![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From the Torygraph coverage: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2074620/Philip-Pullman-leads-author-revolt-against-age-banding-for-children%27s-books.html)
Alan Garner:
Age banding is a practice that insults both book and reader, and attacks the root of literature.
I signed the petition two days ago, and have formally asked my publisher, HarperCollins, to extend the same courtesy to my work that Scholastic has shown to Philip Pullman's.
William Shepherd:
There are certain types of material that young children should not be exposed to before they have the emotional or intellectual resources to deal it.
Why are these authors so reluctant to protect the young could it be they are greedy or have political agendas?
Craig Buchanan on June 05, 2008 03:00 PM
Age banding books is horribly wrong. Look at its effect on movies. Movies must have enough violence, sexual reference etc. to ACHIEVE a PG (Parental Guidance - US) or R (Restricted - US) rating to ensure an audience. It stigmatizes the G (General Audience - US) films. Publishers will quickly adopt the same tactics. "We're looking for a magic themed book with a 14-20 rating." The effect on children will be worse. "You're reading that? That's for babies. No it's not. Sure it is, it says so right on the cover." The idea smacks of anti-think bureaucracy and the nanny-state.
[DrA: You mean publishers don't do this already?]
Edit: Publishers seem to be responding to objections from Big Name Writers. I suspect if what I've read is right then Tescos (and Borderstones?) will slap labels on the books anyway:
Keep an eye on the back covers of children's books. After years of research and wrangling, most major publishers have finally agreed to follow the toy industry and offer age guidance for children's fiction. So EB White's Charlotte's Web will be aimed at readers who are "7+", Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons will bear a "9+" tag, and Melvin Burgess's Junk will be for "Teens". Elaine McQuade of publisher Scholastic says most adults would welcome clearer guidance when buying books for kids: "Without this help it is easier, if less satisfying, to default to buying a DVD, CD or videogame as a gift." The publishers emphasise that the age range only indicates "reading interest level" rather than ability, and have enthusiastic backing from the major bookshop chains and supermarkets (Tesco has already started stickering children's books by age). Some independent booksellers are doubtful whether it is possible to pin down reading levels. "The question is: which seven year old?" asks Marilyn Brocklehurst from the Norfolk Children's Book Centre. "It will sell more books, but they won't be the right books. It's not the age that is important, but who the child is." That's true, but most children's books are now picked direct from the shelves without personal advice - and at least this subtle system will give browsers some much-needed help.
Yes, I'm nearly two months behind reading the book pages ... but I read about Ian Curtis last night which was suddenly relevant.
Alan Garner:
Age banding is a practice that insults both book and reader, and attacks the root of literature.
I signed the petition two days ago, and have formally asked my publisher, HarperCollins, to extend the same courtesy to my work that Scholastic has shown to Philip Pullman's.
William Shepherd:
There are certain types of material that young children should not be exposed to before they have the emotional or intellectual resources to deal it.
Why are these authors so reluctant to protect the young could it be they are greedy or have political agendas?
Craig Buchanan on June 05, 2008 03:00 PM
Age banding books is horribly wrong. Look at its effect on movies. Movies must have enough violence, sexual reference etc. to ACHIEVE a PG (Parental Guidance - US) or R (Restricted - US) rating to ensure an audience. It stigmatizes the G (General Audience - US) films. Publishers will quickly adopt the same tactics. "We're looking for a magic themed book with a 14-20 rating." The effect on children will be worse. "You're reading that? That's for babies. No it's not. Sure it is, it says so right on the cover." The idea smacks of anti-think bureaucracy and the nanny-state.
[DrA: You mean publishers don't do this already?]
Edit: Publishers seem to be responding to objections from Big Name Writers. I suspect if what I've read is right then Tescos (and Borderstones?) will slap labels on the books anyway:
Keep an eye on the back covers of children's books. After years of research and wrangling, most major publishers have finally agreed to follow the toy industry and offer age guidance for children's fiction. So EB White's Charlotte's Web will be aimed at readers who are "7+", Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons will bear a "9+" tag, and Melvin Burgess's Junk will be for "Teens". Elaine McQuade of publisher Scholastic says most adults would welcome clearer guidance when buying books for kids: "Without this help it is easier, if less satisfying, to default to buying a DVD, CD or videogame as a gift." The publishers emphasise that the age range only indicates "reading interest level" rather than ability, and have enthusiastic backing from the major bookshop chains and supermarkets (Tesco has already started stickering children's books by age). Some independent booksellers are doubtful whether it is possible to pin down reading levels. "The question is: which seven year old?" asks Marilyn Brocklehurst from the Norfolk Children's Book Centre. "It will sell more books, but they won't be the right books. It's not the age that is important, but who the child is." That's true, but most children's books are now picked direct from the shelves without personal advice - and at least this subtle system will give browsers some much-needed help.
Yes, I'm nearly two months behind reading the book pages ... but I read about Ian Curtis last night which was suddenly relevant.
Tags: