Poll: Should books be rated?

[lwm3398]

I'm assuming you, being on a gaming site, know what a 'Game' is. These 'games' have letters in a box by the corner, and each one means something different from the other. They are called 'ratings'. No matter what parent, ignoring the rating, buys an adult game for their kid, the ratings exist. They range from child to adult. I'm assuming you know, also, what a 'book' is. It is some glued-together paper with words on it. There are adult and child books, too! See how much you're learning?

Okay, enough messing around and acting like an asshole, here's the actual thing: Should books have a rating? Really, there's no way to know whether a book is for an adult or for children. I mean, cover-art can give it away, most of the time, but what if it's some fantasy book, with little-to-no remotely vague clues as to which way it goes? There appears to be nothing sexual, or extreme violence, just a generic, you know, fantasy-book. A fantasy book that could be intended for either adult or child readers.

Maybe I'm just being stupid, oblivious to ratings that are actually there, but this could be a problem, no? So, what do you think, should books be rated?

Edit: I don't think they should myself, the question just popped into my head.

 

[Cargando]

I don't think so. Can you imagine how long it would take to rate them all? Anyway, it's not as graphic as other forms of media, as in if a book talks of blood and guts, you can only imagine them. But if a film or game does it, they are right there in front of you. Erm, I forget what the point is, but it's there somewhere.

 

[Discord]

No... but they are. But I feel the same about any other form of information, media or entertainment. Maybe not Rated with numbers but with personal opinons, feelings and different people's experences to give future readers an idea of what the book is about. Experence will vary.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Maybe. I mean, would John Lennon have died if The catcher in the rye wasn't allowed to be read by people under 18?

 

[oliveira8]

There is a way to see if books are for children or adults, they usually in the correct section of a library or bookstore!

 

[nativebelle]

Nah, that would be the worst thing. When kids read adult books mostly they don't undertsand them or think they're too hard anyway, it's hard not to understand a guy getting his head chopped off on the tv/computer screen. It's just a bit more graphic.

Also; I'm a sucker for books and stories so I'm probably gonna be more bias, especially since I was the geeky kid who read adult books wayyy before she was supposed to, and I wouldn't want to take away that feeling.

 

[Yumi_and_Erea]

Dear God no.
It would just give pretentious government assholes like Michael Atkinson more ammunition for their censorship. Please, please, please, no. May this idea be burned, purged with salt and cast into the pit, where it may dwell for all eternity, until such time as is beyond our knowledge or comprehension.

 

[nativebelle]

Maybe. I mean, would John Lennon have died if The catcher in the rye wasn't allowed to be read by people under 18?

Banning catcher in the rye for under 18's would be the worst idea. I mean surely to get that book properly you've got to read it as an angst ridden teenager?

 

[lwm3398]

Also; I'm a sucker for books and stories so I'm probably gonna be more bias, especially since I was the geeky kid who read adult books wayyy before she was supposed to, and I wouldn't want to take away that feeling.

I as well. But still, imagine some really smart kid who wants to read adult books. I mean, I read Stephen King's The Stand when I was 10, and I really didn't have any way of knowing I shouldn't read it. I'd seen the mini-series, and since that wasn't too graphic my mom handed me her copy. I think the ratings, that I hope there will never be, would be more for parents than kids. That way they know what is and isn't appropriate for their child.

Wait, that all makes me sound like a wuss. That example was horrible. I'm not saying there should be ratings because the book traumatized me, no-no-no, I just know it was a little above me, what with some things that were said. I did love the book, but I think my mom should have re-read it before giving it to me. It wasn't extremely appropriate, and I don't think any parent, no matter what lenient, would have given their child this book if it was fresh in their minds.

 

[rokkolpo]

no....it's not necessary.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Maybe. I mean, would John Lennon have died if The catcher in the rye wasn't allowed to be read by people under 18?

Banning catcher in the rye for under 18's would be the worst idea. I mean surely to get that book properly you've got to read it as an angst ridden teenager?

And look what happened. Look what happened!

Although I'm only joking, it's a good book. It was just read by the wrong people.

 

[Naheal]

Okay, enough messing around and acting like an asshole, here's the actual thing: Should books have a rating? Really, there's no way to know whether a book is for an adult or for children. I mean, cover-art can give it away, most of the time, but what if it's some fantasy book, with little-to-no remotely vague clues as to which way it goes? There appears to be nothing sexual, or extreme violence, just a generic, you know, fantasy-book. A fantasy book that could be intended for either adult or child readers.

Maybe I'm just being stupid, oblivious to ratings that are actually there, but this could be a problem, no? So, what do you think, should books be rated?

Edit: I don't think they should myself, the question just popped into my head.

...the hell? I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

 

[Jharry5]

No, they shouldn't be. There are easy enough ways to tell if a book will be suitable for a certain audience, for example, where in the bookshop/library etc they are.
If it ever happened, it would be a slippery slope from there...

 

[nativebelle]

Maybe. I mean, would John Lennon have died if The catcher in the rye wasn't allowed to be read by people under 18?

Banning catcher in the rye for under 18's would be the worst idea. I mean surely to get that book properly you've got to read it as an angst ridden teenager?

And look what happened. Look what happened!

Although I'm only joking, it's a good book. It was just read by the wrong people.

Yeah, I think that that book was scapegoated in the same way that (as everyone on here will be all too aware of) games are. OMG!11 SHOOTIN PEPLE ON GAEMS MEANS UR A MUDERER N U GONNA KILL PPL OMG VIOLENS!

 

[faceless chick]

If you do, save the "R" rating for "retarded".
Then we can stamp it on Twilight so people will know what to expect.

 

[yaik7a]

We do not need more censership ! We need less !

 

[DuplicateValue]

Nah, books for adults are generally too hard for kids to read, so it works itself out.

 

[Gmano]

If not only to prevent kids from getting weird ideas, or exposure to messed up things. Then to provide a better idea of what to expect other than "A rollercoaster ride I couldn't put down".

Because someone gave me kite runner when I was 11, and the rape bit made me quit reading for a while.

 

[The Singularity]

Uh of course they SHOULD be rated. Yes, it would be a pain to rate them all, but it would also help. My school ended up having to ban about half the books in the library because "Fat kid takes over the world" or something had the F word in it. Then the school was forced to allow the parents to decide what books were ok for students because "Obviously the school is unable to do so."Newspapers being rated wouldn't be bad either, the news shows are rated also.
For people saying you can tell automatically then why do we have movies rated? Couldn't you just read the summery and look at the front to know? And yes, sure you have to imagine everything compared to actually seeing it in movies and games, but do you really want kids being curious what it looks like for someone to be decapitated, raped, beat up, etc?

 

[TraumaHound]

Books are already broken down into categories such as "Young Adult" and "Children", essentially rating what would be considered age-appropriate. Considering the swords & sorcery stuff I've been reading most of my life I'd hate to think how much amazing writing by the likes of Moorcock [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moorcock], Leiber [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Leiber], Asprin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Asprin], and Howard [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard] that I would've potentially missed out on had they been rated as something I couldn't purchase as a 12-year-old "young adult".

My 10-year-old daughter is finally enjoying reading, coming home with all sorts of books borrowed from or bought at school. If/when she's ready, I have boxes of the fantastical just waiting in the garage for her to explore. 10 was when I discovered D&D and really came into loving fantasy & sci-fi (though Star Wars & Battlestar Galactica gave me a jumpstart on the latter), I'm anxious to see what type of stories she latches onto.

...then onto my son (who's only 4 now, his reading much less sophisticated, so far. )