Publishers to try to put age limits on books (similar to MPAA movie ratings)

[America: Fuck Yea!]

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0244208/

how Orwellian.


Pullman Leads Campaign Against Book Age Guidelines
From wenn.com | See recent WENN news
4 June 2008 5:10 AM, PDT

The Golden Compass author Philip Pullman is leading a campaign to block publishers' plans to introduce age guidance limits on books - insisting the proposals would be "damaging" to young readers.

Pullman, who penned the His Dark Materials trilogy, from which the 2007 film was adapted, is at the forefront of a group of authors and illustrators who are all unhappy about the plans.

The new guidelines would see children's books stamped with age limits, in a similar way to the guidance ratings given to movies.

And Pullman has started an online petition to try and stop the new rules being introduced by publishers, insisting the proposals are "ill-conceived and damaging to the interests of young readers".

[Nerd Groupie]

I'm actually surprised it took this long. Though books aren't nearly as popular with the kiddies as they should be. So does this mean stuff like Harry Potter, which is already banned in backwoods USA will be labeled? So sad.

[Moe Nopoly]

even when i wouldn't label the books, a information for which age the books are intended can be useful

[Nerd Groupie]

They have that already, kind of. Basic generalized categories. There are clearly ones marked "youth". To go beyond that is pretty ridiculous.

[Moe Nopoly]

i agree, an information as guideline is ok, but as restriction isn't necessary.
when we talk about books for kids, there should be information given for the parents and they should decide, if there is really need.
I've never seen problems the way books are published where i live.

[aoife]

The Golden Compass author Philip Pullman is leading a campaign to block publishers' plans to introduce age guidance limits on books - insisting the proposals would be "damaging" to young readers.

Who put this hack in charge of literature? He needs to be happy he was able to make some money off his books, and shut the fuck up.

[Moe Nopoly]

He needs to be happy he was able to make some money off his books, and shut the fuck up.

even when his dark materials are mostly known, also because of the movie.
His Sally Lockhart Mysteries are not bad too in my opinion.

[phil]

Who put this hack in charge of literature? He needs to be happy he was able to make some money off his books, and shut the fuck up.

he's involved in this because religious wackos don't want his *gasp* NON-christian ideas exposed to their children, hence this stupid age limit. preventing children from being exposed to differing views is ridiculous and should be discouraged.

he's not a hack either, his dark materials was a great series.

[billi vanilli]

do you disagree with him aoife?

this is a horrible idea.

[conor.]

Horrible Idea just like rating system for movie is horrible flawed. Publishers will push for taking content out in order to get certain rating to make the book accessible to more people. Same thing with studios wanting to make a movie a PG-13 instead of an R...

[America: Fuck Yea!]

I have no problem with this as long as the Bible and Koran are slapped with an 18+ age limit. Those books are far too violent and subversive for people that can't even vote, to be reading. They aren't for children.

[Nerd Groupie]

Sometimes I really love you, lawnie.

[Clark Westfall]

I wish I was surprised by this but sadly I'm not, what a stupid idea

[Milhouse Van Houten]

philip pullman is awesome, why the hate aoife?

for my thoughts on the matter, read phil's post.

[You Bent My Wookiee]

Next thing you know, you'll have to be over 17 to read certain books.

[America: Fuck Yea!]

Next thing you know, you'll have to be over 17 to read certain books.

do you even bother to read the threads you post in?

[Enter The Moleman]

Such a terrible idea, not only for how backwards it is but the fact that it would ugly up book covers (assuming they go for labels similar to what gets stuck on cds.)

[You Bent My Wookiee]

Such a terrible idea, not only for how backwards it is but the fact that it would ugly up book covers (assuming they go for labels similar to what gets stuck on cds.)

I can just see the Bible getting a label because of graphic violence, sex, and nudity.

[Nerd Groupie]

Seriously. Start reading threads.

[You Bent My Wookiee]

Seriously. Start reading threads.
I do.

[Milhouse Van Houten]

i really don't think that is true.

[America: Fuck Yea!]

I do.

Obviously, you don't.

Next thing you know, you'll have to be over 17 to read certain books.

This was covered in the very first post. Post #1. In fact, your comment is precisely what this thread is about. This is exactly what everyone in this thread has congregated here to discuss. The fact that because of this movement, one might have to be of a certain age to read a certain book. It couldn't be any clearer. Yes, that is what this thread is about.

I can just see the Bible getting a label because of graphic violence, sex, and nudity.

This was covered in post #11 of this exact thread.

CONCLUSION: You haven't read this thread; yet, still felt the need to comment.

[billi vanilli]

hahaha

sometimes i really love you, lawnie

edit. upon revision of the thread, i see that this was covered in post #12. sincerest apologies.

[sacrelicious]

I see both good and bad things out of this.

Self-regulation can be a good thing. Video games and movies self-regulate and it allows people to make movies/video games targeted at different audiences, kids/teens/adults and allows people to make R-rated movies or M (mature) video games without any backlash of censoring or content that people didn't know about beforehand. If you don't think this important, just look at the music industry. All they have is an explicit lyrics tag, which is far too broad. Since most popular music today has "explicit" lyrics there's a lot of pressure on stores to not offer said music, hence Walmart edits lyrics before selling it to cater to both sides, which doesn't allow artists to make the kind of art they want to due to censorship.

The bad here is that the book industry has gone some 400 or 500 years without any content ratings. What happens with all these previously published books (as lawnie mentioned) like the bible? If the ratings system is similar to movies, the bible based on content alone would be R-rated and withheld from kids, whereas Harry Potter would be PG-13 and your kids would be exposed to all kinds of "witchcraft." That ought to irk a lot of the people who would normally call for content rating. Also, I think books self-regulate themselves. It's hard for a 10 year old to read most books meant for adults, plus with books you make up the image in your head, so when reading a story and making a mental picture of what's going on you can't form a picture if it wasn't there already. Just because the book says the word 'sex' can't put that image in your head unless it's already there, whereas movies put images in your heads.

I'll sum up and say I'm against books doing this. For obvious reasons they can't or won't go back and rate old books, plus the nature of books makes it so kids won't really want to read books not meant for their age group.

[America: Fuck Yea!]

Plus, isn't the very nature of learning to read sort of self-regulating? Especially in regards to vocabulary? A 13 year old might not have the vocabulary or be able to conceptually comprehend an Ellis book (ie: American Psycho).

[phil]

i give copies of naked lunch to third graders

[You Bent My Wookiee]

I see both good and bad things out of this.

Self-regulation can be a good thing. Video games and movies self-regulate and it allows people to make movies/video games targeted at different audiences, kids/teens/adults and allows people to make R-rated movies or M (mature) video games without any backlash of censoring or content that people didn't know about beforehand. If you don't think this important, just look at the music industry. All they have is an explicit lyrics tag, which is far too broad. Since most popular music today has "explicit" lyrics there's a lot of pressure on stores to not offer said music, hence Walmart edits lyrics before selling it to cater to both sides, which doesn't allow artists to make the kind of art they want to due to censorship.

The bad here is that the book industry has gone some 400 or 500 years without any content ratings. What happens with all these previously published books (as lawnie mentioned) like the bible? If the ratings system is similar to movies, the bible based on content alone would be R-rated and withheld from kids, whereas Harry Potter would be PG-13 and your kids would be exposed to all kinds of "witchcraft." That ought to irk a lot of the people who would normally call for content rating. Also, I think books self-regulate themselves. It's hard for a 10 year old to read most books meant for adults, plus with books you make up the image in your head, so when reading a story and making a mental picture of what's going on you can't form a picture if it wasn't there already. Just because the book says the word 'sex' can't put that image in your head unless it's already there, whereas movies put images in your heads.

I'll sum up and say I'm against books doing this. For obvious reasons they can't or won't go back and rate old books, plus the nature of books makes it so kids won't really want to read books not meant for their age group.

Yup, exactly. Just because a book doesn't have any blood, sex, etc doesn't make it a book for kids. For instance, kids wouldn't be able to read Ivanhoe because its very difficult (btw Lawn, everybody makes mistakes and I make one too many.) Personally, I hope this thing dies off because there are plenty of books out there that you can visualize the action. Whereas a movie, you are seeing the action.

[ARMslingerJoshua]

Plus, isn't the very nature of learning to read sort of self-regulating? Especially in regards to vocabulary? A 13 year old might not have the vocabulary or be able to conceptually comprehend an Ellis book (e.g.: American Psycho).


Fkst.

[Rekart]

I'm not all that surprised, but I think the issues a book rating system presents are more varied than the rating for either movies or games. At least in those two mediums, everyone is literally seeing the same thing, and interpretations of a particular violent scene (or anything else that would change a rating) cannot be all that varied. Books self-censor, as others have mentioned, and people have to visualize anything themselves. Interpretations of scenes vary, pictures of settings vary. It's almost like trying to censor what someone is allowed to view in their mind by making them avoid anything that could possibly cause an image that's not appropriate for them.

Anyway, there's a fundamental difference between books and visual media that makes this unacceptable and unnecessary at the same time.

[TheSuperiorGerbil]

I would oppose to this idea right away because I'm certain that whoemever would be in charge of deciding the rating would be selective and self-obsessed, and authors would keep getting publisher's notes to cut material. But anyways, it will probably not be a world-wide thing and I can always insert a "fuck" using a pencil or my imagination.

[kimpanties]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2412/2227274207_23bac81e37_o.png

[kupomog]

Hahahahahaha

[mr. broom]

Backdoor censorship. The sort of people who like to ban books are starting to understand that banning books is a great way to get more people to read them and experience some serious backlash at the same time. Now they're just trying to do to books what was done to movies and comics in the 30s and 40s:

1) introduce a stupid and arbitrary system of regulation, using vague definitions of things that are not acceptable for all-ages categories
2) get a lot of things you don't like lumped into the "adult" or "restricted" categories
3) create an environment in which those categories are considered to be poison through government lobbying and media control
4) sales of important but now-risque material drop in Middle America, furthering ignorance of things people should be exposed to

Had it not been for the Comics Code, comic books likely would be just a couple notches below actual books in terms of prestige. Instead, you've got to be kind of a nerd to know the important works that haven't had movies made of them. So, y'know, fuck this shit.

[torgo]

not that i think it's a great idea, but i don't see how this is any more objectionable than prohibitive ratings for other media

also even if stores enforce the limits, libraries won't

[gravymaster]

What is WRONG with this fucking country?

[mr. broom]

not that i think it's a great idea, but i don't see how this is any more objectionable than prohibitive ratings for other media

also even if stores enforce the limits, libraries won't
My concern is that, because libraries are publicly-funded, some areas will start demanding that they do. Then again, I don't really know how library systems are run and if this sort of pressure would actually work on them.

[torgo]

Anyway, there's a fundamental difference between books and visual media

i totally disagree with this, so maybe that's why i don't get what yall are on about

mr broom - i work at a library and we're not allowed to refuse any materials we have in our system to anyone regardless of age. maybe that wouldn't stand up to public lobbying, but we've been little kids' #1 source for r-rated movies for years, and i'd think that would change before our book lending policies do

[America: Fuck Yea!]

Fkst.

good call. thanks.

[globalhypermeganet]

Don't mistake my objection for agreement with the cause, but how would you impose restrictions on your own children, had you any? I mean, would you allow them to self-regulate or say, sorry Johnny, I don't want you reading The Shining till you're at least thirteen? I agree that some books would be beyond the comprehension or vocab level of your average ten year old, but others not so much.

Not that I believe the govt. should be our moral parent, I'm just curious.

[aoife]

When authors start doing ridiculous things, like trying to put age limits on books, they're hacks. I don't care how good Pullman's fantasy books were.

He's stopped becoming an artist, and is now a whiny little hack, who seems to forget what literature is all about.

[America: Fuck Yea!]

wait, I am confused. Isn't he trying to STOP age limits on books?

[phil]

aoife, jesus, reading comprehension please.

The Golden Compass author Philip Pullman is leading a campaign to block publishers' plans to introduce age guidance limits on books - insisting the proposals would be "damaging" to young readers.

[Generic]

I'm with the majority here, I don't think much of the idea to place MPAA-like ratings on books. It seems to me that the current system of classifying books as children's or adult's literature and self-regulation, perhaps with a warning about content in case some clueless person decides to buy their eight year old Lolita to read, should be sufficient.

[billi vanilli]

wait, I am confused. Isn't he trying to STOP age limits on books?
yes.

i actually sort of figured that aoife misread it yesterday. i did at first too

STILL, THAT PULLMAN GUY IS A FUCKING HACK

[Dead Nigga Storage]

FUCK READING

[billi vanilli]

ALL AUTHORS ARE HACKS

[Dead Nigga Storage]

FUCK EVERYONE WHO SPEAKS ABOVE AN 8TH GRADE LEVEL

[America: Fuck Yea!]

FUCK EVERYONE WHO SPEAKS ABOVE AN 8TH GRADE LEVEL

Isn't that what Bush campaigned on both times?

[Dead Nigga Storage]

the average american newspaper is written at an 8th grade level. that's not a joke.

the new york times is/aims to be written at a 12th grade level.

[Milhouse Van Houten]

FUCK READING
http://www.nohomers.net/image.php?u=12177&dateline=1212103658

[BeyondBeyond]

http://www.nohomers.net/image.php?u=12177&dateline=1212103658

http://www.nohomers.net/image.php?u=3859&dateline=1211323936&type=thumb

[aoife]

aoife, jesus, reading comprehension please.

ohhh, nm

[SubSane]

the average american newspaper is written at an 8th grade level. that's not a joke.

I remember when I realized this. I picked up a local paper, read one story, and that was the last day I ever read a newspaper. Seems to me a front page story should not have an author calling someone "despicable."

[mr. broom]

Except for USA Today, which is written specifically for people who are only quasi-literate to begin with.

[sacrelicious]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2412/2227274207_23bac81e37_o.png
I'm not sure how I missed this post for so long. Wow, I'm almost speechless.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

Except for USA Today, which is written specifically for people who are only quasi-literate to begin with.BUT LOOK AT ALL THE PRETTY COLORS.

use of the word 'despicable' by the actual writer should be grounds for the guy's editor being fired.

[America: Fuck Yea!]

Hey, USAToday is the only paper in America that's not afraid to tell the truth; that everything is just fine.

[anthony]

there may be a silver lining. just like when were were all 12 and watched pulp fiction, kids might actually feel "cool" for reading something they're not allowed too. this might actually (if lucky) spark an interest in reading for younger kids which has been lacking due to THE INTERNET.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

the problem isn't that younger kids aren't reading newspapers...because that's always been true. the problem is that younger kids, as they are growing up, have never adopted the habit at a certain age into adulthood, as previous generations had done.

[anthony]

i was more referring to like, fiction and the like, but i see what you're saying