Should books have rating certificates?

[Brian G Turner]

Here's a contentious thought I just had - should books have rating certificates like movies and video games?

After all, if we don't want our kids watching extreme violence and sex, then why it's it fine for them to read it instead?

Do we not have ratings simply because we're so focused on visual media? Should an exception be made for books?

Wouldn't it even be useful for readers? I don't want to read about sexual violence - would a warning beforehand help improve my book buying choices?

Couldn't it even be a useful marketing tool, to help steer readers to books they might enjoy most?

Just thinking aloud.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I had a little ramble about this four and a half years ago (I'm aghast you forgot ): http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/should-suetonius-be-available-to-7-year.html

My thinking is: no.

I do like the initiative I see, and RT, sometimes on Twitter about clean reads (books without serious sex, violence or excessive swearing) and think that's very useful, but it can be a categorisation (as per grimdark, mirthjape, epic fantasy etc) rather than some sort of limiting factor.

 

[chrispenycate]

So. We need a set of international symbols to be widely available, and to be printed on book spines. The genre, obviously, one for explicit sexual content, one for personalised violence, another for institutionalised violence, one for swearing and bad language, one for adult vocabulary, possibly one for racialism and politically incorrect opinions…

Certainly some books you'd no longer be able to read the title, but anyone who's looking for that sort of literature…

 

[Venusian Broon]

Here's a contentious thought I just had - should books have rating certificates like movies and video games?

After all, if we don't want our kids watching extreme violence and sex, then why it's it fine for them to read it instead?

Do we not have ratings simply because we're so focused on visual media? Should an exception be made for books?

Wouldn't it even be useful for readers? I don't want to read about sexual violence - would a warning beforehand help improve my book buying choices?

Couldn't it even be a useful marketing tool, to help steer readers to books they might enjoy most?

Just thinking aloud.

Is the genre system not more-or-less covering this? I mean look up Amazon and there is 50,000+ children's SF&F titles. Although they are all not rated* - one assumes that there is a standard of some sort operating amongst them. And if your children are looking at adult titles...well is that sorta getting into your responsibility as a parent (just thinking aloud!)

And what about reviews? When you look for a book - if there is gratuitous sex/violence/swearing is it not generally picked up there? (I don't know, I'm not a read a review first then choose a book person, I just jump in head first, but if there is contentious issues I find they do seem to be highlighted.)

There is possibly something to be said to perhaps market adult books as 'clean' (Although who knows, maybe that puts the kiss of death on sales???)

So I think I agree with @thaddeus6th on this one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Depends on the culture though doesn't it - many people around the world have denounced Harry Potter as Demonic, which I see as ludicrous, but if you put a rating system in, then surely these people will be campaigning to make such books as off putting as possible and ratcheting up the ratings on them.

 

[HareBrain]

Manga already have ratings, but I don't know if they're voluntary or who decides them.

And that's the difficulty, I think. There are few enough films released each year that you can have a single ratings organisation. But for books? You'd never get an organisation to read every book (self)-published, so they would have to be rated by their own publishers, with maybe a mechanism for people to complain to some kind of regulating authority if they felt the rating was wrong. I assume that authority would have to determine the definitions of what constituted "violence", etc. But who would fund that authority and choose its members? From a practical viewpoint, I can't see it being workable. Those who want to declare that their book is "clean" or whatever can do so on the back cover.

 

[SilentRoamer]

One thing I would say about books compared with other mediums (music, TV, Film) is the fact that the entertainment is not passive (Audio books being an exception) so I imagine to a certain extent books will regulate themselves.

This only really works for the very young and once readers are YA they can probably read almost all adult content anyway - whether or not they should is open for debate.

Personally I was reading what would probably be censored from about 12 onwards and my mum had no real handle on what I was reading. I will be a lot more savvy with my own children (my mum never read so I was a bit of an odd duck in my house and all the books were mine.)

 

[BAYLOR]

Why should they have ratings ?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's a cute idea, but in practice unworkable. DVD ratings barely work.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I would guess Baylor that any arguments on censorship would follow in the same vein as other forms of media censorship. (Harmful to emotional development, traumatising scenes etc. - basically anything which has a negative impact on cognitive and emotional development).

 

[SilentRoamer]

I remember when I was like 15 and me and my mum would be sat down to watch a film together. The advisory would come on: "The following contains scenes of violence and offensive language throughout" and me and my mum would rub our hands together and laugh that we were in for a treat!

 

[BAYLOR]

I would guess Baylor that any arguments on censorship would follow in the same vein as other forms of media censorship. (Harmful to emotional development, traumatising scenes etc. - basically anything which has a negative impact on cognitive and emotional development).

Have you looked at some the classics of literature? They didn't have any rating system she they were published.

 

[SilentRoamer]

hey Baylor,

Outside of my school education my exposure to the "classics" are limited to SFF.

I am not arguing for or against ratings systems, just outlining the probably answer for enforcement a proponent may give.

 

[prizzley]

How would anyone enforce a rating system? Personally, I owe a great deal to the librarian who pointed me towards the adult section aged 11. She didn't confiscate any of my would-be-x-rated choices. They were educational, but don't seem to have done me any lasting harm.

 

[chrispenycate]

Enforce it? I didn't want censorship, just information to help zero in on your particular taste. If you like S&M fantasy, then fine - but labeling it means that the sort of people who will be shocked by the content - can complain to the papers without even having to buy the book first. Oh, they don't bother to read them now? Well, at least with labels on they'll no what to complain about, rather than relying on hearsay.

And self publishers can label their own works - no need for a bored of censors - or should that be a board of censers?

 

[anivid]

I always wondered why so much SciFi - if not all - was centered around wars, violences, and aggressions.
Cannot the authors see past what's imposed on the human race by the male hormones ??
Wars are not exactly interesting as the outcome seems sure: one of them will win, making the other party a looser !!
Am all for a more descriptive cathegorization on books - Chrispy definitely is on to something.

A model could be seen in the so-called cosy-mysteries:
Cozy mysteries, also referred to simply as "cozies", are a subgenre of crime fiction in which sex and violence are downplayed or treated humorously.
Couldn't that be a sub-genre for S.F. lit too ??

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This was asked on one of my panels yesterday (so I was glad to have formulated an answer without posting to this thread yet!) my take on it is that

A. Kids are not stupid. They read what they enjoy and that is, by and large, what they understand. So a certain amount of book selection comes down to self-selecting by appropriateness (and, sure, if a parent thinks that self-selection is too mature they should have that conversation. I was always allowed to read anything I liked, however mature, and I do the same with my own kids - they've never yet worried me in their selection, even though one quite likes horror. Then again, I was reading King at 14 so I'm not a barometer)

B. What are we protecting them against? Bad language they hear Every Day in the playground? Violent imagery they have open access to on the Internet? Sex - ditto.... We live in a world where we cannot protect them, where parental filters only go so far. That is the world we need to equip our children for and to hide one of the few mediums that tackles these sort of things, can provoke thought and discusssion and give a safe exploration space seems crazy. Let them read and question and be able to formulate opinions on stuff they'll have to deal with much younger than we used to.

And, also, how do we do it? We already have categories. All a parent has to do is stick to the appropriate age category, should they choose to, and publishers will have already done some of the cleaning up for them.

 

[Nick B]

This is something I mentioned a while back too. The titles we have at the moment are almost like a rating system now, but it also turns away a greater audience.
I know many people who wont read YA because they see it as aimed at young teenagers. New Adult almost sounds insulting to me.

A rating system would work, and also open up more work to more readers. IF it was done considerately. IE, not age rated.

You could use old terms such as C for childrens books, U for universal, no sex, no swearing, no gore. R (restricted )or some limited stuff, RA (restricted adult) for swearing, sex, violent stuff, and X for erotica.

It just lets people know what they are in for, not to be 'enforced'. I think it would encourage a larger audience for works that put people off by getting labelled with a target age group.

 

[MWagner]

A. Kids are not stupid. They read what they enjoy and that is, by and large, what they understand. So a certain amount of book selection comes down to self-selecting by appropriateness (and, sure, if a parent thinks that self-selection is too mature they should have that conversation. I was always allowed to read anything I liked, however mature, and I do the same with my own kids - they've never yet worried me in their selection, even though one quite likes horror. Then again, I was reading King at 14 so I'm not a barometer)

Same here. Ever read Gary Jennings' Aztec? Read that one when I was 12. Stephen King is Wind in the Willows in comparison. I think I'd also got my hands on Helter Skelter and the Exorcist by about 13. Still, I'm not sure I'd want my kids reading those books at that age.

B. What are we protecting them against? Bad language they hear Every Day in the playground? Violent imagery they have open access to on the Internet? Sex - ditto.... We live in a world where we cannot protect them, where parental filters only go so far. That is the world we need to equip our children for and to hide one of the few mediums that tackles these sort of things, can provoke thought and discusssion and give a safe exploration space seems crazy. Let them read and question and be able to formulate opinions on stuff they'll have to deal with much younger than we used to.

I guess the problem I have is that my 8 year old son has the reading level of a 13-year-old. So he can already read pretty much anything he gets his hands on. He's not at an age where he's allowed to use the internet unsupervised (and won't be for several years), so I'm not at the 'he'll see all this stuff anyway' stage yet. He also doesn't have a social filter (he has ADHD), so whatever he does come across is almost certain to be repeated enthusiastically at the school or in the playground. This has already resulted in him making a couple visits to the principal's office, with letters home to his mom and I and talks with teachers. So precocious reading ability + low emotional maturity + no filter = potential for all sorts of inappropriate and embarrassing situations. I wouldn't mind codes for explicit language and extreme violence.

 

[millymollymo]

The advantage of sticking an age range on a spine is, I would have thought, most helpful to those buying books as a gift. It would add a greater stigma to reading for anyone not reading their "age", which in turn would empower some and endanger others. There is enough out there to stop folk from picking up a book, so while I can understand the helpful nature, I don't think its something that should be adopted.

 

[Overread]

The thing is you have to ask yourself - would it work.

Computer games have for a long time had problems whereby because "its a game" many parents ignore the age ratings on games. Whilst it stops kids getting games themselves, parents still get them for their kids. Now there is other pressures here, there is a LOT more marketing behind most high end video games than any author can dream of to put behind their books - indeed books at large get very very little advertising barring the top names. However it still stands that it doesn't work.

For books I think it might have more effect, but more so because of presumed difficult of language than of content. You see at school that is what we have, you have "age books" designed for different ages groups (based on rough estimations of reading ability at different ages - although some are more diplomatic and use an internal level system rather than ages). So if you put age ratings on books it wouldn't reflect content so much as the difficult of language - at least for most people interpreting the age rating when seeing it.
Indeed you'd quickly see books with a lower age rating not being picked up by those older - similarly they'd feel more pressured to try those with an age rating "closer to their own age".


Legislation could stop book shops selling and I can say that there might be some argument that the extreme ends could do with some restriction on sale or at least universal warning signs. However in the end if computer games still struggle with this after some 20 years or more then what hope have books - which have hither too not needed any age rating for centuries.