Do Parents Censor Books less than Other Media Forms?

There is a general expectation that parents will monitor the types of movies their kids watch, the music they listen to and the video games they play and as a kid myself I have distinct recollections of my parents not letting me watch certain movies, and having to pre-approve of cd's I wanted to buy, not letting my listen to certain types of music and so forth. Not that they were particularly strict, but just practiced basic responsibility like I was six years old when the first Chucky movie came out and I was really mad when my mom would not let me watch it than. When I was 10 years old I was not aloud to watch Bram Stoker's Dracula. And when I was in middle school I went through this brief rap phase and part of the draw to it was that my sister was always into rap and hip hop and part of the draw was the element of "taboo" around it, and needless to say I was not allowed at that time to listen to gangster rap and my mom was particular about the cd's in that genre that I purchased. So that sort of thing.

But when I think about it I do not recall the books I read ever having to be preapproved, or monitored. I do not have any recollections of being told I could not read something I wanted to read, nor do I ever recall my parents prescreening any of the books I wanted to read. When we went out shopping for books I pretty much could pick out anything I wanted and it was never questioned.

This got me to thinking, is this common that there is a generally more relaxed approach to the books that parents let their kids read, compared to other forms of media that kids are exposed to? Have other people experienced a similar situation or is just something unique to me?

And if books are not as closely monitored by parents that what may be some of the reasons for that? Is it that the visual image of violence, or sexual content seen as having a more profound affect upon a child than if they simply read it? Or is because reading something required more understanding of what is happening than seeing something on TV. As a kid could watch a movie with all sorts of scenes of violence or listen to music with inappropriate language without understanding what is it is actually about or what is actually happening but if you read something you have to comprehend the whole of the story at least to some degree so does this put the violence more into context which makes it less "traumatic" or "corruptive?"

All art is subversive. The authorities couldn't give a bugger about sex and violence, it's the message that they're worried about. God forbid, we should think for ourselves.

Probably it's just that on the average parents don't read a lot of books so they'll rarely know what the book their children read are about.

Then, parents that read a lot of book will rarely be ignorant enought to censor anything. Right?

I have no problem with protecting children from bad influences, my problem is being treated like a child myself when I am clearly old enough to read and watch whatever I please. The problem with the moral censors is that they can't distinguish between right and wrong themselves, therefore they think everyone must be the same. It's a joke - children ruling over children.

BTW, does everyone think that children are to learn about life from the tooth fairy or something? Give me a break, give them a break: ignorance is not bliss, it is a backwards step.

As a parent, I don't censor any of my kids' media. If they want to watch a movie which is 'outside age range' we talk about whether they might like it or not, or if they might find it scary or disturbing but after that it's up to them. Same with books, video games and...music? Flipping heck. They hear terrible language on the street, goodness knows why people think putting it to music magically makes it worse. Same with violence. Same with sex. Just walk through the average town centre on a Saturday night and there's no point shielding them from the fantasy stuff, the real thing is far more scary and by exploring it through fantasy they might just have a better idea of how to deal with things when faced with them for real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

As a parent, I don't censor any of my kids' media. If they want to watch a movie which is 'outside age range' we talk about whether they might like it or not, or if they might find it scary or disturbing but after that it's up to them. Same with books, video games and...music? Flipping heck. They hear terrible language on the street, goodness knows why people think putting it to music magically makes it worse. Same with violence. Same with sex. Just walk through the average town centre on a Saturday night and there's no point shielding them from the fantasy stuff, the real thing is far more scary and by exploring it through fantasy they might just have a better idea of how to deal with things when faced with them for real.

---

Bravo.

Well said, FifthElement.

I always wondered why books don't have ratings. They can be much more explicit than movies, after all. Now, I don't support slapping "Parental Advisory" stickers on books in any way, I just never understood why books get away with no ratings--I don't think I've even heard the idea brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Well said, FifthElement.

I always wondered why books don't have ratings. They can be much more explicit than movies, after all. Now, I don't support slapping "Parental Advisory" stickers on books in any way, I just never understood why books get away with no ratings--I don't think I've even heard the idea brought up.

---

Children's books are classified as children's literature. Children's fiction should be read very carefully before being put before a child. In this, most parents have to put their trust in the censors. Age limits on books are a necessity as an informed parent is a better parent.

Thought this was (kind of) relevant to the topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_913078.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho

Thought this was (kind of) relevant to the topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_913078.html

---

There have always been idiots, and there will always be idiots. What is forbidden, we desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Well said, FifthElement.

I always wondered why books don't have ratings. They can be much more explicit than movies, after all. Now, I don't support slapping "Parental Advisory" stickers on books in any way, I just never understood why books get away with no ratings--I don't think I've even heard the idea brought up.

---

I acutally participated in a discussion on that very topic at another forum.

My parents never censored anything for me or my brother when we were children. I remember my mother once fighting with cinema staff for not letting me into a 16 and over movie when I was 12. Then again, I read a lot of violent, filthy stuff as a kid that I probably shouldn't have, ha. (I'm also from Quebec and grew up with soft core porn on standard cable after 10 pm.)

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

I think most parents censor books less because it's harder to figure out if it has objectionable content. There are plenty of parental websites on video games and movies but you have to be very familiar with literature to know the content of most books. And most people are not literature buffs.

It's a curious idea.

It it the parent's perogative to police it though? When I was a nipper, my main source of books was not my parents, but my school library. My parents were always delighted that I spent so much time reading, but they were never particularly aware of what exactly I was reading.

I remember when I was about fourteen I checked out the library's copy of the first two books of George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire - I was very into fantasy at that age. The explicit sex depicted in the books were something I had not previously come across, and I'll admit it rather shocked me - I had never encountered erotic fiction before. This wasn't problematic or anything - it was just unexpected. But the point is that children as young as eight or nine were using that library, and I'll bet our rather kindly but ineffective librarian had absolutely no idea of the content of the book. She would have, without question, handed over a text riddled with profanity and containing scenes of highly explicit nature to a child without realising it.

That said, I'm not quite sure where I stand. I don't know whether it's necessary. I can't remember how old I was, but it was certainly less than 10 years old, when I was on holiday with family and saw that my uncle was enjoying reading The Silence of the Lambs. Once he finished it, I read it. Linguistically, it's hardly a demanding read, and I got through it. I understood everything, but the significance of it was lost on my childish self. It certainly didn't give me nightmares or anything. I think that serious matters are easier to swallow in book form.

I never censored books for my children because the issue never arose. We always went to the children's section at the library and our home was filled with collectible comics and annuals. They never asked to venture into adult territory and by the time they were teens, they were old enough to make their own choices. Now one of them is into fictional autobiographies about gross childhood mistreatment.

My parents never really monitored anything I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oniw17

My parents never really monitored anything I did.

---

and what is your conclusion?

That would be that in my case, no, my parents didn't censor books less than anything else. Except maybe whatever vices they themselves might have had.

yes but do you think you would have benefitted from being censored as a child is what I am asking. Would you do the same as your parents with your children or different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venerable Bede

I think most parents censor books less because it's harder to figure out if it has objectionable content. There are plenty of parental websites on video games and movies but you have to be very familiar with literature to know the content of most books. And most people are not literature buffs.

---

^^This.

And I think there is a trust in books that is unspoken. The average person doesn't expect to read a great deal of gore, sex etc in the average novel.
Books are usually written for their target audience and I find there isn't much overlap in those audiences/genres.
Also, a book is a personal journey. Movies and video games possibly require more censorship since the images are so easily shared? For example, you could have all the horror stories you might like on your bookshelf, but little Jimmy is never going to walk in on the images and catch a glimpse like he might do say if those images are on a TV or computer screen.
On that note.. Reading requires our imagination to run away with us. An innocent child might read about gore, but his version of gore and an adults are going to vary greatly. Movies and games don't instruct our imagination at all and often aim to shock or make an audience feel uncomfortable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

yes but do you think you would have benefitted from being censored as a child is what I am asking. Would you do the same as your parents with your children or different?

---

No. My parents never censored me and my English teachers in highschool had me reading at a grade above the rest of the class which never raised an issue.
I was always allowed to pick whatever I like at a visit to a library and never came across anything that bothered me.
Do you think that literature has changed over the last decade to now cause concern?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zhannochka

No. My parents never censored me and my English teachers in highschool had me reading at a grade above the rest of the class which never raised an issue.
I was always allowed to pick whatever I like at a visit to a library and never came across anything that bothered me.
Do you think that literature has changed over the last decade to now cause concern?

---

I don't think it has. I mean would I let a child read Lady Chatterley's Lover compared to Stephen King's Needful Things? If my child had ever expressed an interest in either books, I would have allowed them to read them but they never did so it was a decision I didn't have to make.

Personally, I am more concerned what they access on the internet than literature

I think that sums it up Delta. Literature is the least of concern! Other mediums are more likely in the spotlight.