Book Ratings

[Scheherazade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system

We have ratings for movies and video games but not for books. Why is that?

Is it all about visual effects?

Do you think it would be good to have a ratings system for books as well?

[Lokasenna]

I'm not sure I really like the idea of ratings for anything... can a complex set of feelings, reactions and interpretations be boiled down to a basic number? I can't help but feel that devalues the original somehow...

[Scheherazade]

I mean ratings as in PG, 18, 12 etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system

[LitNetIsGreat]

What for, teenagers don't read to they? Maybe you are thinking that sticking a rating on a book will encourage reading then? No, it is a bit naff I think.

THE COMPLETE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE

http://rohrbachlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/william-shakespeare2.jpg

Edited by Scheherazade, complete with an introduction and
extensive notes by Harold Bloom

15 WARNING
* This book contains sexual innuendo and scenes of graphic
violence which some readers may find offensive

[Paulclem]

I have to admit that I read some books that had some sexually explicit and violent content when I was a young kid - 9 years onwards I mean. I was able to because none of my family read books, and so there was no censorship or questioning.

Of course I felt it was fine for me to read them until I had kids myself, and thought perhaps I should have had some restraints. I even came across a porn novel - no pictures - when I was 11, and passed it around my mates at school. We learnt quite a bit, but I don't think it was a healthy way to learn about sex. We certainly learnt more than the sex ed on offer.

I think I would have to agree with Scher on the ratings. The discomfort about my own kids reading the stuff I did clinched it.

The thing with Shakespeare is that it is difficult to understand for the young mind and perhaps doesn't matter. Some of the pulp horror was pretty bad.

[Gladys]

My son read early and much: Shakespeare and Chaucer as a seven-year-old. One of the few books he abandoned, twice, for violence was Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson.

In reading to our children, we favoured books with adult themes as educative of our world. Ratings were important in movie theatres where leaving was problematic.

[Silas Thorne]

I'm pretty sure when I was younger, 'American Psycho' did have a rating on it, and it was coated in plastic film so children couldn't thumb through it. However, my friend recently told me that a few years ago when he was in Japan, he saw that there was a magazine called 'Rape World' just a shelf or two above the childrens' comic books, within the reach of young childrens' hands. Some horror novels too do have scenes of rape and torture in them, so I can see why it may be necessary to remove them from literate younger readers, perhaps by a rating system.

However, many famous children's stories and great mythic tales contain cannibalism, sexuality and excessive violence too, and are deemed acceptable by society.

[Scheherazade]

Neely>Sarcasm is always appreciated (even though it is misplaced).

Just for clarification: I am not advocating book ratings as such at this stage; this occured to me at the library actually, where they have some sort of rating system. For example, you cannot borrow "adult" or "young adult" books on a child's card. So, I wondered if it might be a good idea to have a general rating to guide readers.

And why is it so important to have a rating system for movies/games?

Gladys> It isn't only about going to movies. How about DVDs and video games?

I don't think it is only about sexuality or violence either. There are many books I so wished that I had not read when I was a teen. I either thought I understood most of those or simply did not understand and brushed them away as "boring".

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely>Sarcasm is always appreciated (even though it is misplaced).

Just for clarification: I am not advocating book ratings as such at this stage; this occured to me at the library actually, where they have some sort of rating system. For example, you cannot borrow "adult" or "young adult" books on a child's card. So, I wondered if it might be a good idea to have a general rating to guide readers.


But is there really any need? Are there swarms of children wanting to take out adult books from libraries? I just don't think it is justified. At the same call, would you discourage a 'young adult' from reading serious literature based upon some sort of rating system? I'm not sure I fancy that myself.

[OrphanPip]

I don't think we should be limiting what teens want to read. I did read a lot of John Irving when I was in high school, and I'm pretty sure my parents wouldn't have approved of what was in those books. However, there has to be a point sometime when we allow teens to explore and learn on their own.

[Scheherazade]

At the same call, would you discourage a 'young adult' from reading serious literature based upon some sort of rating system? The assumption being that young adult books are not "serious" literature?
However, there has to be a point sometime when we allow teens to explore and learn on their own.Of course... They can do that once they are over, say, 14; once they are done with the usual children's/young adults' books?

What is the point of forcing a bunch of bored 13 year-olds to read Shakespeare or 1984, knowing only too well that they will do so (that is *if* they *ever* do so) only to pass a course and parrot whatever you have told them or they have read in Cliffnotes?

It is interesting that I am coming across as an advocate of the idea because I am not at this stage; it was just a passing thought I had had and wanted to explore with you guys to see the pros and cons; however, as usual, intolerance rules and we are all racing to see who is "more righter". :rolleyes:

[Niamh]

I think the catagorisation and cataloguing of books in stores is a form of rating. There are some books that do specify and age range, and i've come across a few with "for young adults over 13" etc on them. If i think a book is too grown up for a child, i have no problem hinting to their parents that there may be content in the book that the child is too young for. A lot of parents are greatful.

[Eryk]

If you want a rating system for language ("cuss words") we can use the same one for books and movies. But when it comes to sexual or violent content a reader has some responsibility for how much they imagine. It's all done for you in the movies.

The 19th chapter of the Book of Judges (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judges%2019&version=NIV) recounts the gang rape, murder and dismemberment of a woman. This chapter is included in "Children's Bibles" purchased by the same Concerned Parents whose activism is the bane of school boards, public libraries and TV networks.

[Homers_child]

I think the catagorisation and cataloguing of books in stores is a form of rating.

I always thought so, too. There is a children's section, a teenage fiction section etc. The sections that are simply labelled 'fiction' tend to be free game. There could be strong themes expressed in the books but thats the risk you take when you step out of the teen section.

When I was somewhere between 13 and 15, I remember I got a book from a library sale that had a cool title, and it ended up revolving around a Victorian prostitute and the family that she was interrupting. Some could say that I was too young to be reading that type of novel. But it turned out that I loved it and I plan on reading it again soon. I didn't feel as though it was inappropriate for me at all. Yes there were scenes describing sex but it didn't bother me, it was artistically written and I really got sucked into the story until the very end.

So, if books end up having ratings on them. Who is going to determine when something is inappropriate for a certain age group to read? Some people are more mature than others and can handle stronger themes.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The assumption being that young adult books are not "serious" literature?

Now who is being sarcastic?:p I didn't mean it like that but hey...


What is the point of forcing a bunch of bored 13 year-olds to read Shakespeare or 1984, knowing only too well that they will do so (that is *if* they *ever* do so) only to pass a course and parrot whatever you have told them or they have read in Cliffnotes?

Good points, but what does this have to do with rating? The canon in schools is a different (but interesting) discussion.


It is interesting that I am coming across as an advocate of the idea because I am not at this stage; it was just a passing thought I had had and wanted to explore with you guys to see the pros and cons; however, as usual, intolerance rules and we are all racing to see who is "more righter". :rolleyes:

Well I noticed that you voted FOR the rating on books, but I don't think anybody is getting intolerant or anything.


I always thought so, too. There is a children's section, a teenage fiction section etc. The sections that are simply labelled 'fiction' tend to be free game. There could be strong themes expressed in the books but thats the risk you take when you step out of the teen section.

When I was somewhere between 13 and 15, I remember I got a book from a library sale that had a cool title, and it ended up revolving around a Victorian prostitute and the family that she was interrupting. Some could say that I was too young to be reading that type of novel. But it turned out that I loved it and I plan on reading it again soon. I didn't feel as though it was inappropriate for me at all. Yes there were scenes describing sex but it didn't bother me, it was artistically written and I really got sucked into the story until the very end.

So, if books end up having ratings on them. Who is going to determine when something is inappropriate for a certain age group to read? Some people are more mature than others and can handle stronger themes.

Yes, I mean it all gets a little messy doesn't it. With film it is slightly different because any sex or violence is all there to see, but who is going read the minds of the individual reader to determine what they can and can't imagine?

I think books laid out in sections as they are in the libraries and bookshops work fine as they are.

[TheFifthElement]

I'm against ratings full stop. I don't see how the government or any body appointed by the government can decide what is and isn't right for people to watch, read or otherwise experience. As far as suitability of content is concerned, parents should have both right and responsibility in that domain; how is a censor better placed to decide what my son is permitted to watch than I am? Do they know him? Neither do I understand what it is that supposedly 'magically' happens to a person when they pass their 12th, 15th or 18th birthday that equips them to handle violence, sexual content, bad language and so on.

Life isn't censored or rated. My kids hear bad language when they're out on the streets, on the bus, on the train, in the supermarket. Luckily for them they've not experienced violence at close quarters, but many children experience plenty of violence in the home or at school without the luxury of it being fiction. Plus there's the unrated news, which is fairly indiscriminate in depicting disturbing and violent and real scenes. As for sexual content...well, it'd be interesting to do a poll of parents and see how many have experienced their kids walking in the bedroom at an, ahem, inopportune moment.

I also wonder if watching and experiencing fictional situations prepares people for how they might best handle themselves if they encounter the real thing, as well as cementing the distinction between the fictional and factual world. So it's okay to wish your teacher dead, but in reality you know you're not going to do it. You might vent your aggression playing a first person shooter game, instead of slamming a fist into that annoying kids head. Fiction in book, movie, TV or game form, encourages the development of empathy both in recognising the humanity of other people, and recognising behaviour which is inhumane. Rating, to me, denies children access to necessary educational tools. It's a blunt instrument. I can't see how that can be a good thing.

[JBI]

Rating is kind of disgusting, and shouldn't be part of any scholarly pursuit. Lets think about it; really there are three kinds of books - a level 0, absolute trash, a level 1, meh literature - the kind that is a little interesting but not very noteworthy, and 2s, the kind of stuff classics are made of - really good works. Anything that says "Shakespeare is better than Spenser" is just an annoyance - they are both 2s, there is no point really comparing them like that, especially at the expense of real comparisons, that is, textual and cultural comparisons.


In that sense, we shouldn't limit what people read by age either - lets be honest, if it wasn't for the sex in books I probably wouldn't be as literate as I am today - lets just say I was a curious 14 year old.

It's not as if literature is pornography anyway - most books with naughty content usually require a basic level of literacy to understand anyway - that restricts them more or less to 13+ at any rate.

[Virgil]

I voted that it's fine to have catagorizations for films but not for books. I think a novel is way too complex for such simplifications as pointed out by several here. But books are to some degree catagorized as children's, young adult's, and adults.



I'm against ratings full stop. I don't see how the government or any body appointed by the government can decide what is and isn't right for people to watch, read or otherwise experience. As far as suitability of content is concerned, parents should have both right and responsibility in that domain; how is a censor better placed to decide what my son is permitted to watch than I am?


But how is a parent supposed to know what type of film it is without some sort of classification? I don't think "censor" is the correct word. They don't cut or restrict any movie, at least not in the US. They catagorize a film, anywhere from general audience to porn. You would want to know if you were walking into a porno movie, wouldn't you?

[Scheherazade]

In that sense, we shouldn't limit what people read by age either - lets be honest, if it wasn't for the sex in books I probably wouldn't be as literate as I am today - lets just say I was a curious 14 year old. I don't think there would be any restrictions on a 14 years old... And most have other ways of discovering the "biology" than books :p
I voted that it's fine to have catagorizations for films but not for books. I think a novel is way too complex for such simplifications as pointed out by several here. But books are to some degree catagorized as children's, young adult's, and adults.
I am beginning to think that we are more worried about visual aspects than words, which is why there is a rating system for movies but not for printed material.

[OrphanPip]

You would want to know if you were walking into a porno movie, wouldn't you?

It would be an interesting surprise at least, but it could make a first date quite awkward.

[Virgil]

I am beginning to think that we are more worried about visual aspects than words, which is why there is a rating system for movies but not for printed material.
That was going through my mind as well.


It would be an interesting surprise at least, but it could make a first date quite awkward.

:lol: Might be the last date too, depending on the woman.

[TheFifthElement]

But how is a parent supposed to know what type of film it is without some sort of classification?

I agree, information is important, but classification gives very little information and in addition is restrictive. I still think the term censorship is appropriate as the whole concept of a restricted system promotes it. How many cuts do film makers make in order to guarantee that 15 certificate, instead of 18, or to get an 18 certificate when the movie would otherwise be unrated? Perhaps the situation is different in US, but certainly in UK the BBFC has the right to cut or ban a movie they don't deem suitable. There's some information about it here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/statistics/

The situation may be different in the US, but I suspect that movies will be cut to meet rating - certainly there's some anecdotal evidence around that - see discussion here: http://www.avforums.com/forums/movies-cinema/495895-usa-casino-royale-more-censored-than-uk.html and the MPAA's own website confirms that:


If a film is assigned a rating that a producer/director does not want, he or she may edit and re-submit the film for another rating.

http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_HowRated.asp

[Emil Miller]

That was going through my mind as well.



:lol: Might be the last date too, depending on the woman.

There is an interesting short story by Graham Greene about a middle-aged man who takes his wife to see a pornographic movie only to discover that the male in the film is himself when much younger. They don't get more embarrassing than that.

[Petrarch's Love]

Good heavens, what would Coriolanus get rated?

In terms of why we rate movies/video games and not books, my first thought was that you have a lot less reaction time in a movie than in a book. If you're in a movie in which a split-second violent action can send a decapitated head flying toward the camera, splurting blood all over and followed by the cries and screams of men in batte being mutilated in various ways, then you're more or less stuck in a darkened theater. If you're reading the Chanson de Roland, you've got several stanzas of pre-battle build up and the ability to set the book down and get out of there the minute a sword first hits someone's neck, thus avoiding the extended descriptions of men being split from scull to groin by broadswords. I imagine it's this less immediate aspect of a book that makes the difference in the perceived need to impose ratings.

While I can certainly imagine there are some things I wouldn't want my young children to read--if I had young children--I can't even imagine how one would begin to go about rating books. If, for example, the criteria for rating were connected to incidents of violence in a story, there are any number of books aimed at children which might merit rather high ratings: the original Grimms Fairy Tales, for example, or lots of incidents in Roald Dahl's books. As someone else said, bookstore and library categories tend to already take care of a lot of potential issues that rating would be aimed at. You know a book from the "Romance" section might not be appropriate for a seven year old for example.

The idea of book rating reminds me of a school reading program we had at my elementary school. Each week all the classes in the school would go to the library and each child was supposed to select a book from the reading program section to read for the week. The idea was that you would read your book, answer some questions about it when you finished and then you would get a special sticker for being a good reader (I think there was some sort of small prize when you got a certain number of stickers). A very nice idea. The only problem was that they had arranged the books on separate color coded shelves according to each of the 6 grade levels (K-5) and you were only supposed to read books for your grade level. I happened to be an avid reader as a kid and a little ahead of where the books in the yellow first grade section were aimed, and so I quickly read through them all, found them rather boring for the most part, and could see some books I really did want to read up on the top shelf where the blue 5th grade books were. The problem was that the lady in charge of the program wouldn't let me read those because she said they were too advanced. Since I protested, it finally came out that part of the concern was not only that they might be beyond my reading skill level, but because a book like Little Women might be inappropriate for a first grader to read (I can only guess because somebody dies?) My mom finally talked to the lady and I got permission to read the blue level books, eventually including the forbidden Little Women (which I adored and sobbed over), but it did make me think that telling people what they are and are not ready to read inhibits part of the explorative fun of reading. Not to mention, who's to determine a rating? Little Women might get rated M for Mature. :lol:

[PabloQ]

Ratings of any kind are a form of censorship. They are an attempt to prevent certain individuals from partaking of a specific art form. The ratings on movies and video games are not that stringently enforced as a rule so it is a mild form of censorship. At the end of the day, someone is making a decision for someone else what is appopriate for that individual to view, play, or read. At the end of the day, parents should participate in their children's choices of movies, but it is the parent's choice to whether to take a child to see The Little Mermaid or A Clockwork Orange.

Lately, the ratings have been accompanied by text intended to help parents make informed decisions - contains nudity, graphic blood violence, langurage, etc. I prefer that type of information than an arbitrary rating. If one is okay with one's child watching bloody violence, but not seeing a booby, well one can decide.

I recently tried to limit my son's access to movies with bad language. He turned to me and said, "Dad, I ride the number 4 bus." The number 4 bus goes through the Government projects in our town and the Gangsta lads and lasses have a special brand of foul language. Apparently, there wasn't anything left that he hadn't heard. He's 15 and that's no surprise, but there are still graphic sexual images that we try to limit on television and movies.

Ratings provide a guideline, but they're not really enforceable. I'd like see them eliminated and replaced with the more textual description of the material that might offend a younger viewer. Parents can make their own choices.

One last though. When I was in the 7th grade, my English teacher left a copy of Portnoy's Complaint laying around. I found it, gave it a glance, and found some very graphic language. I read it to the class. Got myself, the teacher, and the school in trouble. Those were the days.

[Paulclem]

Good heavens, what would Coriolanus get rated?

Would the pre-14 year olds want to read Coriolanus? I'd have been pleased if my children had read this in their pre-teens.

While I can certainly imagine there are some things I wouldn't want my young children to read--if I had young children--I can't even imagine how one would begin to go about rating books. If, for example, the criteria for rating were connected to incidents of violence in a story, there are any number of books aimed at children which might merit rather high ratings: the original Grimms Fairy Tales, for example, or lots of incidents in Roald Dahl's books. As someone else said, bookstore and library categories tend to already take care of a lot of potential issues that rating would be aimed at. You know a book from the "Romance" section might not be appropriate for a seven year old for example.

I think we know the kind of stuff we're taling about. Perhaps you haven't read much pulp horror with the sadistic rape scenes etc that I read regularly in my early teens. It's not the Shakespearian or classic stuff we're on about, and it is a valid point about sensible information on pre-14 year olds reading. Do you want young boys partly forming their attitudes to women through this kind of book? I don't for a minute believe that it inevitably leads to rape, misogyny etc, just as I don't think video games or films lead to violence without much more powerful factors being involved, but it is certainly not helpful for the kid.

I think around 14 is when exploration is more acceptable.

[Petrarch's Love]

I think we know the kind of stuff we're taling about. Perhaps you haven't read much pulp horror with the sadistic rape scenes etc that I read regularly in my early teens. It's not the Shakespearian or classic stuff we're on about, and it is a valid point about sensible information on pre-14 year olds reading. Do you want young boys partly forming their attitudes to women through this kind of book? I don't for a minute believe that it inevitably leads to rape, misogyny etc, just as I don't think video games or films lead to violence without much more powerful factors being involved, but it is certainly not helpful for the kid.

I was working under the assumption that the kind of book you describe is the sort ratings would be aimed at, and brought up the classics because such a rating system would naturally have to extend to all books, and I wondered what the reaction would be to extending it to "classic" reading. I don't think you're going to get much argument against a rating system for the kind of books you describe. The interesting part of the ratings question is not pertaining to such obvious works, but the ones that may be less obvious, or more controversial in terms of how we would chose to rate them. Coriolanus just came off the top of my head as one of the Roman plays, but the real Shakespeare play to talk about would be Titus Andronicus, which has a central scene featuring the sadistic rape and mutilation of a woman and ends with cannibalism. I'm not sure I would want my pre-14 year old child reading Titus any more than I would want him or her reading modern pulp horror. You may be right, however, that a few guidelines about the content of a book might be helpful for parents, although my point was that the really obvious pulp horror stuff already seems fairly easy to spot. Not only can you tell something about a book by the section it's placed in at the store, but books do already come with a few hints as to content in the form of cover art and dust jacket synopses (not to mention, simply skimming the actual contents of the book).

Still, if one wanted to place a little rating mark on a book to indicate it might not be appropriate for young children, that doesn't sound like the end of the world in and of itself. I'm just not sure it would deal with the issue you're raising. I doubt very much that parents are the ones going out and unwittingly buying pulp horror for their pre-14 year old boys (or even their post-14 year olds) as it is. Just because there aren't ratings doesn't mean that everyone thinks it's perfectly fine reading for young people. So would the rating system then have to involve some kind of regulation by which children/adolescents under a certain age can't buy a book without parental consent, just as they can't enter an R rated movie? If that were the case, it might very well come out that a 14 year old couldn't buy the complete works of Shakespeare (forget Seneca!) or any number of other classic works, because there are several classics that could easily get a pretty mature rating. It might be that you still think it would be a good idea to rate books of all kinds, but such a system might have a very surprising effect on how we characterize all sorts of reading.

Thinking of the way this would have to expand to a variety of books brings up another, very practical reason that we probably don't rate books, which is the sheer number of them. While it's possible to give ratings to the number of video games or movies released in a year, the thought of applying a rating to all the books printed in a year, much less the massive number produced in the last several centuries is staggering to say the least.

[Paulclem]

You don't seem the kind of poster that posts off the top of your head, but point taken. I'm just aware of what's possible to buy, and I was thinking of a particular type of book. Perhaps you're right, and those sorts are easy to spot. On reflection, perhaps there are too many to comprehensively rate, and, as someone has said, there is a kind of rating with the distiction between, child teen and adult books.

I think Scher's point about encouraging young readers to read the right kind of book for their age is interesting.Of course you don't want to restrict the avid reader, but I know, as Scher has pointed out, that I read stuff much too early to get it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think Scher's point about encouraging young readers to read the right kind of book for their age is interesting.Of course you don't want to restrict the avid reader, but I know, as Scher has pointed out, that I read stuff much too early to get it.

I get what you’re saying, but I don't think that age is necessarily a good indicator of comprehension, reading experience is perhaps more of a factor in terms of comprehension. Besides, there is nothing wrong with reading a book that is a little too challenging that you don't "get" some of, it's all good for development. In the end I would rather leave the individual to determine what they want to read (within obvious reason) than to stamp a one size fits all label on books - not to mention the impossibility of that in practical terms.

[Paulclem]

I get what you’re saying, but I don't think that age is necessarily a good indicator of comprehension, reading experience is perhaps more of a factor in terms of comprehension. Besides, there is nothing wrong with reading a book that is a little too challenging that you don't "get" some of, it's all good for development. In the end I would rather leave the individual to determine what they want to read (within obvious reason) than to stamp a one size fits all label on books - not to mention the impossibility of that in practical terms.

I'd probably go with that. It's only with hindsight that I think the issue interesting. Any restrictions on me would have raised my hackles in the past anyway.
I suppose if I think of reading The wasteland that I was aware it was a great poem. I liked it, but as often as not I didn't know why. It was the returning to it from the initial reading that I gained anything like an understanding of it. It's like a big heap of culture that only becomes relevant when you experience/ read/ become aware of the bits. It took time to build it into anything with a coherent theme.

It's still a work in progree I hasten to add.

I seem to have come round to the opposite view, but then I still wouldn't have liked my kids to read the stuff I did. Torn parent syndrome.

[Petrarch's Love]

You don't seem the kind of poster that posts off the top of your head...
:lol: It has been known to happen on occasion. I am equipped with a top of head like everyone else. ;)


...but point taken. I'm just aware of what's possible to buy, and I was thinking of a particular type of book. Perhaps you're right, and those sorts are easy to spot. On reflection, perhaps there are too many to comprehensively rate, and, as someone has said, there is a kind of rating with the distiction between, child teen and adult books.

Yes, I don't think you're wrong about the need to limit the access young people have to a certain kind of book, but a full on ratings system would be rather complicated and daunting as a task.


I think Scher's point about encouraging young readers to read the right kind of book for their age is interesting.Of course you don't want to restrict the avid reader, but I know, as Scher has pointed out, that I read stuff much too early to get it.


I get what you’re saying, but I don't think that age is necessarily a good indicator of comprehension, reading experience is perhaps more of a factor in terms of comprehension. Besides, there is nothing wrong with reading a book that is a little too challenging that you don't "get" some of, it's all good for development. In the end I would rather leave the individual to determine what they want to read (within obvious reason) than to stamp a one size fits all label on books - not to mention the impossibility of that in practical terms.

I agree fully with Neely on this point. I can't see the sense in a ratings system based on how challenging a book is at all. A person will either put a book down because it's too challenging, and possibly come back to it later, or maybe wrestle a little with a book that's a little beyond them stylistically speaking and learn and expand from the struggle. Not to mention, once you get a ratings system going there's going to be competition and branding among children. Kids who aren't up to reading the things they are supposed to be reading for their age could be teased for being "stupid" and kids reading ahead of their age could be labelled as (might even be susceptible to becoming) rather arrogant. Much better to just encourage kids (and adults) to take pleasure in whatever level of challenge suits them best.


I'd probably go with that. It's only with hindsight that I think the issue interesting. Any restrictions on me would have raised my hackles in the past anyway.
I suppose if I think of reading The wasteland that I was aware it was a great poem. I liked it, but as often as not I didn't know why. It was the returning to it from the initial reading that I gained anything like an understanding of it. It's like a big heap of culture that only becomes relevant when you experience/ read/ become aware of the bits. It took time to build it into anything with a coherent theme.

It's still a work in progree I hasten to add.

Oh, I love that feeling of reading something and loving it without really understanding why. Probably half the reason I'm so drawn to poetry. Your insight does suggest one of the great things about reading, which is the way we can grow into and out of certain books or different aspects of books, the way revisiting a really good work of literature can help us reflect upon the changes within ourselves. My grandmother, who lived into her late 80's, used to tell me about the experience of reading Dickens' Great Expectations multiple times in the course of her life from the age of about 16 to the final time at 85 or so. About every ten years she found herself picking it up again, and she said that each time it was like reading a new book, because there was so much that she hadn't understood or noticed before because of the way she had developed as a reader/appreciator of the literary aspects and because of the life experiences she had been through that gave her new insight into/appreciation for certain characters. One of the great reasons for reading things we don't entirely understand when we're young is that it gives us a wonderful marker for reflection back to that time if we revisit the same work later in life. And, as you say, it is always a work in progress. :nod:[/QUOTE]


I seem to have come round to the opposite view, but then I still wouldn't have liked my kids to read the stuff I did. Torn parent syndrome.

Perfectly understandable. :)

[Virgil]

The situation may be different in the US, but I suspect that movies will be cut to meet rating - certainly there's some anecdotal evidence around that - see discussion here: http://www.avforums.com/forums/movies-cinema/495895-usa-casino-royale-more-censored-than-uk.html and the MPAA's own website confirms that:

I suspect it's the same in the US. If the director's cut to meet rating that's their decision. In some cases there is the perfunctory bare breast exposed in order to raise the rating purposely. Movies that are given a G rating will not be seen as artistic, and so they have insert sex or violence. Either way I don't see the point. Director is free to make whatever choices he wants his movie to say.


There is an interesting short story by Graham Greene about a middle-aged man who takes his wife to see a pornographic movie only to discover that the male in the film is himself when much younger. They don't get more embarrassing than that.
:lol: Not there was a burst of imagination.

[Paulclem]

I voted that it's fine to have catagorizations for films but not for books. I think a novel is way too complex for such simplifications as pointed out by several here. But books are to some degree catagorized as children's, young adult's, and adults.




But how is a parent supposed to know what type of film it is without some sort of classification? I don't think "censor" is the correct word. They don't cut or restrict any movie, at least not in the US. They catagorize a film, anywhere from general audience to porn. You would want to know if you were walking into a porno movie, wouldn't you?

You've reminded me.

This did happen to me with a girlfriend once. We went to see Caligula with John Gielgud in it. It was certainly a porno, with about the same acting aplomb! We didn'tstay.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system

We have ratings for movies and video games but not for books. Why is that?

Is it all about visual effects?

Do you think it would be good to have a ratings system for books as well?

[crusoe]

I sudied the Life of Richard III for a while and realized how shallow and wrong Shakespeare's Play was. Licking some Tudor's Boots...sorry Bill.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I don't think that books being rated, with regards to sexual content, would be so bad. I have read some books with very disturbing scenes when I was quite young that I would've preferred to have read when I was a little older.

I have also read books which made me think that if I had kids those would be kept on the top shelf or somewhere else, until I feel they are old enough to read certain scenes.

I know people have mentioned maturity levels and so on, but I was always very mature for my age and even I was left a little scarred by some things I read (and saw in movies for that matter).