# Warnings for books?



## Jeko (Jan 15, 2013)

I picked up _Black Rabbit Summer _by Kevin Brooks a short while back, and began to enjoy it. Brooks was setting up a dark, interesting YA story.

Then it became pornographic. I did the ceremonial 'removing of the bookmark' and took it back to my local library

I found the book in the 'young adult' section. I was surprised that such smut got in there. But it made me wonder - how was I to know? The books are in the same place where the _Skulduggery Pleasant _books are. The same place where you can find Jonathan Stroud's work. The cover of _Black Rabbit Summer_ creates intrigue (for me, at least) but has no hint towards the sexual content rather early on.

Maybe it's not too extreme, and I'm too sensitive to this stuff. But I think books should come with some kind of caution for this content. I mean, Darren Shan's books say 'seriously scary' on the back. Why can't Brook's book have 'contains descriptions of naked woman with sexual intent' or something?


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 15, 2013)

They actually have pornography in your public library? Or was it just too much sex for you, individually?


----------



## moderan (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't think "naked women with sexual intent" is necessarily pornographic. But it does seem a trifle strong for YA.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 15, 2013)

Darren Shauns books werent very scary at all =P and honestly I hope they never do to books whats been done to movies.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 15, 2013)

Now that you're damaged for life, you might as well go back and check out some more and enjoy yourself. But seriously, sounds like you might be swimming in the shallow end, demographically, and will have to figure out lifeguarding for yourself. Might try this place. They say:


> Parents need to know that this book involves a murder of a teen by a teen, suicide, hallucinogenic drug use, and drunken teen sex. After all that, other iffy behavior seems rather tame: teens lie to their parents and police, smoke cigarettes and pot, and drink hard alcohol recreationally. Another disturbing element is the main character's apathy toward his own life and others'. When Pete learns his friend killed a girl, he notes, "I just didn't care. I know that probably sounds pretty callous, but the simple truth is -- I didn't _like_ [her]."


Seems like they're kind of sensitive too, cause nobody else I found said anything like this.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 15, 2013)

*Warning*

Do not burn.


----------



## what-if (Jan 15, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> They actually have pornography in your public library? Or was it just too much sex for you, individually?



Well, they do have a certain black-label-edition magazine in my public library :-#
But they've removed anything on guns & most of the war novels.

Maybe they should classify books like movies ... G, PG, R, S (scary), SX (sex) etc.  Libraries should classify books better but the Dewey Decimal system (the limit of their intellect it seems) doesn't cater for it.

I'm turned off a book not only by sexual content that's unnecessary to the story but by extensive swearing too.  Some authors seem inclined to think that is what the readers want ... or is it what the author wants ?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 15, 2013)

what-if said:


> Well, they do have a certain black-label-edition magazine in my public library :-#
> But they've removed anything on guns & most of the war novels.
> 
> Maybe they should classify books like movies ... G, PG, R, S (scary), SX (sex) etc.  Libraries should classify books better but the Dewey Decimal system (the limit of their intellect it seems) doesn't cater for it.
> ...



The day they start labeling the contents of books and deciding what is suitable literature, is the day "Fahrenheit 451" becomes real life and literature begins to die.  Where do you draw the line at what is acceptable and what isn't?  Just because something is a 'classic' it wouldn't preclude it from being rated the same as new material.  How sad would it be to see a book like "Oedipus Rex," no longer be available to be taught in school?  "Catcher in the Rye" would see the same fate.  There are too many to name but anything with sexual content, foul language, or violence would be kept from the minds of children and young adults who need to know the stories and writers that came before their time.  "Red Badge of Courage" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," no longer in schools because of violence?  That would be a sad day.  Leave the ratings out of literature, its ridiculous.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 15, 2013)

what-if said:


> But they've removed anything on guns & most of the war novels...
> 
> I'm turned off a book not only by sexual content that's unnecessary to the story but by extensive swearing too.  Some authors seem inclined to think that is what the readers want ... or is it what the author wants ?



I find it sad and scary that books on guns and war novels have been removed. As to swearing and sexual content - who decides it unnecessary or 'extensive'? Your level may not meet mine or vice versa. My writing includes swearing - realistic to the characters and the situation. I don't write it based on what the reader may want or even what I may want - it's what the story demands. Only if the books are available do readers have a choice of what they wish to read or not. I prefer to make my own choices.


----------



## what-if (Jan 15, 2013)

Classification is not Banning.  Tho PC has gotten out of control due to idiot academics instead of someone with common-sense making the decisions.

I often rely on the movie-review program on tv to tell me about overly-offensive swearing or sex etc.  Like the "G" or "R" movie-ratings it helps to inform me what to expect.  I would welcome a similar program about books ... there is one, but they limit themselves to "high-literature" not novels that the general-public would read.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 15, 2013)

When I was a kid, I picked up some sloppy science-fiction pulp book. It had a cool cover and the story was about time travel. All I knew about time travel at the time involved Well's "Time Machine" and, since I liked that movie, I figured I'd like this book... (It was one of my first science-fiction books, IIRC.)

Well... The Protagonist was your typical he-man, testosterone driven neanderthalic hero. He blew up a lot of stuff, fought a lot of aliens, took his shirt off and railed against the enemy. Typical "Jim Kirk meets Conan" sort of guy. But, hidden in this little gem of a book was a very explicit sex scene. Very explicit... 

I was just a kid and though I grew up fast, I wasn't in-tune with Sexual Engineering. I knew, sort of, what all the jiggly bits did - We had anatomy books and a subscription to National Geographic. But, I didn't know that "sex" between a real man and a real woman could have so many different... things going on.

A clear case of why parents should pay a bit of attention to what their kids consume, in my opinion. No, it didn't scar me for life or anything. But, it certainly did startle and confuse me, since I had no shared experience of any sort of sexual nature or desire at that age. The book also made the rounds amongst my classmates, ultimately being confiscated by a teacher... I don't remember if she was flabbergasted or gasted in any other way, though.

Warnings? Warnings on YA books? Well, here's the rub - WTF is a YA book?

I know "what" they are intended for. However, when I see "Paranormal Teen Romance" sections in bookstores, I have to wonder whether or not we're taking genre creation to levels that are unnecessary. Back in the day, bookstores certainly had genre sections. But, children's books were replete with Dr. Seuss and popup books and Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy had their own, separate, sections. Why do we need a "Paranormal Teen Romance" section? (I also read a book about a guy having sex with a ghost, when I was a kid. THAT did "scar me for life." So, maybe it should have had its own genre section in the book store, far removed from the kid's books... Strangely enough, I also read "The Story of O", "Everything you ever wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask" and the mass market Kinsey Report when I was a kid and those didn't scar me for life. Weird. But, my household didn't have clearly defined genre sections and I've always been an avid reader...)

In my opinion, if you're going to create a whole new genre for adolescents, you're inevitably going to run afoul of parental constraints. There is no way around that. Anything meant for general consumption has its own structure in that regard. But, things particularly targeted at the adolescent market have their own specific restrictions for just this reason. These restrictions have evolved over time and have done so because parents wish to be assured that their child is not progressing faster in their knowledge of taboos than the parents are ready to handle... If we have a YA genre being born, it's going to be subject to the same restrictions that other such products, like movies, are subjected to. There's no way around it.

Yes, if we are going to say that we have created a new Adolescent Genre, then we have to accept that it will be regulated, eventually, and I don't think that's really a bad thing. Within adolescent genres, rather than "labeling", I think that certain standards must be maintained or the authors attempting to take advantage of this new genre must accept the fact that they'll be shelved somewhere else if they don't maintain those standards in their work. That's just how it's got to be unless our culture changes dramatically.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 15, 2013)

You can't rate just new books, and not ALL literature.  As soon as you do, and it starts effecting the bottom line which is money, publishers and authors will have the law in front of the U.S. Supreme Court before you can bat an eye lash.  That will result in one of two outcomes, either ALL books get rated, new and 'classic,' or no books get rated.  This isn't a subject that takes a rocket scientist to figure out.  Parents need to parent their kids, what a concept huh?  Know what their kids are reading, know what their kids are watching, and know what their kids are listening to.  If a kid comes home pregnant and a drug addict, chances are if the parent didn't see it coming, they were never paying attention in the first place.  When kids start getting into stuff like drugs, sex, and other behaviors not fit for their age, they start acting differently.  If the parents had already educated their kids in the first place, it lowers the chance of them getting into this stuff, but even if the kids do get into it, its up to parents to spot the changes in them and take action.  The U.S. doesn't have an adolescent drug, alcohol, or pregnancy problem, they have a really bad poor parenting problem.  That's why the government needs to spend as much money on educating parents as they do on educating kids.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 15, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> ....  The U.S. doesn't have an adolescent drug, alcohol, or pregnancy problem, they have a really bad poor parenting problem.  That's why the government needs to spend as much money on educating parents as they do on educating kids.



That's arguable, but not up for debate, here. 

However, if you create a product that is targeted at children, our culture is going to demand that certain standards be maintained. There is no way around that fact. That is no less true for works of art, including fiction. Kids can't purchase pornography. That's a result of our culture and just one example of many different products that are age-limited or must obey age-related cultural standards. If publishers have successfully gerrymandered a new genre onto the bookshelves, then publishers are going to have to set certain standards if this genre is targeted towards children. If they don't, those standards will be set by other agencies, eventually. It's best if they start setting those standards right now, while they have the power to act on their own, without legislative or legal interference. Self-regulation is key, here.

This is just part of our culture and it will be done, eventually. Pop-up children's books don't have naked boobs on little metal springs that boink off the page.. And, they don't have that for a reason. Similarly, a genre focused on adolescents is going to be expected to remain within certain cultural boundaries or people will eventually get upset.

I don't believe that warning labels on books would be an effective method nor do I believe that a genre that is specifically targeted at adolescents should have content that would justify such labels. IOW - If it's an adolescent market, it should conform to cultural expectations or else those producing that material should be prepared to have their submissions yanked and reshelved if they don't conform. It's still a new genre so the cultural subconscious hasn't caught up to it, yet. But, it will and, when it does, I hope publishers have a plan to handle it.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 15, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> That's arguable, but not up for debate, here.
> 
> However, if you create a product that is targeted at children, our culture is going to demand that certain standards be maintained. There is no way around that fact. That is no less true for works of art, including fiction. Kids can't purchase pornography. That's a result of our culture and just one example of many different products that are age-limited or must obey age-related cultural standards. If publishers have successfully gerrymandered a new genre onto the bookshelves, then publishers are going to have to set certain standards if this genre is targeted towards children. If they don't, those standards will be set by other agencies, eventually. It's best if they start setting those standards right now, while they have the power to act on their own, without legislative or legal interference. Self-regulation is key, here.
> 
> ...



Literature isn't pornography, and pornography isn't up for debate here, art is.  Are we going to start putting little black boxes over the nudes in art too?  Put a bra on the Venus de Milo?  Do you understand that giving an inch is the going to turn into giving a mile?  Leave ratings and censorship to the parents of this country, and quit telling them what they can and can not teach their kids.  Art and literature is one of the key factors in determining if a a group of people are a culture and society, just the same as having a common language.  Please don't associate literature with pornography, that an insult to all the writers before you, maybe even the same ones you admire and draw your very own style from.  Ray Bradberry?  Yeah I don't think he believed in censorship huh?  I know you are a Sci-Fi guy, so think about what you are saying.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 15, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> You can't rate just new books, and not ALL literature.  As soon as you do, and it starts effecting the bottom line which is money, publishers and authors will have the law in front of the U.S. Supreme Court before you can bat an eye lash.



There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you could generate any  interest with lawmakers for a book rating system. Who's going to go out on that limb? If there are ratings -- it's something that would have to be  implemented and managed by publishers, like the MPAA rating system for  movies -- and I don't see that happening either. That system was  implemented when there were relatively few studios, so it was  manageable. The publishing industry is too splintered, and now you've  got self-publishing. There wouldn't be practical way to oversee it or rate all the books -- approximately 3,000,000 books were published in this country last year. So everyone can relax -- it's not going to happen. This is a non-issue.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 15, 2013)

Here was my Mother's book rating system:

"If he can pull it off the shelf, he can read it."

This was said to a librarian when I was seven years old. In response to the librarian saying 'You can't read this book, it's too adult for you.'

Have you ever seen a 93 pound woman stride up to a library desk, making the very foundations of that rather large building rattle? I have. They shook like an earthquake. My Mother arrived like the avenging angel in a bad paranormal romance. In her face was rebuke, in her heart was an utter trust in me.

"If he has any questions, he'll ask ME. This. Is. Not. Your. Place," my beloved Mother said. I'll never forget that. Thunderbolts and lightning strikes with every single word. Utter trust in me in every word.

I'm lucky, I know.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 15, 2013)

If you haven't educated your kids and done your best to lay down the foundation for them to make the right choices by the time they're old enough to read YA books or whatever -- then it's too late. At that point, they should be able to decide for themselves.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 15, 2013)

I know I am coming across pretty hard line about this, but there is a very good reason for it.  The world has reached a point where many of the younger generation is not learning or enjoying the 'classic' arts already, and if some kind of rating system of censorship is put into place, then some of the very few items that are taught to them in school will be taken out of the curriculum.  Do you think Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," will be taught in school when it involves two star struck lovers who make a pact to commit suicide?  What does that tell children?  It's ok to defy your family and then kill yourself?  How far will censorship go?  

I have some traits that I doubt I will ever get rid of.  They were embedded in me as a child and they have become a bane and strength for me in one.  I'm stubborn, very stubborn.  I'm relentless, to the point of not letting something go or giving up until it's dead.  More dead than disco.  I'm also have a lot of passion.  Most of my traits stem from having horrible parents.  From the time I was 8 I fed myself every meal.  My grandmother would call to wake me up for school and I would take a shower, pick out my own clothes, and walk to the bus stop.  I became extremely independent.  I raised myself until I was about 11 and moved in with my grandmother.  I was the youngest kid in the neighborhood, and I had to defend myself against older and larger kids.  I got beat up a lot, but I didn't just stay in my house the next day, I got out and played just like nothing had ever happened.  That's just what you have to do sometimes.  Nobody ever told me what I could watch on TV, nor did my parents try to keep me from playing Dungeons & Dragons or any other game.  

I don't like to be treated unfairly, and I can't stand to see others be treated less than other people either.  Many times I will defend myself and defend others, to the powers that be, until a point of no return.  I rarely make concessions.  I believe a person is only as humble, reliable, honest, intelligent, and caring as the last thing they said or did.  I don't care if someone has 5,000 posts that didn't break a rule, but if they have a post that does, they should be punished just as much as someone that broke a rule with their 50th post.  Heck, they should actually receive more attention because after 5,000 posts they should know better right?  If a clergyman serves 25 years to the church and helps raise millions of dollars, is it ok that in his 26th year he molests one kid?  Should he get a free pass?

So I guess my point in all this is, some kids can handle freedom or neglect, however you want to view it, and come out not a rotten egg.  Yet there are some that need parenting to keep them on the right track.  Wouldn't it just be safe if everyone was a good parent instead of leaving it up to the kid?  It's just so ignorant to even think about ruining society by rating and censoring what kids can read or see.  Leave it alone, just because a kid sees a breast at the museum doesn't mean he is going to go rape someone or shoot up his school.  I bet he remember what it looks like, and heck he might even remember the name of the artist, and that's a start.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 16, 2013)

Whenever someone suggests we let the majority decide what's appropriate I remember the saying, "nine out of ten participants enjoy gang rape."

There is sufficient access to book reviews, synopsises, "approved" reading lists from religious organizations and other resources available that you don't have to go in to any book blindly, and you can keep your comfort zone generally well taken care of. My comfort zone is having access to every book I could want. I would be more inclined to have a book like 50 Shades of Grey banned from a library because it's garbage writing, not because of the individual words chosen.

Still, there's a group out there that wants mommy porn. I just take my own advice and stay away. Everyone's happy.


----------



## Freakconformist (Jan 16, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> They actually have pornography in your public library? Or was it just too much sex for you, individually?



They're called romance novels and the literary world is chock-full of them. 

This kind of reminds me of when my city's libraries started adding graphic novels and manga to their collection. I was browsing the YA section and noticed that they were all over there. Well, if you have never read any graphic novels, let me tell you, most of them would probably be rated R. Mangas, such as Ranma 1/2 and Love Hena, can be pretty explicitly pornographic. I went up to my librarian and I was like, "Did you know..." 
Shortly after that, the graphic novels got their own shelf closer to the adult books section.



ppsage said:


> Now that you're damaged for life, you might as well go back and check out some more and enjoy yourself. But seriously, sounds like you might be swimming in the shallow end, demographically, and will have to figure out lifeguarding for yourself. Might try this place. They say:
> 
> Seems like they're kind of sensitive too, cause nobody else I found said anything like this.



Actually, I would be pretty horrified to read something like that myself. You can cry freedom of creativity, but there are also people who make the mercenary and capitalistic decision to write for the pure sake of shock value. These artist claim to be gritty and realistic, but, hell, who remembers this kind of cold-hearted violence happening in their high school? It's not that books like this should be banned, but I can see Cadence's point. Why should I get half way through the book before finding out that the book is about something that is repugnant to me. 

If you like Gothic horrors and you start reading a book that you found in the horror section, wouldn't you be a bit pissed if it started preaching the salvation of Jesus Christ mid-way through the book? Wouldn't you feel like you have been tricked into reading something? Wouldn't you have wanted some warning before you took the book home? There are some people who acknowledge that they have a sex addiction. A surprise sex scene is like pulling  back the head of a reformed alcoholic and pouring a whiskey down his throat. We wouldn't do that, because _alcoholism_ is a problem.


----------



## ktee (Jan 16, 2013)

Alrighty, long post coming up.

I agree that censorship is getting out of control. It's not so bad in Australia (we read a South American book in year 12 English Lit that included a threesome with a pair of blonde twins). Blocking access is not good. Guides to help informed decision-making is very important. 

I had a tricky childhood in a lot of respects. One thing my parents did really well was to mostly abide by the ratings on movies BUT only as an informed consumer - we always read the content together, even in PG movies, and a decision was made on a case by case basis. 

There were times I was not a happy chappy. But in hindsight I am very happy that I was exposed gradually to some of the more complex and dark aspects of life.

I was horrified when I saw _Saving Private Ryan_ whereas most of my friends thought the opening scene on the beach was awesome and I was 18. That experience of seeing the soldier holding his own severed arm still haunts me and has caused me to seek out information on the psychological effect of violence on people in war zones which is now being used in my novel. And wasn't SPR supposed to make us disgusted, not cheer at the realistic blood?

I don't agree with banning access to books. But when I have kids I wouldn't mind some kind of system which summarises the content. Not so I can stop my kids from reading it (unless it's got the same level of violence as _Saving Private Ryan_ and my kid is 12) but hopefully, if I've done my job right, they can read the content summary themselves and decide whether they want to read it. 

To this day I check the ratings of a movie. If I see there is excessive violence and the story isn't that good or it's clearly just a gore fest for no reason I won't see it. If the violence is essential to a good story then I'll see it and be accordingly affected by the violence (I love t_he Walking Dead_ - yes there is some zombie for the sake of zombie action, but I find that in the most part the vilolence gives meaning to the charachter development and interaction). In my mind, violence is something that I never want to be desensitised to.

As a 3 y/o my husband fled his birth country with his family when an arrest warrant went out on my father-in-law - probably a death sentence at that time. My husband's great grandfather was taken away by a mob, in front of his children, and beaten to death. My husband's uncle died in jail. So nope, I have no patience for violence for the sake of violence. 

But I will totally let my kids read Romeo and Juliet in school so they can talk about suicide, love, lust, violence. This is a book that encourages the conversations without being gritty for sake of being gritty. 

Ratings can be used as an educational tool for those who want to decide what content they want to expose themselves to. 


Informed decisions are essential for the true purpose of art to live on - to affect people, make them think and make them feel. 

phew 

EDIT: I forgot to say that if people want to watch violent movies then I don't judge. The world needs difference to grow and evolve. But my point is that because of my background i want the ability to make a decision about what content is in the art I see. As do zombie movie geeks


----------



## Freakconformist (Jan 16, 2013)

ktee said:


> As a 3 y/o my husband fled his birth country with his family when an arrest warrant went out on my father-in-law - probably a death sentence at that time. My husband's great grandfather was taken away by a mob, in front of his children, and beaten to death. My husband's uncle died in jail. So nope, I have no patience for violence for the sake of violence.



With the issues about gun-control and how media violence plays into it, raging around the United States these days, it's hard to remember that there are other places where people do experience that violence every day, and people do have to deal with _actual _dictators who _will_ take everything away from them. I'm sure you have heard of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary a few months ago, where a disturbed young man walked into an elementary school and killed 20 young children and 6 adults.

What you probably don't hear much about is the gun control debate that has been raging across the country ever since. I don't know how our gun control laws compare to most countries, but there are groups and gun manufacturers who have been lobbying our congress to push out gun control laws for years. Then we have individual who stockpile weapons and call it a gun "collection", they claim that our second amendment (the right to bear arm) means they should be able to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle just for the sake of having one. 

Our government has allowed the NRA (National Rifle Association) the biggest pro-gun group in our country, to join the table in evaluating our gun-control laws. I can see the sense of that, but when their best suggestion is that we should put armed guards everywhere, it's time to stop listening to these guys. Unofficially, these groups are spreading propaganda that the government wants to take all the guns away from private citizens and then Obama will create some kind of liberal dictatorship where everybody gets the healthcare they need, gay people can get married, and rich people actually pay taxes. Yeah, I'm sure your husband is feeling our pain.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 16, 2013)

Maybe I don't have my signals straight here - I was assuming YA was for older teens and young adults, not "children". When my son was young, I checked out what he read carefully, and yes, some kind of rating system would have been nice - but not necessary. Once my son reached his early teens, I knew I'd given him enough freedom and enough direction that I didn't have to worry about what he read. 

As an adult, I've been to rated movies that made me sick, and wondering how they got away with such a lenient rating. I've been to rated movies that left me scratching my head, wondering who decided it deserved such a restrictive one. Now, I look at the myriad of ratings for TV shows, for heaven's sake, and I have no idea what the show might contain because of all the different ratings. I keep wondering if I missed asking for my decoder ring.

In the end, I think the best way to find a book is to ask friends with like tastes, or read reviews. But let's face it - neither we nor our children can live in a bubble. We just have to learn how to deal with real life when it hits us.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 16, 2013)

Maybe we can take all the books that describe teens experiencing puberty in all its glory and put them beside the condom dispensers in school bathrooms?


----------



## Ariel (Jan 16, 2013)

When it came to sex, drugs, and violence my parents were completely honest and open.  My mom never fed me some stupid story about a stork.  I knew the consequences of sexual activity before I hit puberty and I knew about "safe sex" after I hit puberty.  

Because I knew the consequences I abstained from sex through high school.
Because I know what drugs could do to the mind and body I have abstained from their use.  Because I know the consequences and the pain of losing a loved one I don't inflict that violence on others.

Knowledge is power and it is a PARENT'S responsibility to inform their children--not the government's.  In order to raise responsible and respectable adults we, as parents, need to act responsibly in our lessons to our children.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 16, 2013)

My parents were completely honest and open too -- and kept pretty good tabs on me in way that wasn't too restrictive. Yet, I made up my own mind -- and drank, did drugs and had sex. Parenting is crap shoot much of the time -- you can seemingly do all the  right things -- and with one friend or girlfriend or boyfriend, it can all go out the window. We have friends with teenage kids, I'm watching what they're dealing with, and even within the same family, there can be mysteriously different outcomes. Our oldest is 9 -- and all those things are lurking right around the corner. It's scary -- but all you can do is your best - and then hope for the best.


----------



## dale (Jan 16, 2013)

warning system for books and literature. great. just what we need. another social engineering program
for the government to squander money on.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 16, 2013)

Fair enough.  But I still don't think that it's the job of the government to make sure kids aren't doing what parents don't want them to do.  Who is to say that my 3 year old "kinda daughter" can't handle me reading to her "The Tale of Desperaux" even though the intended audience is for 6-8 year olds?  I'm reading it to her and she asks me questions about what is going on including "why is the rat being mean?"

And we talk about it.  The book does contain some violence but I don't think it's harmful.  I think it prepares her for the fact that violence occurs in this world.  It teaches her that the only way to stop a bully and to stop violence is to stand up for those that can't and to tell people when they're in the wrong.  The government can't stop people from doing  what they do without becoming the bully that needs to be defied.

I'm proud that she's learning this lesson.  She has no problem standing her ground and demanding an answer and by all rights I think she deserves answers.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 16, 2013)

The government pretty much makes a mess of everything they get involved in -- labeling books wouldn't be an exception. But I doubt seriously that any politician is going raise this as an issue. We're probably the only people on the planet talking about this now -- so there's nothing in it for them. And like I said -- it would have to be something that is implemented by publishers -- but there's no incentive for them to do it either. It would only limit sales. And that wouldn't even take self-publishing into account. 

For parents, there's a good, very neutral website for movies called Kids-in-Mind that simply lists incidents of sex, violence and language. They make some attempt to put it in context, but there's no moralizing. I think the evaluations are done by volunteers, but I can't be sure. In theory, something like that could be of value -- but the number of movies released pales in comparison to books -- so I don't think it could ever work.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Jan 16, 2013)

This is a parenting issue, not one for the government. I was allowed to watch and read stuff that I wanted to with some restriction, but my parents were very involved. If i had questions they answered them, and they watched the movies with me. And, they explained real life and consequences versus fantasy and no consequences. They made sure not to scare me, but they didn't sugar coat it either, and i turned out alright. It's better left to the parent, because they know their kid and what they can handle, the government doesn't.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 16, 2013)

So to tie this back together: what would be a better system for letting people know what categories a book falls into so a reader can make an informed decision on purchase and reading before they have $10 and 100 pages invested? Amazon recommendations is a good start, but what else is out there?

It doesn't have to be about government censorship and keeping specific books out of the hands of children, how do I avoid getting three chapters into Twilight before I realize my IQ is dropping just by holding the book?


----------



## dale (Jan 16, 2013)

speaking of the parent angle....i finally pestered and harassed my parents into letting me see the exorcist at age 7.
they never made that mistake again of letting me get my way on crap like that. i couldn't sleep alone for over a week.
scared to death of my bed. i let my little girl watch old vincent price horror movies with me, but not much else.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 16, 2013)

> how do I avoid getting three chapters into Twilight before I realize my IQ is dropping just by holding the book?



(Ask me?) Start yet another thread? _Twilight's_ gotta be the campeen bad internet review entry? ..... It only took me five minutes to find somebody with an anti-porno fetish raving against the OP title. Is that authoritative? Not quite yet, but I choose netflicks based on what the dorkiest sounding reviewer hates. There is a ton of opinion out there, but each person has to learn to work it for herself.

In the case of _Twilight_, stand at the shelf and try to read two random pages? This test will actually eliminate a lot of books, without even going into the question of content. But if screening for YA is a priority, probably start with ubiquitious googling.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 16, 2013)

Sage just gave the way I choose books.  First I read the summary then I read the first page.  If it's still interesting I flip it open to somewhere in the middle and read a paragraph or two.  If it's still interesting I flip it to another random page and if I still like it I take it.

It's not perfect but it does work for me.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 16, 2013)

When Twilight first hit, grown women recommended it to my wife -- told her it was the greatest. Before she put it down, she read a few chapters, thinking that somehow there must be something to it -- and she's a pretty discerning reader. So I can see how someone might give it more chance than it deserves.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jan 16, 2013)

ppsage said:


> It only took me five minutes to find somebody with an anti-porno fetish raving against the OP title.



An anti-porno fetish. Shining example of an oximoron.
I pronounce "oximoron" as "ogg-ZIMM-orron" by the way.

Recently I picked up a book based on the cover and the description on the back alone. It was a début novel by an author I'd never heard of before. The cover was a tiny airplane leaving a circular exhaust trail over a blue background.

I bought it, and only then did I read the first couple pages.

And it immediately proved itself an excellent decision and it is by far my favourite book I've ever read (though I think the cover should have been the plane doing a figure eight, not a circle, but whatever).

A warning system would have ruined that.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 16, 2013)

> An anti-porno fetish. Shining example of an oximoron.


Only if the mind is ... you know ... by the side of the street below pavement level. There's more than one arena, wherein to keep one's fetishes.


----------



## Loulou (Jan 17, 2013)

I wouldn't trust the government - or any system or person other than myself - to decide what my almost-thirteen-year-old-daughter will feel okay reading.  We're individuals.  No one knows more than I do what she will be comfortable with.  She is more than able to express to me what bothers her.  If I read an adult (as in _not_ YA rather than erotic) book and I personally feel it's okay, I might let her read it.  (Sometimes a theme or situation in the book might be educational/inspiring.)  That said, no one monitored what I read or watched (parents drunk/ill/absent) as a kid and strangely I'm 'okay,' though I do have a rather dark side and am very unaffected by extreme violence/sex in books and films, which makes me sad to be honest.  Because real life violence upsets me very much.  So I guess I'm saying parents matter, in these matters.


----------



## Freakconformist (Jan 17, 2013)

After reading a lot of posts I noticed that this turned into a parenting argument. It was my impression that the original poster took offence to a book *he* read. Sure, it was a book from the YA section, but *he *was the one who thought there should be a warning. 

We're still thinking of the old system of rating, where some nameless government entity arbitrarily resigns a book to the top shelf because it contains one curse word. Society has already decided that doesn't work. There are new systems in place today that make a lot more sense and are governed by the publishers/producers. I think I would appreciate a little blurb at the bottom of the description that said "This book contains explicit sex scenes." That's all, the author could do that on their own. That might even help _sell_ the book. 

As for my bit on "parenting", I do object to the way the YA/PG-13 label is handled today. The companies that produce the content tend to laugh at the "mild violence/sexual content/adult topics". The actual rating seems to have become "anything short of full frontal nudity". And parents are out there saying "Well, it's PG-13, so it must be safe." 
Classic example, I used to frequent a "PG-13" site that had avatars you could dress up. A few years ago, they put out an item that gave the male avatar a full on erection and the girls porno cleavage, tell me that doesn't seem to stretch the boundaries just a wee bit. Site content was nothing compared to viewer content. I had to leave before I got arrested for pedophilia.

Every time somebody objects to this "far from mild" content, people laugh it off and say "they're ___ years old, they can handle it". I would challenge that. 12-20 is when people are psychologically at their most vulnerable. This is when people are developing their moral codes, personalities, and preferences. We allows media to shove sex, drugs, and violence in their face from the get go and then we wonder why so many people with mental health problems have been cropping up. From my experience, teenagers are a lot more sensitive than society gives them credit for, and often the last people to notice are their parents. They're the ones shouting, "I didn't raise him/her to be like this."

 Do we really think it's okay for a teenager, who is just beginning to distinguish fantasy from reality, to be reading about the glories of suicide? I'm sure the book is out there. If, as a parent, you read "this book is about suicide" at the bottom of the description, would you allow your 14 year old to read it?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 17, 2013)

Kids are going to be exposed to sex, violence etc. in the media regardless, even if you don’t allow it in your home. You can’t raise kids in a bubble -- so you do your best to counter that with education, teaching by example and having rules and boundaries. They’re going to be confronted with the tough choices on a daily basis – and life doesn’t come with a warning label.


----------



## Freakconformist (Jan 17, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Kids are going to be exposed to sex, violence etc. in the media regardless, even if you don’t allow it in your home. You can’t raise kids in a bubble -- so you do your best to counter that with education, teaching by example and having rules and boundaries. They’re going to be confronted with the tough choices on a daily basis – and life doesn’t come with a warning label.



I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. 

I grew up in the '80s where every movie you saw had a soft-porn sex scene in it, drugs were still considered to be "recreational", and gang violence was at an all time high. My parents and the other adults in my life still made an effort to not cuss in my presence. I knew all the swear words before I was 8 years old, but I still got a smack if I accidentally let one slip in front of my mom. I was taught that a more able person should hold the door for the elderly or a person in need. When I burp, I say "excuse me" even of I'm completely alone.

To say, "Well, they'll find out about all that stuff on the Internet or at school, anyway." is not an excuse. Parents should be protecting their kids from the really bad stuff, and at the same time make some effort to tun their kids into decent people.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 17, 2013)

Freakconformist said:


> I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out.



Not sure how -- but you seemed to have missed this part:

"So you do your best to counter that with education, teaching by example and having rules and boundaries."

I didn't say anything goes.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 17, 2013)

If I wrote a novel, I might just demand a huge warning label right on the cover so more people would buy it

In all seriousness, I would not want anything I wrote categorized according to sensibilities I may not share. I don't want whatever art I may have instilled in my work boiled down to a simple label, forcing the bulk of my piece into some kind of convenient nutshell for people to dismiss on a whim if they don't agree with, or may be offended by a portion of the overall work. Screw that. Read it, or don't, but I'm not about to spoon-feed someone a preemptive snapshot of something I put my heart and soul into just because they might be offended by an expletive or violence.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 17, 2013)

I agree -- I don't know why any writer or aspiring writer would want to limit readership based on someone else's standards. And while I'm not into heavy-handed messages -- it totally dismisses the idea that the potentially objectionable material is handled in way that might be thought-provoking or serve as an object lesson of some kind -- as opposed to somehow glamorizing the behavior. For a parent who isn't thinking beyond the simplistic label, that's off the table, regardless of how I've portrayed it in my story. No thanks. The label is just going to limit my readership arbitrarily and for no good reason. If it's so important to some parents -- then I guess they'll have to vet things more. And of course, none of this means I'm going to let my kids read anything and everything -- there's an opportunity to apply a little common sense here.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 17, 2013)

If parents are that concerned about what their kids are reading, the best solution is not ratings on books - it's parents picking up the book and reading it first.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 17, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> If parents are that concerned about what  their kids are reading, the best solution is not ratings on books - it's  parents picking up the book and reading it first.



Presactly.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 17, 2013)

I think that when your child walks off to the YA section of the library it would be nice to know what that means. I remember reading that YA publishers usually (stress the 'usually') publish books that soft-pedal sexual situations and violence. Looking at the YA section in our local library, though, all I can see that is really different in YA material is that it is a.) shorter and b.) focuses on teenagers as characters rather than adults. As much as I love the Hunger Games I didn't even realize that I was reading a YA book when I started that series. It would be nice if YA publishers still only published books that were 'safe' in content but with sales depending on being ever-edgier I doubt this will be the case overall. 

Cadence self-rated the book; hit the part that was offensive, removed bookmark, returned book. When I went to the local library as a kid I didn't differentiate the YA section from anything else and my mom didn't make me. If she didn't see anything potentially offensive in it by leafing through it, I could read it.

I grew up in a Christian home, this meant that I knew we weren't supposed to swear, lie, steal, kill people, sleep around, worship rocks, etc. I didn't like swearing anyway so if I opened up a book and leafed through it and saw the pages studded with swear words, I lost interest and put it back. 

As I got older mom only spot-checked my selections (okay, so pretty often she stole my books to read before they went back anyway. CONFESSION: I had certain books that I chose because I knew she did this and if I left a book strategically placed on the kitchen table after dinner she would get involved reading and she didn't dole out chores for a while) so if I'd really gone off the rails reading porn or slasher stuff she (and dad) would have said something. I didn't give them a reason to.

If we're raising readers, we should be guiding the kids to choose well anyway and if that sticks they'll do the same when they're older.

A rating system just wouldn't work, I don't think, it would just add  a layer of silliness in a litigious and regulation-glutted world that  doesn't need more.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Literature isn't pornography,



It most certainly can be. Look up the definition.



> and pornography isn't up for debate here, art is.



"Art" that is created just for titillation or lascivious purposes and is not intended to communicate something greater than the sum of its parts is, in my opinion, "pornography." That opinion is widely shared, though few have bothered to define it as I have. No, pornography is not up for debate, here. I agree with that. However, parental rights are and those may include certain perceptions regarding the depictions of sexual acts in writing as well as other themes that may contrast with cultural norms that parents would prefer their child is not exposed to.



> Are we going to start putting little black boxes over the nudes in art too?  Put a bra on the Venus de Milo?



There's no slippery slope being implied, here. Also, works as you suggest intend and succeed at communicating something more than just the sum of their parts and are not intended solely for sexual titillation, so they don't qualify as "pornography" within the cultures we're discussing. 



> Do you understand that giving an inch is the going to turn into giving a mile?  Leave ratings and censorship to the parents of this country, and quit telling them what they can and can not teach their kids.  Art and literature is one of the key factors in determining if a a group of people are a culture and society, just the same as having a common language.  Please don't associate literature with pornography, that an insult to all the writers before you, maybe even the same ones you admire and draw your very own style from.  Ray Bradberry?  Yeah I don't think he believed in censorship huh?  I know you are a Sci-Fi guy, so think about what you are saying.



You're not listening to what I'm writing! 

Get away from this kneejerk reaction that is common whenever someone discusses anything that approaches "censorship" and see what's really going on, here. We're talking about materials that are specifically intended for consumption by adolescents. Adolescents are the targeted audience, here. Now, investigate that idea. What does it tell you that such material must do? Can adolescents purchase alcohol? (In Western cultures.) Can they purchase pornography? Can they buy weapons? Are young children permitted adult status in a society? Why are parents legal "guardians" of their children? What are a parents rights and responsibilities towards their children as is culturally defined?

We have an entire cultural meme that surrounds the idea of anything that is specifically marketed towards children. Even toys must obey certain cultural standards - Barbie dolls are not anatomically correct and poor G. I. Joe doesn't have any dangly bits, either. Why is that? Why don't toy manufacturers produce plastic Army Men that explode in bits and pieces and have abdomens that leak their guts out all over the place when you push a button on top of their head? (IIRC, some toy manufacturers produced "amputee" Army Men and got raked over the coals for it..)

In our culture, parents are the guardians of their children and demand that they be allowed to decide whether or not their child should be allowed to consume certain sorts of products. (Even if they don't always act as good stewards.) Because of that, any industry that produces products specifically intended for children has to comply with certain cultural expectations. That's no less true in publishing.

What I am saying is not to use "labels" or other visible warnings, but for publishers to require that certain standards be maintained for all works that are targeted for the "YA" and adolescent genre shelves. This avoids "labeling" issues completely and, if those standards were appropriate, satisfies our culture's need to serve the desires of the parents of children.

This is not censorship. In no way is this censorship. The writer is still free to write and publish their work. But, unless it obeys certain standards that our culture demands, that work can't be placed in the "YA" (Adolescent) genre section. It can still qualify for any other relevant category. It just can't be targeted for consumption by adolescents if it does not obey certain restrictions for content. That's all I'm saying, here.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 17, 2013)

It seems to me that a number of factors, simple aging and maturing being a prime one, combined with some commercial motivation for two, and workable library practice maybe, have made the YA classification as it now exists something more complicated than a simple (if impossible) guideline for adolescent suitability. At my library, YA has its own shelves in the adult fiction wing, seperate from children's. As indicated by its degree of adult readership, the YA definition might also indicate things like topical interest and preference in degree of literary sophistication. To try usefully dividing teens and young adults and fully endowed citizens is going to be messy, even in a library setting. Sort of by definition, a YA catagory is going to straddle a lot of indistinct boundaries.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 17, 2013)

ppsage said:


> ... Sort of by definition, a YA catagory is going to straddle a lot of indistinct boundaries.



But, if it ends up pushing those boundaries to hard, the ability to act to further define the genre will be taken out of the writer's and publisher's hands. Eventually, someone, somewhere, will raise a big stink and culture will demand that it be acted upon. Better to put some constraints on content now than deal with draconian measures forced upon the genre by outside interests.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> It most certainly can be. Look up the definition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter who it is intended for.  If you want to start rating and labeling books, you can't do so for just a few books.  I don't see why you can't understand that.  The United States is predicated on this thing called the First Amendment which gives the freedom of speech:



> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*



Now there has been many decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court over time to decide what is covered by this Amendment and what isn't.  The problem we are having here, is that you think a publisher is targeting material towards a group of people that aren't ready for it.  Well, like has been said by several people on here including me, if a child is younger than 16 years old, their parents need to be doing their job as a parent and noticing what their child is reading and decide for their self if their child is mature enough to read the material or not.  

Rating books is NOT the answer.  There is a slippery slope, and that is not something I want unleashed in the literary world.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 17, 2013)

Reading a description of what 'YA' is , I see such books as _Catcher in the Rye_ and _The Outsiders _are included in the category(14 to 18 y.o.s)  So, since the 1950s, YA has included possibly_ disturbing_ themes or references . Incidently, S. E. Hinton was a 'YA' when she wrote those books.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

Kevin said:


> Reading a description of what 'YA' is , I see such books as _Catcher in the Rye_ and _The Outsiders._  So,  since the 1950s, YA has included possibly_ disturbing_ themes or references . Incidently, S. E. Hinton was a 'Y.A.' when she wrote those books.



When I was in school they had us read "The Outsiders" AND "Rumblefish."  That was in the 8th grade.  So I was like 13 years old and reading those in school.  It's amazing how things change.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> ...Rating books is NOT the answer.  There is a slippery slope, and that is not something I want unleashed in the literary world.



You're not listening... Nowhere have I suggested creating a "Rating" for books and I have already supported the writer's Right of Free Speech by explaining that there is no infringement upon that Right. I also happen to think that a specific genre called "YA" is sort of silly, yet I can see the appeal for one.

What I am saying is that by creating a "YA" (or other adolescent genre), there are certain constraints that are implied by that title and are expected by our culture for the specifically targeted consumers of that genre. The "Rating" system you seem to suggest has already been created by the booksellers! However, if the expectations surrounding the content that is understood by our culture to be "suitable for YA/Adolescent consumers" are not reinforced by publishers who publish books for that genre, then our culture will enforce those cultural values by involving third-parties which may take draconian measures in their eagerness to please the public at large. It would serve in the best interests of all involved to self-regulate, here.

There is absolutely no Constitutionally supported Right for any writer or publisher to categorize their work as "YA." None whatsoever. Period. Exclamation point. Their Right is one that guarantees that the government will not infringe upon their inherent Right to produce and distribute a work as a matter of Free Speech, not how that work is ultimately categorized in a bookstore. They can write whatever they wish, but they don't have the Right to request a specific genre classification for it.

Would you defend an artist who intentionally marketed graphic pornography to minors under the claim of First Amendment Rights? Or, would you sensibly acknowledge that they had the Right to produce such a work, but did not have the Right to purposefully distribute that work to minors? You have a Right to Free Speech, but others also have a Right to not listen to it. Adolescents, being minors, are children who's guardians are normally their parents. Those guardians have a Right to refuse materials they may deem to be unsuitable for consumption by their charges until those charges reach the age of their Majority. That demand for that Right has culminated in our culture establishing certain common boundaries in regards to products intended for consumption by minors. That is the environment in which we work. Free Speech is not being infringed upon, here.

Or, do you think "Fifty Shades of Grey" should be re categorized for the YA or Children's Books shelves and be specifically and purposefully marketed towards a child audience? Why or why not?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> You're not listening... Nowhere have I suggested creating a "Rating" for books and I have already supported the writer's Right of Free Speech by explaining that there is no infringement upon that Right. I also happen to think that a specific genre called "YA" is sort of silly, yet I can see the appeal for one.
> 
> What I am saying is that by creating a "YA" (or other adolescent genre), there are certain constraints that are implied by that title and are expected by our culture for the specifically targeted consumers of that genre. The "Rating" system you seem to suggest has already been created by the booksellers! However, if the expectations surrounding the content that is understood by our culture to be "suitable for YA/Adolescent consumers" are not reinforced by publishers who publish books for that genre, then our culture will enforce those cultural values by involving third-parties which may take draconian measures in their eagerness to please the public at large. It would serve in the best interests of all involved to self-regulate, here.
> 
> ...



You're the one not listening.    I don't care if a kid picks up a book from the kids section, cooking section, or the suspense and thriller section, the parent needs to look at the book and approve it.  First off, what is your definition of Young Adult?  



> *The formal definition (i.e. from Wikipedia) is that YA is "written for, published for, or marketed to adolescents, roughly between the ages of 12 and 18". The subject matter and story lines are typically consistent with the age and experience of the main character. Stories generally tackle themes relevant for a young adult audience (usually with a “coming of age” theme), told by a narrator in the same age group.*



With that said, in different cultures there are different events that define "coming of age."  I didn't lose my virginity until I was 19, but I know people that have lost their's anywhere from 12 years old to 18.  I've seen people smoke, do drugs, break the law, and drink alcohol between 12 and 18.  So for me, the stuff in these books are acceptable, but that's me.  That's why parents need to decide for themselves.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> You're not listening... Nowhere have I suggested creating a "Rating" for books and I have already supported the writer's Right of Free Speech by explaining that there is no infringement upon that Right. I also happen to think that a specific genre called "YA" is sort of silly, yet I can see the appeal for one.
> 
> What I am saying is that by creating a "YA" (or other adolescent genre), there are certain constraints that are implied by that title and are expected by our culture for the specifically targeted consumers of that genre. The "Rating" system you seem to suggest has already been created by the booksellers! However, if the expectations surrounding the content that is understood by our culture to be "suitable for YA/Adolescent consumers" are not reinforced by publishers who publish books for that genre, then our culture will enforce those cultural values by involving third-parties which may take draconian measures in their eagerness to please the public at large. It would serve in the best interests of all involved to self-regulate, here.
> 
> ...



You're the one not listening.    I don't care if a kid picks up a book from the kids section, cooking section, or the suspense and thriller section, the parent needs to look at the book and approve it.  First off, what is your definition of Young Adult?  



> *The formal definition (i.e. from Wikipedia) is that YA is "written for, published for, or marketed to adolescents, roughly between the ages of 12 and 18". The subject matter and story lines are typically consistent with the age and experience of the main character. Stories generally tackle themes relevant for a young adult audience (usually with a “coming of age” theme), told by a narrator in the same age group.*



With that said, in different cultures there are different events that define "coming of age."  I didn't lose my virginity until I was 19, but I know people that have lost their's anywhere from 12 years old to 18.  I've seen people smoke, do drugs, break the law, and drink alcohol between 12 and 18.  So for me, the stuff in these books are acceptable, but that's me.  That's why parents need to decide for themselves.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> You're the one not listening.    I don't care if a kid picks up a book from the kids section, cooking section, or the suspense and thriller section, the parent needs to look at the book and approve it.  First off, what is your definition of Young Adult?



/sigh

Read the definition you posted. Now, consider what a parent believes to be appropriate for a "YA" title. There are certain assumptions that are implied when marketing to adolescents that a parent is going to expect. In short: By creating a genre intended for young readers, the publishers, booksellers and writers have implied that genre is going to comply with certain culturally expected restraints. It doesn't matter what the "fine print" say's, that fine print isn't on the genre placard unless it say's "For Young Readers" or some such.

Do parents expect to find graphic pornography in the "Chidren's Book" section? No, they do not. That's why parents let their kids run around in the Children's Section of the bookstore, which in stores like Barnes & Nobles, is even cordoned off from the rest of the store for just that very reason! There are expectations that parents have regarding what is to be found in this section. Similarly, there will be expectations what should be found in other genre sections that are marketed specifically towards children.

Publishers, booksellers and writers have created the genre "YA" as well as "Children's Books." Those genres exist because they have certain connotations that are different than "Adult" or "Science Fiction" or "Men's Interests." Books have genres because that is how the book-consuming market has evolved. Each genre exists because it has unique qualities that separate it from other genres. A book that is unsuitable for a genre will not be categorized as being appropriate for that genre, though some books may span several different genres and could be suitable for placement within any of them.

However, the YA genre is age specific, not general content specific. Because of that, it must comply with similar materials that our culture has categorized as being worthy of arranged by age-specific restraints. And, because our culture has certain attitudes towards materials that are marketed towards children, our culture will demand that certain restrictions regarding content be in place, as other, well known, subject matters are illegal, as established by our culture, to be marketed towards children and our society also views certain taboos, criminal activity and certain forms of violence must also be restricted. Further, parents desire, though do not always execute, control over the dissemination of material distributed to their children or marketed specifically to them.

The end result is this: There are expectations that a parent has in regards to materials specifically marketed towards children. There are expectations that are reinforced by our culture with laws that make certain products illegal for the consumption by minors, regardless of their form. Other industries have responded to this in a variety of ways, including the publishing and bookseller markets. Because of this, the publisher and bookseller market must self-regulate - It's expected. If they do not and market materials that can be viewed as offensive, according to our cultural norms, for consumption by minors, they will be regulated by outside agencies. Our culture demands this and it *will* happen, eventually, as soon as some publisher/bookseller/writer blatantly crosses the line. If self-regulation is not done regarding the content of such works, that regulation will be done by outside agencies and rightly so, according to our cultural norms.



> With that said, in different cultures there are different events that define "coming of age."  I didn't lose my virginity until I was 19, but I know people that have lost their's anywhere from 12 years old to 18.  I've seen people smoke, do drugs, break the law, and drink alcohol between 12 and 18.  So for me, the stuff in these books are acceptable, but that's me.  That's why parents need to decide for themselves.



Parents have already been told by the bookseller that the materials in the "YA" section are appropriate for "Young Adults." (Adolescents, really, and legally Minors.) It doesn't matter about your individual experiences. What matters is that by slapping a "YA" sticker on a book, the parents are being told, in reality or not, that the material and subject matter has been deemed culturally appropriate for a minor. However, that may not often be the case, according to many common assumptions about what sorts of material are appropriate for minors. If books try to stretch the boundaries of that genre and encroach upon "Adult" subject matter, the parental-public will become infuriated at being "duped" and will demand that external regulations be put in place to ensure that it will not happen again. Books that do stretch that boundary should, after all, be questioned when included in that genre. That's a standard matter of course for any genre.

If a cartoon elephant was depicted raping a midget while injecting heroin during a drug-induced sex-slave party in a Dr. Seuss book, what do you think parents would do, once they found out? It doesn't matter that Dr. Seuss had his Right to Free Speech and it doesn't matter that he and his publisher and the bookseller had the Right to distribute that work. What matters is that the work was marketed specifically towards children and that sort of content is deemed culturally inappropriate to such an extent it has been declared to be an illegal distribution of pornography, whether or not it involved fantastical characters, and is "forbidden" in its current form. However, Dr. Seuss would be more than able to have his book placed on an "Adults Only" shelf. (Or, maybe "Manga?"  )

By creating and publishing works specifically marketed to an adolescent audience, the publishers, writers and booksellers have essentially declared that they are regulating the content of the material according to cultural standards and the common practices they would take when categorizing books. If they betray the public trust inherent in such a declaration by not regulating that material appropriately, they run the risk of being subjected to court battles and being regulated by outside forces. That's the way our world works.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

There is no more arguing about this really.  This is something I've discussed about what is considered vulgar language as well.  There are SO MANY cultures and societies around the world, to set a rule based on what society would deem acceptable is impossible.  Do you understand what I am saying?  There is no way to compare what an Amish 14 year old would be able to read verses a child raised in Chicago.  That's why parents need to be parents.  This is becoming redundant at this point.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 17, 2013)

If the YA category runs from 12/14 to 18, how in the world can anyone (library, parent, publisher) decide on what 'standards' are suitable? There are things I would not let a 12-year-old read that are tame for an 18-year-old. And by the time a kid is 15 or 16, they should have a pretty good set of their own 'standards' based on how their parent(s) have raised them. We're talking about one heck of an age range here, when one considers all the physical and emotional changes that occur. There is no way to set standards for that.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> If the YA category runs from 12/14 to 18, how in the world can anyone (library, parent, publisher) decide on what 'standards' are suitable? There are things I would not let a 12-year-old read that are tame for an 18-year-old. And by the time a kid is 15 or 16, they should have a pretty good set of their own 'standards' based on how their parent(s) have raised them. We're talking about one heck of an age range here, when one considers all the physical and emotional changes that occur. There is no way to set standards for that.



How old was your children when you gave them that story about the birds and the bees?  I remember in like 4th grade watching videos about sex and puberty.  I was like 10.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 17, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> If the YA category runs from 12/14 to 18, how in the world can anyone (library, parent, publisher) decide on what 'standards' are suitable? ...



But, they already did. By creating the genre, there's an implication there that many people are going to assume is correct: _"Just like "Children's Books" have content "appropriate" for children, then I must be assured that the bookseller has deemed that the "YA" section has content appropriate for adolescents."_ By declaring it a unique genre targeted towards adolescents, they have implied there are certain restrictions in place within that genre. It's a natural assumption to make, given the methods by which all titles are categorized into genres.

However, while we may not find pornography in a "Children's Books" section, we might find it in a YA section. (Or, "descriptions of sexual acts" in lieu of labeling it "Pornography.") If parents assume that the YA section has content that is judged under similar standards as "Children's Books" in that its "content" is deemed appropriate, because this is just another genre that is also marketed specifically towards children, they're going to get upset when they find out that isn't always the case and that some things considered as "adult themes" may be present in YA books.

I am, of course, against the infringement of Free Speech and am completely in favor of encouraging, even sometimes demanding, that parents take an interest in what their children consume. But, when there's something specifically marketed towards children, parents are going to make a natural assumption regarding its content. When that assumption is showed to be invalid, parents are not going to see it as a failure of their own responsibility, but as a violation of the mistaken "trust" that they put in a sign that say's the section contains work "suitable" for minors. Parents are usually adults and adults can vote and bring lawsuits. Children can't. That this whole problem could be solved by parents becoming more responsible monitors of their child's behaviors, should they wish certain restrictions enforced, doesn't matter in the face of the fact that some parents would rather sue and legislators will certainly wish the support of vocally active parents.

The easiest solution is simply to self-regulate. If a book contains depictions of activities or subject matter that is viewed as questionable in appropriateness, it will just get a different classification. Foreign markets will have to make that decision for themselves, as they already do today. Writers will have to pay attention to target markets and so will publishers, just as they already do.

Those mechanisms are much more preferable to any sort of external rating scheme because (I agree with others on this.) that sort of scheme which requires books to have "Warnings" on them has the potential to cause a lot of problems. A book being in the YA section comes with an implied "assurance" and should not be required to come with a direct "warning." But, if the boundaries keep being pushed and parents find little Johnny coming to them with questions about certain topics or find Little Johnny's collection of YA "porn", all bets are off on what measures they will demand be taken. If Little Johnny bought it from a Literature section, they'd know that it's their own fault for letting him loose in the store with a wad of cash. But, if it's in the YA section, it then becomes the fault of the bookseller/publisher. People love to blame someone else for their mistakes and parents are no less enthusiastic in that.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Jan 17, 2013)

5th grade for me and then 6-10th grade. In the time between those years I learned much more than my parents knew about from peers and television, so I don't understand why we need warnings on literature, when there are other sources where  children could come across explicit materials. My mother gave me my first romance novel when I was 14 and just entering highschool, she was fine with it and it caused me no harm.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> How old was your children when you gave them that story about the birds and the bees?  I remember in like 4th grade watching videos about sex and puberty.  I was like 10.



He never heard about "the birds and the bees". He got reality bit by bit as he was able to comprehend it. Which doesn't change the fact that at age 12 he wasn't allowed to read the books that he chose to read at age 18.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> He never heard about "the birds and the bees". He got reality bit by bit as he was able to comprehend it. Which doesn't change the fact that at age 12 he wasn't allowed to read the books that he chose to read at age 18.




That's just it, you proved my point, you were parenting.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 17, 2013)

My understanding is that YA is not a genre - it's a marketing category. Be that as it may, it still encompasses a diverse age group. As to parents' assumptions, you know what they say about assuming anything...


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's just it, you proved my point, you were parenting.



Was I trying to disprove it? 

My position is simple: Parents are far better equipped to decide what their kids should or should not read than any agency attempting to assign ratings to books; any attempt to set standards for YA overall is bound to fail because the ages included are too diverse.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 17, 2013)

See, debate isn't dead on WF!


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 17, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> My understanding is that YA is not a genre - it's a marketing category. ..



A useful distinction, I suppose. But, when is a "Genre" instead a "Marketing Category?" That's a somewhat delicate question, considering the "intent" may not be shared by marketer and consumer. The marketer may be intending to represent a work that is marketed towards young audiences, but the consumer may be purchasing the work because it is specifically intended for young audiences. At least, that's what it say's on the box.

Adolescent boys want boobs. Do YA titles marketed towards adolescent boys have boobs in them? Would a title that catered to the hormone-driven proclivities of adolescent males be put in the YA section and fly off the shelves? After all, if it's a "Marketing Category", one couldn't fail if one produced such a work for that particular audience.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 17, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Was I trying to disprove it?
> 
> My position is simple: Parents are far better equipped to decide what their kids should or should not read than any agency attempting to assign ratings to books; any attempt to set standards for YA overall is bound to fail because the ages included are too diverse.



No, you weren't trying to prove it, but you did.  You as a parent decided what your child should read despite what knowledge you thought he had.  It was still your decision.  A different parent might have let him get it and read it, but the point it is, as a parent the decision was made.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 18, 2013)

> Adolescent boys want boobs. Do YA titles marketed towards adolescent boys have boobs in them? Would a title that catered to the hormone-driven proclivities of adolescent males be put in the YA section and fly off the shelves? After all, if it's a "Marketing Category", one couldn't fail if one produced such a work for that particular audience.


My experience is with TV shows my grandkids beg to be allowed to watch, not YA reading material, but I'd say they're pretty much about displaying secondary sexual characteristics in the most cheerfully enthusiastic way possible. That, and tricking their clodhopper parents. So I'd have to say yes, YA is mostly about marketing to teens with what they want in a way which leaves parents at least somewhat mollified. That's the lassies though, (which mine mostly are), with the sexy stuff; the lads I've noticed are like the OP and seem to prefer violence still.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 18, 2013)

Several times in this thread I have come across variations of the idea that parents should be aware of what their children are doing and reading. 

I agree 100% with this. 

However, this is not always possible. What I write below is going to be a *'sweeping generalisation.*'  I do this so that I can make the point simply. 

In today's world many households have two full-time working parents. This is necessary in order to pay the bills. Studies have shown that most parents spend less than 20 min with their child a day.  (2007, 2009, 2012)

With the stress of trying to keep their jobs, rising taxes and interest rates many people don't have the time or the energy to do any more, no matter how much they want to. 

Cadence has brought up what could be a potential problem. Having taught for decades I know that the parents who have real time for their children are few and far between. 

I don't know what the answer is. In an ideal world parents' would have time to be aware of what their children are reading or doing. This is far from an ideal world.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

The answer is to start labeling the kids -- with things like "I'm having sex" or "I do drugs." That would really make things a lot easier for parents.


----------



## moderan (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> The answer is to start labeling the kids -- with things like "I'm having sex" or "I do drugs." That would really make things a lot easier for parents.


Don't they pretty much do that anyway? As a former practicing parent (now lapsed) I can generally tell by their clothing and attitude (not to mention their smell) when they're indulging in such. The signs of hormonal distress are clear. They are walking, talking, breathing, and such, therefore there is some form of need happening.
Even with minimal interaction, one can plant ideas effectively. The trick is to be patient enough to wait for the ideas to take.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

moderan said:


> Don't they pretty much do that anyway? As a former practicing parent (now lapsed) I can generally tell by their clothing and attitude (not to mention their smell) when they're indulging in such. The signs of hormonal distress are clear. They are walking, talking, breathing, and such, therefore there is some form of need happening.
> Even with minimal interaction, one can plant ideas effectively. The trick is to be patient enough to wait for the ideas to take.



Exactly, if a parent can't notice the changes, they were never paying attention in the first place, and they aren't paying attention at the time.  It's sill silly to think that a parent can't notice if a kid has started to have sex, doing drugs, or drinking alcohol.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

moderan said:


> Don't they pretty much do that anyway? As a former practicing parent (now lapsed) I can generally tell by their clothing and attitude (not to mention their smell) when they're indulging in such. The signs of hormonal distress are clear. They are walking, talking, breathing, and such, therefore there is some form of need happening.



Yeah -- that's what all the parents of the girls I dated thought:

 "Oh, isn't he a nice boy, Ralph?" 

"Sure is -- he says sir, he has a firm handshake and he looks you right in the eye."


----------



## moderan (Jan 18, 2013)

I'd make you whip out your bankroll at that point.  "So, what are your college plans?"
At some point the bs is bound to come out.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Heh. Really? Man, that’s minor league stuff.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 18, 2013)

If a girl is honest her dad rarely likes the guys she dates and her mom is happy as long as he treats her well and seems to have it "together."

Just because we _tell_ a guy that our parents like him doesn't make it true.

My mom didn't like any of my former boyfriends but my current ex and one I dated in high school.  She wanted the men I dated to be handsome (the high school boy) or have money (most current ex).  But they were both abusive in their way--the high school jock physically and the current ex emotionally and mentally.

Dad didn't like either even though he would act friendly towards them.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Well, it's really wasn't that hard for me to tell if a girl's parents liked me or not -- especially if I dated her for any period of time. You get involved in the family etc. And while I was sort of joking -- first impressions are pretty important. So you do the firm handshake -- you look the parents in the eye and engage them, you show your manors -- something a lot of teens just don't do. Of course, you don't over do it. And you bring the girl home on time no matter what. This is all stuff I was aware of and put into practice -- and I got away with a whole lot of stuff.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

Why should money or looks matter?  I mean you should be attracted to a person, but how often do you get physical with them compared to how often you have to sit around and talk to them or go do stuff?  There are also a lot of things you can do that don't cost much money.  Hell I'm going to move to Costa Rica making only $800 a month from disability not counting some under the counter money I'll make.  That's not much at all, but I did a lot of research to find a place where my money would go a long way and I can be happy.  That's what its all about.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Money and looks are important to a lot of folks. Go figure. I was broke when I met my wife, but I had the looks going for me, thank goodness.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 18, 2013)

I have no idea.  Mom was rather superficial at times.  I think she felt if a man could take care of me financially I'd be happy or that if he was handsome . . . Actually, I have no idea why she wanted me to be with a handsome fellow.

I'm rather happy with the Fella I have now.  He isn't "rolling in the dough" and he's too heavy to be "mainstream handsome" but he makes me laugh, we talk, we argue, and we play.

He also treats me like I'm special.  I know he loves me and I'm crazy about him so I'm pretty sure that is what counts.

But, back on topic.  Parents should at least try to be aware of what their kids are doing.  If my parents were any indication (and my limited experience with my step-daughter) I bet you actually got away with less than you believe.

It's possible that those girls' parents knew that the two of you were at _least_ making out.  If their parents were like mine they probably had an idea of when she was sleeping with someone--and most girls' mothers know because the daughter will talk to them or a family friend or _someone_ about it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 18, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> I don't know what the answer is. In an ideal world parents' would have time to be aware of what their children are reading or doing. This is far from an ideal world.



As a single parent from the day my son was born and who worked full time - don't get me started about parents not having time to be involved with their kids. My son didn't just attend Cub Scouts - I was the den leader; he didn't just join soccer - I was the coach. He didn't sit in front of the boob tube - _we _lay out on the grass making cloud pictures.

Parents have time for their kids just like writers have time for writing - they make it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 18, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> A useful distinction, I suppose. But, when is a "Genre" instead a "Marketing Category?"



Within YA (marketing category) you can have romance (genre), horror (genre), westerns (genre), sci-fi (genre), etc etc


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 18, 2013)

Honestly in this day and age, I'll just be happy my kids are reading! 

I had a reading comprehension well beyond that of my peers and got very bored with YA novels very quickly (with some exceptions) so I was moving into the adult section before even entering high shcool. It didn't help that I was into the darker stuff already so I read a lot of things that wouldn't have been considered appropriate for kids that were my age at the time.

I don't seemed to have suffered much as a result, though my creativity and my reading ability were much improved for it.

Obviously though, I wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter read full out smut or my son read "American Psycho" but I'm not going to be a book nazi and get all up in arms because there was a sex scene in a book they read. I feel that, instead of trying to limit what they are allowed to read (within reason) you should make sure that there is a clear line of communication between you so that when they have questions they feel like they can come to you with them without fear of reprisal or rebuke.

Then again, my little ones are only two and one yet, so there's a chance I could become my parents yet


----------



## moderan (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Heh. Really? Man, that’s minor league stuff.


Really. It's a start. My stepkids all had the inability to get or hold jobs-therefore they needed someone who had those abilities and could conceivably teach that esoteric art. My screening process didn't involve the "exchange of precious bodily fluids" part. At some point that's gonna happen, and they were all taught to be responsible about that. It was about compatibilities that the kids wouldn't take into account.
Handsomeness, beauty, that's good for the attraction part of genetics. I was trying to breed for common sense.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

moderan said:


> Really. It's a start. My stepkids all had the inability to get or hold jobs-therefore they needed someone who had those abilities and could conceivably teach that esoteric art. My screening process didn't involve the "exchange of precious bodily fluids" part. At some point that's gonna happen, and they were all taught to be responsible about that. It was about compatibilities that the kids wouldn't take into account.
> Handsomeness, beauty, that's good for the attraction part of genetics. I was trying to breed for common sense.



There have been times when I have been attracted to a girl that wasn't someone I would normally date.  Sometimes there is just something there that creates an attraction.  I've looked at a girl's eyes and its like an instant explosion.  I can't really explain it.  Scientist say attraction comes from a few things.  It can be an attraction because in your mind you feel they would be the right person to have good healthy children with.  You don't think about it in regular thought, its your subconscious.  Then there is also the release of pheromones that can attract you to someone.  The last thing is just looks, traits, and common likes and dislikes.  It's more complicated than you think.  There is conscious and subconscious stuff going on.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 18, 2013)

moderan said:


> I was trying to breed for common sense.


A worthy experiment, how long before you find out if it worked?


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 18, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Within YA (marketing category) you can have romance (genre), horror (genre), westerns (genre), sci-fi (genre), etc etc



When investigating something, it often pays to also consider "likes." If YA is a marketing category and not a genre, then how is content handled in other "like" marketing categories? I don't mean, necessarily, that other marketing categories would act to censor certain topics, but any constraints placed on content would be within the same theme.

"Travel" - Is that a "Marketing Category?" The content is implied to be about travel, but it's pushed towards those who are thinking about traveling or who travel regularly, for leisure. In "Travel", there's everything from maps to travel stories, so the content is varied, like YA. I bet there are even "travel" books of a sexual nature in that section, as well. ie: "Travel for Swingers" or something like that.

"Sports" - There's everything from reference rulebooks to targeted biographies and histories in that sort of section.

"Local Interests" - Most main-chain booksellers will have one of these for local authors and books that are of immediate concern to those in the region. Those books are of varied genres.

In other words, maybe the way to see how such a "Marketing Category" might handle questionable content is to see how other, similar, categories have handled it? Then, those standards could be considered through the lens of cultural imperatives concerning children.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 18, 2013)

Bear in mind, the subjects you listed are nonfiction, so the genres and marketing groups are different than fiction. Fiction has recognized genres, plus literary. When I was much younger, I read mysteries like the Hardy Boys in what would have been considered YA (I'm not even sure when that category came into being) and Agatha Christie's books, which were not YA; I had no interest in romance stories, even if they were about people my age. I was interested in the genre, not what age group they were targeted toward.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

Could you imagine if kids couldn't read history books that contained stuff about war?  Lol this thread is just silly.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

And travel, sports and local interests with questionable content? I suppose anything is possible – but I’m betting cases of such would be so rare that it would hardly be worth considering. Not sure what you’d be benchmarking.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 18, 2013)

And they'd probably stick it under non-fiction erotica


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

I didn't do drugs or have sex because I read about it. As far as I remember, there was usually a live person doing the suggesting.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I didn't do drugs or have sex because I read about it. As far as I remember, there was usually a live person doing the suggesting.



Its like saying there are bridges, but just because they are there doesn't mean everyone should jump off them.  Just a few idiots off Fox News.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

OK. I have no idea what that means.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> OK. I have no idea what that means.



Good.  If you don't get it, then you won't be jumping off any bridges anytime soon.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 18, 2013)

So is the consensus that censorship is bad and nothing should be censored?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

Do you guys remember Robert Maplethorpe?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> So is the consensus that censorship is bad and nothing should be censored?



Ratings and censorship aren't the same, but pretty much. Of course I'd draw a line if creating content involved harming anyone.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Do you guys remember Robert Maplethorpe?



From art school. And?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Ratings and censorship aren't the same, but pretty much. Of course I'd draw a line if creating content involved harming anyone.



Who's going to decide?  This is something that some of us have talked about in private.  Different cultures and societies use different words in a different way.  Something that you think is vulgar might be a word used in common talk among other people.  Everyone has different standards.  There could be a difference in standards in the same culture depending on age too.  Leave literature alone!


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Again -- I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not for rating books. She asked if anything should be censored and I said, no -- with one condition. Otherwise, ratings and censorship are not the same thing.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> From art school. And?



Yeah I lived in Ohio and he was supposed have his stuff displayed but they said naked pictures of kids was pornography and sick so they said no.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Jan 18, 2013)

Cadence said:


> ...I found the book in the 'young adult' section. (_local library_) I was surprised that such smut got in there. But it made me wonder - how was I to know? The books are in the same place where the _Skulduggery Pleasant _books are. The same place where you can find Jonathan Stroud's work.



Local librarians reflect values (or lack thereof) in the local community. 

Cadence, hopefully you and your community can take charge of local library policy?


----------



## moderan (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> There have been times...


Waddaya on about? That has no relation to what I posted. You have any kids?



Foxee said:


> A worthy experiment, how long before you find out if it worked?


It seems to have worked. The grandchildren all have it. The kids, not so much. Their early years were not so kind values-wise.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Again -- I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not for rating books. She asked if anything should be censored and I said, no -- with one condition. Otherwise, ratings and censorship are not the same thing.



In this quote you sounded like you still believed in some kinds of censorship:



> Ratings and censorship aren't the same, but pretty much. Of course *I'd draw a line if creating content involved harming anyone*.



That's still censorship right?  You do know they still print Hitler's "[FONT=arial, helvetica, bitstream vera sans, clean, sans-serif]Mein Kampf?"  They even print and sell the book "Anarchist Handbook"[/FONT]*[FONT=arial, helvetica, bitstream vera sans, clean, sans-serif] [/FONT]*[FONT=arial, helvetica, bitstream vera sans, clean, sans-serif]which shows people how to make destructive items out of easy to get stuff.  Do you realize how many books that are out there that teach people how to harm others?  The government hasn't done anything to this point why start now?

On a side note, if you buy "Mein Kampf" or "Anarchist Handbook" you'll be put on the government's watch list.  LoL[/FONT]


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

moderan said:


> Waddaya on about? That has no relation to what I posted. You have any kids?
> 
> 
> It seems to have worked. The grandchildren all have it. The kids, not so much. Their early years were not so kind values-wise.



I was just following up on what you said, that you can be attracted to some for reasons other than looks, or other shallow reasons.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's still censorship right?  You do know they still print Hitler's "Mein Kampf?"  They even print and sell the book "Anarchist Handbook"which shows people how to make destructive items out of easy to get stuff.  Do you realize how many books that are out there that teach people how to harm others?  The government hasn't done anything to this point why start now?



I said if _creating_ the content harmed anyone -- snuff films, child pornography etc. -- but that's covered by law in most cases -- so it's really not an issue.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jan 18, 2013)

Redundant!

Well, what clever thing shall I add... oh, okay...

1. If one is really worried about having one's brain defiled, it seems like a basic and easy step to google a book and read the reviews.

2. Many teenagers have sex. Many many. Perhaps it is appropriate that their books deal with a topic that is important and sometimes difficult for them.

3. In the Sweet Valley High series, the uptight twin was probably a virgin, but was it ever made clear whether Jessica Wakefield had sex? I always wondered. They drank and did drugs, though (and immediately fell over dead from it, in one case). That awful Bruce, giving sweet innocent Regina cocaine.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

But like Joseph said, that's already covered by law.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Yeah I lived in Ohio and he was supposed have his stuff displayed but they said naked pictures of kids was pornography and sick so they said no.



Really subjective. Pretty sure his child nudes were shown in New York galleries. Didn't fly in the heartland, I guess. Kind of depends on who "they" is too. If it was the municipality, then that's government censorship -- maybe unconstitutional. If the public applied pressure on the museum or whatever -- that's something else. It doesn't have much to do with rating books, though -- I only see vague connection. Not sure why you brought it up.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Really subjective. Pretty sure his child nudes were shown in New York galleries. Didn't fly in the heartland, I guess. Kind of depends on who "they" is too. If it was the municipality, then that's government censorship -- maybe unconstitutional. If the public applied pressure on the museum or whatever -- that's something else. It doesn't have much to do with rating books, though -- I only see vague connection. Not sure why you brought it up.



It's art.  Art and literature are basically hand in hand.  They have a special allowance when it comes to what they can express.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 18, 2013)

Okay, so where do you stand on the 'incitement' issue?  

Decades ago there was an incident in New York park where someone was murdered. The way the person was murdered was very similar to a scene in a book by Ed McBain. 

The press concluded that the book had lead to the murder because it gave the murderers the idea.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> It's art.  Art and literature are basically hand  in hand.  They have a special allowance when it comes to what they can  express.



What special allowance? The Mapplethorpe thing is censorship -- meaning suppressing (editing out) or banning. What most people are talking about here is rating books -- and if you're talking about an industry implemented thing -- like the movie ratings system, that's not censorship.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> What special allowance? The Mapplethorpe thing is censorship -- meaning suppressing (editing out) or banning. What most people are talking about here is rating books -- and if you're talking about an industry implemented thing -- like the movie ratings system, that's not censorship.



Yes but if some guy was taking pictures of naked kids in his basement that wasn't already an artist, his butt would be in jail faster than you can say Scooby-Doo.


----------



## moderan (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I was just following up on what you said, that you can be attracted to some for reasons other than looks, or other shallow reasons.



I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was that I was breeding for common sense. And it has to do with the question inherent in the OP.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

moderan said:


> I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was that I was breeding for common sense. And it has to do with the question inherent in the OP.



Ok I was confused by what you said then.  Not that it was something negative.  I think it is ok to fall in love with someone even though they may not be exactly what you are looking for.  Sometimes love just happens.  If what I said offended you I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Yes but if some guy was taking pictures of naked kids in his basement that wasn't already an artist, his butt would be in jail faster than you can say Scooby-Doo.



So what? You're all over the place with this. I don't believe anyone here is talking about banning books or making certain kinds of content illegal. It's about some kind of labeling system akin to how movies are rated -- and there's practically zero chance that any politician is going to push for the government to do it. It would have to be an industry thing.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> So what? You're all over the place with this. I don't believe anyone here is talking about banning books or making certain kinds of content illegal. It's about some kind of labeling system akin to how movies are rated -- and there's practically zero chance that any politician is going to push for the government to do it. It would have to be an industry thing.



But if you start rating books and all books with some kind of sex, violence, or adult actions involving things like alcohol or drug use, do you know how many book that would be?  You would be taking books out of schools and class curriculum that have been a part of them for years.  That's the point I am trying to make.  Have you ever seen "Field of Dreams?"  This exact thing comes up during a PTA meeting.  They picked a book that they thought was too adult for the students and were taking it out of the school.  Do you think it is fair to those students that there would be books rated so that they can't read it until they are 18?  "Red Badge of Courage," "The Scarlet Letter," "Lord of the Flies," how many more books have violence, sex, or other things that would make them so that they would be 18+?  That is the point I have been making all along.

I will NEVER be happy having someone else decide what is good for me or any children I might have.  That's up to me not them.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

I give up. I already said in a post specifically addressed to you that I'm against any kind of ratings system.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I give up. I already said in a post specifically addressed to you that I'm against any kind of ratings system.



So you think all books are free game?  No rating system period?  A 12 year old can go in and buy "Anarchist Guide?"


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

I said no ratings system or content labels. That's the way it is now -- and we're all aware of the potential downsides. That's why we're discussing this. I'm not really interested in doing some thing  now where you play devils advocate based on unlikely scenarios.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I said no ratings system. That's the way it is now -- and we're all aware of the potential downsides. That's why we're discussing this. I'm not really interested in doing some thing  now where you play devils advocate based on unlikely scenarios.




Lol what kind of books and web sites do you think the kids that shoot up schools read?  You eve watch "American History X?"  You don't think stuff like that goes on in real life?  I don't believe in ratings or stuff either, I'm saying parents nee to pay attention.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 18, 2013)

This doesn't need to turn into a debate.  That isn't the point of this.  It is the general consensus of the majority of people here that a ratings system on books would be a bad idea--difficult to implement and a slippery slope.  Most of us feel it's a parent's job to make sure their children read appropriate materials.

So, with all of that, let's drop it.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> This doesn't need to turn into a debate.  That isn't the point of this.  It is the general consensus of the majority of people here that a ratings system on books would be a bad idea--difficult to implement and a slippery slope.  Most of us feel it's a parent's job to make sure their children read appropriate materials.
> 
> So, with all of that, let's drop it.



Yes, the point I have been carrying on, is no matter how awful the book, it has to be treated like the rest of the books. /discussion


----------



## JosephB (Jan 18, 2013)

LOL? I know what "goes on in real life." I'm saying it's unlikely a 12 year old kid is going to _"go in"_ to a bookstore and buy _The Anarchist Cookbook_. I didn't say kids can't get their hands on that kind of material if they really want it -- especially if it's available online. What does that have to do with ratings or labeling? And of course parents need to pay attention -- what does that have to do with anything I've said in this exchange? I said no ratings or content labels. Period. Done.


----------



## Nee (Jan 18, 2013)

Ya never see people up-in-arms over readers advisories for crappy books do you...?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 18, 2013)

Nee said:


> Ya never see people up-in-arms over readers advisories for crappy books do you...?



Haha "Rated C"  For the crappy books.

:rofl:


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 19, 2013)

I don't think Cadence was talking about a ratings system. He was talking about warnings, such as, "Some sexual content" or, "mild violence."

We do it here on the forums. We also do it for movies and television shows. Why not on book jackets? I think it's an interesting question. Are books immune to content warnings, while music, television, and movies are not?


----------



## Nee (Jan 19, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I don't think Cadence was talking about a ratings system. He was talking about warnings, such as, "Some sexual content" or, "mild violence."
> 
> We do it here on the forums. We also do it for movies and television shows. Why not on book jackets? I think it's an interesting question. Are books immune to content warnings, while music, television, and movies are not?



It's called freedom of speech. 

And it is not going to happen.


----------



## moderan (Jan 19, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Ok I was confused by what you said then.  Not that it was something negative.  I think it is ok to fall in love with someone even though they may not be exactly what you are looking for.  Sometimes love just happens.  If what I said offended you I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.



It had to do with common sense, and passing it on to the kids, and so giving them the perspective to deal with the things they find in books and elsewhere. The Anarchist's Cookbook didn't exist when I was twelve, or I'd have had it. I _stole that book_. I've been reading adult-level literature since I was seven or eight and was unable to get my questions answered by grownups of all stripes.
I understood what a pain in the keister I was only years later when my daughter turned out to be a prodigy also. Then I made damn sure she had access to all of the books and every honest answer I could give her, despite my ex's attempts to maintain separation.
Continued that practice with the stepkids. There isn't a question I won't answer honestly and to the best of my ability. You're not gonna get that in ANY school.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 19, 2013)

Nee said:


> It's called freedom of speech.
> 
> And it is not going to happen.



You're confusing warnings with censorship.

A warning censors nothing--it just lets the consumer know what kind of content is in the product and/or any risks to the consumer.

A large majority of the products we buy have warning labels on them as well.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 19, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I don't think Cadence was talking about a ratings system. He was talking about warnings, such as, "Some sexual content" or, "mild violence."
> 
> We do it here on the forums. We also do it for movies and television shows. Why not on book jackets? I think it's an interesting question. Are books immune to content warnings, while music, television, and movies are not?





KyleColorado said:


> You're confusing warnings with censorship.
> 
> A warning censors nothing--it just lets the consumer know what kind of content is in the product and/or any risks to the consumer.
> 
> A large majority of the products we buy have warning labels on them as well.



That makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 19, 2013)

But those warning are pretty ambiguous - "some sexual content" could mean anything from a quick shot of a bare bosom to a "not much left to the imagination" bedroom scene. So using that type of thing for books, you'd have people either not reading it because they think it's got more sex than it actually did, or people reading it and being upset because the 'sex' content was so trivial/juvenile. (Frankly, I think the warnings here - and on some other forums as well - are a bit unnecessary. If members are old enough to be on an internet forum for writers and old enough to take part in serious discussions about writing, well... but that's probably just me.)


----------



## JosephB (Jan 19, 2013)

That's what I was saying. And it doesn't matter if you're writing about sex or drugs or whatever in a realistic way that doesn't glorify anything -- or if it depicts the downsides of questionable behavior -- with a label and some generic out of context description, it might get rejected sight unseen. I don't know why any writer would support that.


----------



## Nee (Jan 19, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> But those warning are pretty ambiguous - "some sexual content" could mean anything from a quick shot of a bare bosom to a "not much left to the imagination" bedroom scene. So using that type of thing for books, you'd have people either not reading it because they think it's got more sex than it actually did, or people reading it and being upset because the 'sex' content was so trivial/juvenile. (Frankly, I think the warnings here - and on some other forums as well - are a bit unnecessary. If members are old enough to be on an internet forum for writers and old enough to take part in serious discussions about writing, well... but that's probably just me.)



No, it's not just you. There was never too much trouble at the WD community where the only restraint on the member was abusive language toward other members, or homophobic, misogynistic and pedophilic content and/or behavior.


----------



## ktee (Jan 19, 2013)

JosephB said:


> That's what I was saying. And it doesn't matter if you're writing about sex or drugs or whatever in a realistic way that doesn't glorify anything -- or if it depicts the downsides of questionable behavior -- with a label and some generic out of context description, it might get rejected sight unseen. I don't know why any writer would support that.



I think people would also read the blurb then use the combination of the two to make their decision. 

If someone just sees 'drug use' and dismisses the book out of hand then that person probably isn't open to seeing an alternative view anyway.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 19, 2013)

But I'd lose a potential reader before they buy the book. If they get into the story, something that they might think of as objectionable might actually be depicted in way that they can accept. With a label -- I don't even get that chance.


----------



## ktee (Jan 20, 2013)

JosephB said:


> But I'd lose a potential reader before they buy the book. If they get into the story, something that they might think of as objectionable might actually be depicted in way that they can accept. With a label -- I don't even get that chance.



I totally undertand your point and I think all artists have this fear about their work. 

However I see this as an inherent part of any artistic endeavour. If I'm a sculpture then I'm in a way categorising myself, and there's a risk that my message, which I want a large audience to be exposed to, will never reach them because, for example, most teenagers have no interest in sculptures. 

Or maybe I write graphic novels. I have a specific audience. I've labeled my work by what genre I write in.  

If I write a YA book because my message is so relevant to teenagers, some young people will ignore it because they prefer adult books; they see YA books as too simple. 

Even the cover of a book is a way of labeling, and some people will be have preconceptions about a book based entirely on what certain covers reflect about the style or genre of a book in their minds. I know we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover but we do. 

Even the blurb is a label and is written to give away specific information about the book. 

If i wanted to be really extreme, then carrying your logic forward, all books should have identicle white covers, no titles, no blurbs so that there is no chance a potential reader will get the wrong idea about the story and get turned away. 


I'm not saying this to belittle your point, I agree that with you that labels and assumptions limit the audience that could access a work of art. And there is WAY too much censorship or books going on. 

But in the end, I think it all comes down to personal opinion about where we draw the line about all sorts of labelling. And it is a very personal thing _because_ we're all talking about art. 

Even if a content label was introduced, there would be still be so many decisions about the cover and blurb and title because these affect the ability to attract readers, maybe just as much as the content label. At least with a content label people who are really opposed to certain content can not have exposure that has adverse effects on them. If they feel offended, it's unlikely they'll get past that.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 20, 2013)

ktee said:


> I totally undertand your point and I think all artists have this fear about their work.
> 
> However I see this as an inherent part of any artistic endeavour. If I'm a sculpture then I'm in a way categorising myself, and there's a risk that my message, which I want a large audience to be exposed to, will never reach them because, for example, most teenagers have no interest in sculptures.
> 
> ...



This isn’t really so much about my artistic sensibilities or imparting a message as making the sale and winning people over to my work. Yes, if you choose to write YA you're categorizing yourself -- but you're primarily concerned with attracting readers who want that. I'm talking about tipping the scale toward a purchase -- I'm not trying to convince an adult or teen who isn't interested in YA in the first place.

The purpose of the cover design, title, and blurb is to _attract_ readers. For the people who might want to vet books based on an out of context snippet, the content label will, in most cases, only serve to deter them. Perhaps good for people who write books that are squeaky clean -- not so good for those who might want to depict the world in a more realistic light. As it is, an author who wants to use a lack of potentially objectionable content as a selling point is free to do so. Otherwise, a mandatory labeling system gives him an advantage. Remember -- I'm talking about making the sale and getting a chance to win over a reader. The same goes with a parent who might be forced to actually consider context, read reviews etc. or even read the book before before allowing a child to read it.

Furthermore, and most importantly, a publisher -- or you, if you’re self-publishing -- has control over the cover design, title, and blurb etc. and can put together a package designed specifically to reflect the content of the book in way that will intrigue potential readers. Not so with some ham-fisted generic label applied according to the standards of a board or bureaucrat who knows nothing about the work and has no stake in it. Do you see the difference?


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Jan 20, 2013)

Hi Cadence
I think you are right. I would not like to make  a similar mistake either. A warning of some kind would be very helpful.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 25, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The day they start labeling the contents of books and deciding what is suitable literature, is the day "Fahrenheit 451" becomes real life and literature begins to die.



So we have no right to know what's in a book before we read it?  
I'm an adult, and I don't care to read foul language and smut.  Why shouldn't I be given fair warning if a book contains these things?  Sounds to me like you're demanding we be given no choice but be forced to read the smut you like.

If books have a fair warning system, then we have fair warning as to whether we should read it or not.  If we then read it after being warned, then we have one less reason to complain.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 25, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> So we have no right to know what's in a book before we read it?
> I'm an adult, and I don't care to read foul language and smut.  Why shouldn't I be given fair warning if a book contains these things?  Sounds to me like you're demanding we be given no choice but be forced to read the smut you like.
> 
> If books have a fair warning system, then we have fair warning as to whether we should read it or not.  If we then read it after being warned, then we have one less reason to complain.




Isn't that what the back cover is for?  It's not difficult to leaf through a book before you buy it and get an idea of the content and the language in it.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 26, 2013)

Like peanuts on an airplane, I guess there are those who are sensitive. Having been exposed to, and grown up with, lots of peanuts, I have no issue; I can take 'em or leave 'em.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 26, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> So we have no right to know what's in a book before we read it?



That's what blurbs and reviews are for - and, as mentioned, leafing through it helps a lot as well. Personally, I don't want some bureaucrat deciding what warning should be on my books, affecting my bottom line with no repercussions.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm thinking maybe I'd like to put a label on my book -- Warning, contains stuff that has to do with the real world.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Jan 26, 2013)

Hi Lewdog & Rustgold, 

you both make good points. Personally I think we can usually tell from the inside cover and a glance into a book though as to whether it is going to be ok for us. I think we should be free to read what we want, that is such an important freedom.

That '_Fahrenheit 451_' by Ray Bradbury sounds great, I have made a note to get it one day.


----------



## Nee (Jan 26, 2013)

Lilly Davidson said:


> Personally I think we can usually tell from the inside cover and a glance into a book though as to whether it is going to be ok for us.
> 
> That '_Fahrenheit 451_' by Ray Bradbury sounds great, I have made a note to get it one day.



I was going through my reading history in the library's web page (I just noticed that they had a reading history on me there) and since 2010 I check out over 800 books. I knew I was reading a lot but that's a bit more than I thought. anyway, you can absolutely tell, not only if a book is one you'd like to read but also what kind of language you are going to get, just looking at the cover and reading the back cover, sleeves and the first three to five paragraphs.

There is no reason for labeling books for content.

And Lilly, Fahrenheit 451 is a great read. 

Also while your at it, you may want to read 1984, Stranger in a Strange Land, and Dune.


----------



## SunnyE (Jan 26, 2013)

Obviously, there are all kinds of writing, genres, styles, etc. What appeals to some doesn't appeal to others. What is pornography to some is...well...nothing to others. I don't have a problem reading it myself, but I can understand that if you are picking YA books specifically because you are wanting "cleaner" books with less sex, violence, language, or whatever, then it might be a shock to start reading something and realize it's nothing you want to be exposed to. You have that right to want to stay away from it as much as anyone else has a right to write or read about explicit sex. The problem is that a lot of authors are writing "new adult" books with more explicit content geared towards the young adults that are now growing up and looking for older material, but there really isn't a formal New Adult genre yet. So those books get lumped into the YA section. You should check out this site: https://sites.google.com/site/paren...earch?scope=search-site&q=black+rabbit+summer   They give very detailed reviews of books with regards to sexual content and other topics young and sensitive readers need to be aware of. They don't have every book on the market, but certainly a lot of them. It might help you to avoid that situation in the future.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Jan 27, 2013)

Hi Nee
Thankyou, I have put those books on my list for future reading.


----------

