Roald Dahl. It's embarrassing enough looking for his autobiographies and short story collections in the children section of the library, without having an age-rating on the front. :D (Seriously, the Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Six More is a damn good book!)

[Rabengakev]

Well i suppose in essence books are just like other forms of media; yeah, some of them have graphic tones and situations, and sometimes swear-words.

However, like with all media, i think censorship is stupid; it's up to the person if they want to see it or not.

So yes i'll sign it.

[Nuclear Spoon]

Signed up.
I find books to be the optimal stimulant for the imagination, and it would be a shame if potential readers were to be driven away.

[happy-go-lucky]

I've heard about this before, I didn't know about this site though.

I hate the idea of age banding books. I've always read books above what would be considered the normal level for my age, and when I was a bit younger I had a hard enough time convincing my parents to let me read them, without some number on the front cover telling me I was too young as well. :mad:

[Darkscull]

the only positive thing about this age banding stuff is that the "adult cover" versions of harry potter books would still have a low age rating on them, foiling the efforts of the old people reading them to avoid embarrassment (when really all they need to do to avoid embarrassment is just accept that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. idiots).

thinking of that reminds me of the other books that have been published with "adult covers" - the discworld books.
what age are they for? everyone.

[Quackinator]

Wow I'm glad to have gained support so fast.

Looks like I did a good job posting this link :)

[Niamhel]

People have already typed petty much what i was gonna type. But yes this is ridiculous. I hope it's not passed.

[Kali]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Quackinator again"

Good find, thanks for enlightening me on this, never heard about it before but it sounds bloody stupid.
why put age ratings on books, its like saying restaurants should be segregated into age thus eliminating family meal enjoyment, it would only discourage people from buying books. Simply a stupid idea.

[woodchip50]

what? how stupid! books shouldn't be limited to ages.

i could go and bring up the whole - 'no scientific proof that anything censored has ever been found to be psychologically damaging' argument but instead i will leave you with the title and this word:

signing.

[katox]

Less and less people are reading books as it is, forcing libraries to close, so just the very idea of slapping age restrictions on books angers me greatly. ~signing up~

[stalefish]

I remember hearing this on the news a while back, and I think I have a solution.

I remember, on the news, the idea being compared to age ratings of films and games, where age ratings are fairly standard procedure. The fact is, the age ratings aren't the only things on the front of video games, but there are also content descriptors. These display, on the front cover of the game along with the age rating, whether there are elements of violence, bad language, fear, sexual content, drugs or discrimination within the game.

I agree that age ratings alone are a silly idea, but I do not see why we should not have something similar in place to only describe the content? I understand that one of the main reasons for implementing an age rating system would be to protect younger readers from material which may upset them, so this would warn anyone of the content of the books without stopping people from reading material at their own preferred level by having an embarrassing age-rating on the front.

[Bappel]

I did sign up even if it wont effect me. Just showing my support!

[ziggystardust]

The printed word has always been a beacon of freedom. Back when the printing press was invented, the Catholic church tried (and, for a time, was successful) to limit what could be printed. Age-banding, a rather unsubtle way of telling us what we can and can't read, will just catapult us back into the Middle Ages.

[woodchip50]

I remember hearing this on the news a while back, and I think I have a solution.

I remember, on the news, the idea being compared to age ratings of films and games, where age ratings are fairly standard procedure. The fact is, the age ratings aren't the only things on the front of video games, but there are also content descriptors. These display, on the front cover of the game along with the age rating, whether there are elements of violence, bad language, fear, sexual content, drugs or discrimination within the game.

I agree that age ratings alone are a silly idea, but I do not see why we should not have something similar in place to only describe the content? I understand that one of the main reasons for implementing an age rating system would be to protect younger readers from material which may upset them, so this would warn anyone of the content of the books without stopping people from reading material at their own preferred level by having an embarrassing age-rating on the front.


i see where you are coming from but in some cases this could mean giving away a climax... THAT is a worst nightmare for many writters.

[stalefish]

i see where you are coming from but in some cases this could mean giving away a climax... THAT is a worst nightmare for many writters.I thought about this, but I don't think that having 'This book has naughty words in it' on the front really gives away anything.

[Quackinator]

I thought about this, but I don't think that having 'This book has naughty words in it' on the front really gives away anything.

People who are young enough not to be shown explicit material wont be buying their own books and even if they were they wouldnt bother even looking at adult orientated books anyway.

If fact theyre more likely to look and be influenced if they see and older age rating and think "Wow this looks naughty lets read it"

Books are all about FREEDOM, and this takes it away. Thats my main argument to be honest (as i always normally skate around the subject, mostly i plain lie)


Also little kids can't reach high enough shelves to get good books :p

[Darkscull]

I thought about this, but I don't think that having 'This book has naughty words in it' on the front really gives away anything.

'this book features death'
'this book features child abuse'
'this book features sex'

unless those are the main themes of the book, they could quite easily be major plot points, especially in the books that would be carefully rated (ones that are for younger markets but with slightly mature themes and such).

[Quackinator]

'this book features death'
'this book features child abuse'
'this book features sex'

unless those are the main themes of the book, they could quite easily be major plot points, especially in the books that would be carefully rated (ones that are for younger markets but with slightly mature themes and such).

Well I think the general idea is not specific details of the reason for the age rating, but just an age rating.

[Darkscull]

Well I think the general idea is not specific details of the reason for the age rating, but just an age rating.

was just pointing out to stalefish that having those sorts of descriptions can easily give away stuff.

[Sypho]

'this book features death'
'this book features child abuse'
'this book features sex'

unless those are the main themes of the book, they could quite easily be major plot points, especially in the books that would be carefully rated (ones that are for younger markets but with slightly mature themes and such).

They'll just buy it sooner then.
And if you are too young to read things like "Catcher in the rye", you probarly are too young to understand half the words used in it.

If this was to pass, it won't help anyway, it's the same with cigarettes, alcohol, games, movies. Nobody gives a damn.

[Zhyl]

If fact theyre more likely to look and be influenced if they see and older age rating and think "Wow this looks naughty lets read it"

This is nothing to the disappointment factor from reading books that are supposed to be "naughty" but only have one naughty bit in them.

Also, in the instances where a book has been too sweary, back in the days when swearing unnecessarily shocked me, or been too rude or adult (read: boring) then I've just put it down. I think with films it's different because you are seeing the stuff and its pretty much spoon fed to you, whereas for a child reading a sex scene it is a completely different language so it will completely pass over their heads. That is, until they ask their parents, of course.

Also reminds me of this:

http://www.dankimball.com/photos/uncategorized/biblewarninglabel5qa_1.jpg

[Nuclear Spoon]

Also reminds me of this:

http://www.dankimball.com/photos/uncategorized/biblewarninglabel5qa_1.jpg

Reminds me of this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15661_harry-potter-book-disguises.html

Not sure why though.

[Erskien_Parkour]

Signed.

I hate censorship.

Free Speech my arse.

[Baguette]

I don't think there has been much of a problem with 7 year olds trying to buy erotica novels so yes this does seem like an entirely pointless idea. There is no need to put age ratings on books, it's just restricting people.
*signs up*

[stalefish]

'this book features death'
'this book features child abuse'
'this book features sex'

unless those are the main themes of the book, they could quite easily be major plot points, especially in the books that would be carefully rated (ones that are for younger markets but with slightly mature themes and such).Though, of course, if a scheme such that I suggested were to be made available, I would have it as optional, meaning that books would have a rating for 'no adult content' for those that apply, and unrated books would have to be considered by the reader as books are done now.

My system could therefore be implemented by any author (read: publisher) who wished to show sensitive themes in the book, and any book for which the author (publisher) did not want to reveal any plot would not have to be rated, or could get some sort of 'adult content that would give away the plot' rating.

Also, honestly I doubt many of the people that would be buying the books with a 'naughty' rating would be found dead in a bookstore anyway.

[Ozzylator]

This is a ridiculous idea and should not get pushed through.

[allfalldown]

I think most people who read books will have the sense to judge if it's suitable for themselves without needing the help of an age rating on the book.

What do we actually need to put in the sign-up e-mail?

[Nuclear Spoon]

I think you just need to put your name and who you are (i.e. either occupation or that you're a reader).

I wrote a short message of support but I think that's optional.

[DoNotFeed]

This is a terrible Idea, just wondering about the later Harry Potter books they contain scenes of torture and murder I'm pretty sure this would make the censors jump on keeping children away from them.

Also lets face it, would it affect much, I think theres maybe less than a hundred kids in the UK who read for fun

[allfalldown]

Also lets face it, would it affect much, I think theres maybe less than a hundred kids in the UK who read for funOkay, yeah, more kids should read, but less than a hundred? In the whole United Kingdom? It's not that bad :p

[happy-go-lucky]

I know five who do just in the house opposite me.

[allfalldown]

Actually, I can't think of any I know, but then again I only know two people who are under sixteen :p I'm pretty sure the elder one owns some books though.

I do know this though: Harry Potter wouldn't be such a big deal if only a hundred kids bought the books.

[gruff]

Wow, what a retarded piece of legislation. People complain about decreasing rates of literacy in younger people, and then in comes something like this. Completely ridiculous.

[matt bird]

wat about sex books

[Strange Love]

This is so ridiculousss, are they going to ask me for I.D in Waterstones? ARE THEY?

[Smokey]

I agree that books shouldn't have age bands with one exception which is "erotic novels". Obviously you don't want kids reading those. However, if a book is too scary for a child then they will stop reading it. The best form of controlling what kids read is the library itself. If they're really young then the parents would only let them get books from the kids section. A bit older and parents can use ther judgement whether the book is suitable for their child.

It's similar to letting them watch films at home. I watched Batman (Jack Nicholson version) at a relatively early age however other kids may have been a bit scared.

[combatking0]

Putting age ratings on books is ridiculous, as the internets is mostly unfiltered, and people of any age can read about anything they want on there.

The age ratings will be a useless gesture against the freedom to read.

[Cjw]

The covers of erotic novels are usually quite plain (and oddly enough, the current James bond covers are more saucy looking)-like what has already been said sticking a huge warning on it would make kids want to read them just because it's something a little rude.

Some books already have comments like "Suggested for mature readers" if they contain anything adult, and really that's as far as it should go.

[Sypho]

One copy of Harry Potter pt. 1
Can I see your license and registration please?

[mat-tracteur561]

and what about biographys like on the edge by richard hammond or even the jeremy clarkson books if they put an age limit on them they must put age limits on the daily paper imagine going to the news agents in the morning and the bloke behind the counter goes no sorry that has an article about a murder case in it are you 18 and can i have proof

[allfalldown]

I agree that books shouldn't have age bands with one exception which is "erotic novels". Obviously you don't want kids reading those.A kid wouldn't be able to buy erotic novels anyway, because the cashier should plainly be able to see that they're too young for it, in the same way that they don't sell porno DVDs (I don't mean that to sound like I'm calling erotic novels porn, by the way) to kids in DVD shops.

[ynnekkenny]

this will really bugger up libraries if it happens, imagine the amount of restricted sections in a library

sorry are you under 12/15/18? well these areas are out of bounds for you.

another brilliant idea in this cotton wool covered nanny state

[Erskien_Parkour]

If this country gets worse with the nanny state I'm going to form my own country somewhere

[gembird]

I think it's completely unnecessary really. If kids are too young to be exposed to the stuff that's in the book, they're probably too young to be able to read it anyway. I know from my own experience that some kids are capable of reading advanced stuff at a very early age (just call me Matilda :p) but having spoken to other people who were the same as kids, we all read the same stuff and none of us were messed up in the head. Let's face it, the kids that are sat inside reading all the time aren't the ones that are going to be influenced by what's in the media (yes, books count as media, you read them don't you?). How many times have you heard of some kid dying because they tried to fly a broomstick off the roof after reading Harry Potter?

The main problem I have with this is that children's books deal with issues that many books for adults don't. Harry Potter books, and even some books for younger children, involve death, torture and lack of freedom, but where do you see that sort of thing in adult novels outside of the fantasy and horror section? I rarely even read novels for adults because they all seem to be about America blowing up faceless terrorists with the help of a Chuck Norris type hero or about some retard of a bottle blonde thirty-something who is desperate to get married. I'd rather have an age rating on those to stop kids becoming brain dead if I'm honest.

[SuperDucky]

Arent Libraries already implementing a simmilar system?

I remember years ago when I was 11. I tried to borrow a book from the "teen" section but I was refused due to not being 13 or 15 (cant remember the exact age you needed to be)

Also the Library does have different sections e.g. Yound childrens, childrens, teen, young adult, adult...

And to borrow books from the sections you have to be a certain age...

At least this is what it's like at all Libraries I've ever been to.

:)

[gembird]

That's odd. At the library I always went to (and the next nearest one, which we went to occasionally) the classification of the books was just a guide, and the librarians let you read whatever you wanted as long as it was feasible for you to read it. Obviously they wouldn't let tiny kids take out novels :p but mostly there was no problem if you wanted to read something a little bit easy or something more challenging for your age. I remember reading most of the older children's books in my library when I was in about year seven (if that) and the librarian, who knew me quite well, just started recommending books from the teenage and adult sections that she thought I would like. I ended up reading things like the Discworld series, which is perfectly fine for kids to read if they can understand the humour and cope with longer books.

That might have been because our library was really small and had a few regulars and one usual librarian, so everyone knew each other and knew that I was a really advanced reader. Perhaps the other kids weren't allowed to read outside their age range, but as far as I remember, some of the other smart kids in my class were reading the same books as me, so I don't think our library stopped anyone reading what they wanted within reason.

[BlueIncaPilot]

Didn't expect anyone to be in favour of this. I can't really see any positives from it, it's just going to annoy people (as it clearly has), so it seems to be a pointless waste of time, that could have been better filled with something else.

I can see the reasons behind it being on equivelant lines to 'films and television encourage violence' kind of thing (or similar) at some point.

[allfalldown]

Also the Library does have different sections e.g. Yound childrens, childrens, teen, young adult, adult...Yeah, I was gonna say that they have similar sections in some bookshops, surely that's enough of a guide really.

I ended up reading things like the Discworld series, which is perfectly fine for kids to read if they can understand the humour and cope with longer books.And if they can cope without chapters :p I know my sister can't get into the Discworld books, and part of that is because she likes to have definite chapters so she can easily stop reading at certain points.

[gruff]

Yeah, I was gonna say that they have similar sections in some bookshops, surely that's enough of a guide really.

And if they can cope without chapters :p I know my sister can't get into the Discworld books, and part of that is because she likes to have definite chapters so she can easily stop reading at certain points.

That's nothing, try getting your sister to read something by Jose Saramago. No speech marks, commas instead of full stops as well as commas used in the normal way, it's rather difficult I'll tell you.

[Waffling Iron]

Now this, my fellows, is utterly retarded.
Being the taught-self-to-read type, I think that the whole idea of classifying books by age bands goes completely against what's so good about books. And surely this makes all the billions of books in stock inelligible for sale, without having to slap a bloody sticker on each one. Waste of resources, you say?
Oh, and most people are intelligent enough to decide whether or not they want to read a fucking book with say, a pentagram, or a boy on a broomstick on the cover.

[Troll]

i've signed up, when i was younger i used to read loads of books that were above my level and it made me pick up more complex words, better skills in writing and have a large imagination.

i'd like to think that there are a lot more kids out there like that and putting a age rating on a book will stop them picking up more skills that will no doubt help them in the future

[Bunkle]

I'm a bit in the middle with this. Real literature, being a work of art, shouldn't be rated on age: if a bright 13-year old wants to read a piece of art he should be allowed to, for when he truly wants to read it he is ready to process what is being said. On the other hand, more simple literature should be rated on age: an exciting story will captivate anyone, even if it involves violence, sex and drug abuse.
I know that my breakdown isn't subtle and watertight but I think you get the point.

[Quackinator]

Basically kids are becoming more and more cushioned these days, and I think they should be able to experience things for themselves, which is one of the reasons age banding is dumb.

[Smokey]

and what about biographys like on the edge by richard hammond or even the jeremy clarkson books if they put an age limit on them they must put age limits on the daily paper imagine going to the news agents in the morning and the bloke behind the counter goes no sorry that has an article about a murder case in it are you 18 and can i have proof

Moving on from this, should you have to be 18 to buy The Sun? There's a big pair of knockers inside the front page. If that was in a magazine then you'd have to pop it on the top shelf.

[gruff]

You have to be at least 12 to buy the Daily Mail, in Woolworths at least.

[happy-go-lucky]

you should have to be at least 65 to buy the daily mail :p

and Bunkle, who's going to judge what real literature is?

[Bunkle]

That would be the problem. Over here we get taught the difference between "literature" and "Literature." The division basically says literature is written for the money, is more simple, is somewhat formulaic and drags mostly on tension and cliché, while Literature is written to make the reader think about what is being said and to out a statement, taking less notice of the appeal it has to the wider public.
I know dividing it as such can cause problems because the line drawn would be serpentine and certain writers would be insulted but in an ideal situation this is what I think works best.

Restricting myself to answering the question: I bet there are some heartless librarians out there.

[GorillaBearBear]

thinking of that reminds me of the other books that have been published with "adult covers" - the discworld books.
what age are they for? everyone.

In my primary school library they wouldn't let you take out discworld books until year 7, so age 11 or 12 I think. Generally I think they're classed as "teen" fiction.

As for the age banding thing, I'm not so sure I do disagree with it so vociferously. I don't think the argument that it would put people off reading childhood books has any weight at all - no one is going to see you reading the Wind in the Willows and think you're reading about mole and ratty suffering under the regime of Idi Amin, are they? The age rating shouldn't make a difference to anyone who is willing to read winnie the pooh on the train.

I kind of feel that as long as it's not actual law then it's not a bad idea. Not necessarily a great one, but I don't think it's harmful to have some method for parents to know that their kids are reading suitable stuff. I know I was reading some pretty heavy stuff when I was young but I think it wasn't necessarily a good thing, probably I couldn't quite get the concepts in some of them and maybe took away the wrong idea for it, although I suppose it didn't do me any harm. I suppose also in these times where for some reason reactionaries seem to try and influence and bowdlerise everything then some kind of self-regulation in the publishing industry might head off any attempts to regulate it with official legislature.

My main problem with this, actually, is that I don't really want a whacking great "15" sticker on my Louis de Bernieres.

Like I say, this is all assuming it stays as an industry regulation rather than an official one. As soon as the government sets up a body to rate books then it opens the way for books to be banned which is unacceptable. I suppose even as an industry standard it opens the way for the government to make the system official which is a worry.

I suppose in the final analysis I don't have too much of a problem with this but also it doesn't really serve any purpose either. Parental control I suppose can be done just on the basis of the blurb and if you're buying a book for a child then you're probably not going to find graphic descriptions of torture and rape in the Heffers kids section I suppose.

EDIT: OK so I've looked at the website in the OP and I have to say it's changed my mind somewhat, it makes some pretty convincing arguments, particularly the one about encouraging overprotective parents. But don't start getting self-righteous about being asked for ID when you buy a book because that still isn't what this is and being reactionary to the left is just as bad as being a right-reactionary.

[Cydonia]

The bible should have a 18+ sticker!

[tehbrooksinator]

Wow,I probably will sign the petition(If I can be bothered thogh,lol) but putting an age rating on books? All it is is just a bunch of bloody words,sheesh!

The bible should have a 18+ sticker!
Shut up and talk about what is on this thread,idiot

[gembird]

Shut up and talk about what is on this thread,idiot

Behave yourself. The Bible is a book, and the thread is about books. And Cydonia is probably smarter than you anyway...

[Kali]

Shut up and talk about what is on this thread,idiot

Really not the best thing to say, Cydonia was only stating her oppinion. No need for the comment there

[tehbrooksinator]

Behave yourself. The Bible is a book, and the thread is about books. And Cydonia is probably smarter than you anyway...
Maybe she could have a bit of respect first

[Niamhel]

Well to be fair the bible has some hardcore stuff in it, like stoning prostitutes to death and the likes.

[Norbington]

The Bible is full of murder, stoning and bears eating children. If they age rate books then it should be all books and the Bible shouldn't be exempt because it's a religious text.

[hicks]

I'm a Christian too, and I'm not offended in the least about Niamhel's comment, what's more I agree the bible as a whole is unsuitable for children, having read it most of it would be deeply inappropriate (rape a woman and you have to marry them as an example), my parents just read exerts to me and i was fine with that, then as i grew older more of it was introduced to me as the messages in it became relevant to my age.

[Jay]

Theres those illustrated kid friendly versions for children anyway and to be honest I think its fairly common sense that the Bible, as a whole, isn't for children.

[GorillaBearBear]

what kind of kid would just sit down and read deuteronomy or something that's weird.

[Sypho]

I guess the Bible is worse then the Koran.
And before you throw comments at me 'bout them stupid Muslims, go and read it yourself !

[gembird]

Yeah, as much as I agree that the Bible is full of crazy stuff, GBB is right to say that kids don't really read it. Basically, it's nutter parents that read that stuff to their kids or expose them to it by taking them to some fire-and-brimstone church before they're old enough to understand it properly. And people like that are hardly going to take any notice of an age rating on the Bible are they? They'd probably take it as some kind of plot by Satan to stop their children having access to the word of God.

I'll shut up now, because something like that is really a subject for debates, and we've probably spoken about it before.

[tehbrooksinator]

Behave yourself. The Bible is a book, and the thread is about books. And Cydonia is probably smarter than you anyway...

Erm... then don't say nutter parents read the bible to their kids before lecturing me on how to "behave myself",you hypocrite!

[Chris]

behave myself

You should!
You called somebody an idiot for making a joke in a thread.
Chill out.

[gruff]

Wow, is it just me or did it just get a little backward in here?

[queenofself]

I think there are points for & against this ( though mostly against).

The whole idea is one of 'age guidance', as they call it, rather than stringently saying how old you must be before you can read a certain book. If you go into the children's department of a bookstore today it's more than likely that the kids' fiction will be split into something along the lines of preschool, 4-9, 8-12 & teenage. Where you buy your books is already age-ranged & this is simply taking it one step further. Some books, like Robert Muchamore's Cherub series, already have age-guidance on them. I think his say 12+.

The main reason behind it isn't censorship, it's all about consumer ease. The people buying these books, especially when it comes to the younger age ranges, are not the kids but the adults. If an adult can immediately know whether a book will be suitable for a friends' 6 year old daughter or 11 year old son then they don't need to worry. It's for the people buying for children they don't now very well, or grandparents who aren't up on the latest kids' books. It's also for the people buying lots & lots at Christmas, the people who might spend more if they can see immediately that the books they are buying will be 'appropriate'. It's so that the publishers & the booksellers can make more money from people who won't be dithering, fretting that something will patronise or over-challenge a child & so end up going & buying something that's a little less of a minefield.


There's also the fact that the traditional segments of kids' departments don't work so well anymore. 8-12 has always been a very broad section, & 4-9 covers a huge period of education, from learning to read to wanting thicker books with much more complex plots. Within the younger age-ranges of childrens ficiton I think it would be more helpful but it's still a bad idea. The real problems this will cause won't be for adults reading teen sci-fi dressed up with adult covers, it'll be kids giving too much importance to the age ranging. Kids reading books that are too hard for them because they want to be seen to be reading books for 13 year olds when they're only 10, kids being too embarassed to read a book with 7+ on it, even though its their reading level, etc etc. I think the ranging will stop about 12/13+ anyway, I don't see what the point would be of having stickers with 16, 17 18+ etc on teen fiction. By then most people have moved on to fiction or sci-fi anyway ( unless they are like i).

Having said all this I do still totally disagree with the concept. Children's individual reading ages & tastes are too disparate for this to work. It may encourage adults to buy more but it will also discourage children from reading what they love if it doesn't fall within the age range they 'should be' in according to the stickers on the books. It will make things easier for the people in the trade, but it will limit what kids read. It's hard enough to get some of them to read anyway with everything else that competes for their attention, but getting a 10 year old kid with a lower than average reading age to read a book with a giant 7+ sticker slapped on the front will be nigh on impossible.

sorry. too long.

[thunderbal33]

I read The Shining when i was like 10 and the n-word that cropped up frequently didnt seem to affect me.

I am against the age ratings.

[SuperDucky]

Hi again everyone,

I think that considering the facts we should not have a legal age banding on books (unless it's erotica and the likes - 18+) but for other books I think we should have a age banding guide... but it should be that - a guide only.

Surely they can't restrict reading!

[Shalashaska]

Yeah, I've been reading the collective works of David Eddings since I was about 11, 3 years ago. His books would be rated much higher, but I loved fantasy and understood them.

[Sypho]

You should!
You called somebody an idiot for making a joke in a thread.
Chill out.

I agree :D

[by crikey!]

i had an illustrated new testament with historical extracts when i was a kid. it had pictures of real fish and real flat breads with notes saying 'THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF WHAT JESUS WOULD HAVE ATE.' and a picture of some horrible iron torture device, and explaining what a palm tree was, and it had all these nice arty pictures alongside real photographs.

i have no idea where it is now but it was really kid friendly and made things interesting.

[Shalashaska]

Erm... then don't say nutter parents read the bible to their kids before lecturing me on how to "behave myself",you hypocrite!

I'm not really sure how she's being a hypocrite there.

[thunderbal33]

Some kids might hear other kids/teens/people using really bad language when theyre out with their mates so they might as well put a age restricition on life(!) T_T

[Chinchilla]

Hi again everyone,

I think that considering the facts we should not have a legal age banding on books (unless it's erotica and the likes - 18+) but for other books I think we should have a age banding guide... but it should be that - a guide only.

Surely they can't restrict reading!

Well, there you have the problem, if you want to put an age limit on "erotica", then you allow in age limits for pretty much everything else. You cant have that sort of double standard. What one person finds offensive or worth censoring will be different to what another does, with the end result being that everything gets a rating, based on sexual or violent, or even political content.

[queenofself]

its not a legal thing! i don't think it'd ever be a legal thing. gah. its a guidance for people who know nothing.

[mat-tracteur561]

and remember the shopkeeper or librarist (sorry for spelling) ddoesent have to sell or lend you anything if they dont want to so you dont get 9 year olds buying playboy for example because the shopkeep just says no

[Sypho]

It seems as if the people try to restrain us from getting educated. But you would be surprised how easy it it to buy liquor and cigarettes nowadays. They should change those two.

[faragher]

I'm not convinced that it is such a big deal. I've read some pretty shocking stuff in my time - not pornography (though some of it was quite pornographic...) but stuff with tough themes. I'm not sure that some views of the world, or some descriptions of the world are suitable for children. Anyone who has read someone like Primo Levi, with his incredibly bleak outlook and his graphic descriptions of the concentration camps knows that it is incredibly disturbing reading - even for adults. Anyone who has read Chuck Palaniuk knows that he can be pretty shocking.

And before you come over all "omg censorship", I'm not saying that we should have strict age bandings, but that there should be a way for people to get a feel for the content of a book before they give it to their kids - especially now that reading has declined and it may be that not as many parents have read these books.

[cyber_turnip]

The only people who wont read a book which is suitable for a younger audience are the kinds of people who wont go and watch a PG rated film 'because that means it's for kids'. ie. Idiots.

They should change those two.
They actually just upped the age you have to be to buy cigs to 18.

[queenofself]

The only people who wont read a book which is suitable for a younger audience are the kinds of people who wont go and watch a PG rated film 'because that means it's for kids'. ie. Idiots.

with the adults yes. i don't think 10 year old kids who dont want to read a book with 7+ on are idiots so much as peer influenced & wotnot.

the stickers are going to be like that i think, 5+, 7+ 12+ etc.