Why don't books have an official rating system?
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
I never actually thought about that. Paintings don't get a rating either, so I guess they get grouped into the same thing.
Possibly because at this point reading is so uncommon among youth that seeing them read anything is considered a good thing.
Otherwise, your question might end up with the response "What's a book?"
Otherwise, your question might end up with the response "What's a book?"
It seems to me that books with more mature content would be at a level where the majority of young readers wouldn't read them. Such as why you don't see first-graders reading A Game of Thrones.
Also, a lot of books are published- probably way more than games or films. It would be ridiculous to try to regulate them.
Also, a lot of books are published- probably way more than games or films. It would be ridiculous to try to regulate them.
Because books usually scale the "maturity" of their content with the required reading level. Also, younger audiences don't associate inappropriate content with books like they do with videogames, movies, music, etc. What little stuff kids read is usually child & teen fiction, which designed to appeal to said age groups.
I suppose mostly, because how explicit a scene (for either violence or sex) is depends almost as much on the reader as it does the writer. Unless the writer goes into super explicit detail.
Even then, especially for violence, there's a difference between saying someone's head was cut off, and actually showing it, blood and all.
Swearing, you'd expect to be regulated to the same extent however.
I think the main reason is that its just assumed that people young and innocent enough to be affected by it wont read it in the first place.
Even then, especially for violence, there's a difference between saying someone's head was cut off, and actually showing it, blood and all.
Swearing, you'd expect to be regulated to the same extent however.
I think the main reason is that its just assumed that people young and innocent enough to be affected by it wont read it in the first place.
Because many of the people who vehemently advocate ratings systems based on the fact that movies and games corrupt young minds are equally convinced that all books are a force of good.
Possibly. Books generally seem to have less controversy around them, anyway, and far fewer voices imploring us to 'think of the children.'
Possibly. Books generally seem to have less controversy around them, anyway, and far fewer voices imploring us to 'think of the children.'
The main reason is probably because books aren't a visual medium. Comic books/graphic novels (Manga included) and magazines, which are visual media, have some kind of age restriction or age rating in place.Professor James said:
Books predate society's desire for rating systems. They get a free pass because they're deeply ground into our mind as inheriently good tools of the advancement of civilization and yadda yadda.
I mean, what makes reading a Stephanie Plum novel inherently better than playing Mass Effect, other than that society says "reading is good," towards books and that "video games rot peoples' minds and their time would be better spent doing something more productive"?
Also, a lot of new media now is being appraised for what it is being used for now instead of what it can be used for. Film in the general public is primarily a form of entertainment, so ratings are often customary. Video games especially get a bad rap because its only within the past 20 years or so that the medium is able to have significant impact on the individual and society beyond a very few titles made with a combination of genius, hard work and lots of luck.
At the point that we'd ever consider organizing a rating system for books, they've been used as a format to address hundreds of millions of topics, have offerings for almost all age groups and peoples, and have changed the world many, many times.
Now with music, that's a bit different. Its more like a part of the human condition than a format for communication devised by humanity, and would perhaps be easier to look at ratings for music like how we have taboo in our language. Only certain things get the priveledge of being socially accepted.
I mean, what makes reading a Stephanie Plum novel inherently better than playing Mass Effect, other than that society says "reading is good," towards books and that "video games rot peoples' minds and their time would be better spent doing something more productive"?
Also, a lot of new media now is being appraised for what it is being used for now instead of what it can be used for. Film in the general public is primarily a form of entertainment, so ratings are often customary. Video games especially get a bad rap because its only within the past 20 years or so that the medium is able to have significant impact on the individual and society beyond a very few titles made with a combination of genius, hard work and lots of luck.
At the point that we'd ever consider organizing a rating system for books, they've been used as a format to address hundreds of millions of topics, have offerings for almost all age groups and peoples, and have changed the world many, many times.
Now with music, that's a bit different. Its more like a part of the human condition than a format for communication devised by humanity, and would perhaps be easier to look at ratings for music like how we have taboo in our language. Only certain things get the priveledge of being socially accepted.
Because no one is worried that a child will read anything with lots of words & no pictures in it.
I don't think there is a reason other than that the written word predates all rating systems. Moving visual and audio media are less than two centuries old.
Also books tend to attract certain audiences. There are children's books for kids, young adult for teens. In that way, they are written for a target audience. Not many five year olds read I Am Legend or One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
Further to this, children would lack the life experience and literacy skills to comprehend some of the less savory content of adult targeted books. Comprehension of the text and imagination are required. Visual media like film and games take out the imagination aspect ro a large degree. Therefore they have ratings to prevent younger audiences viewing what censors deed inappropriate.
Also books tend to attract certain audiences. There are children's books for kids, young adult for teens. In that way, they are written for a target audience. Not many five year olds read I Am Legend or One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
Further to this, children would lack the life experience and literacy skills to comprehend some of the less savory content of adult targeted books. Comprehension of the text and imagination are required. Visual media like film and games take out the imagination aspect ro a large degree. Therefore they have ratings to prevent younger audiences viewing what censors deed inappropriate.
Well children don't like books unless they have pictures, so a 900 page erotic novel isn't going to interest them. Also children wouldn't have the literacy skills to read books with mature content.
MPAA for example is very much grounded in religion and that view upon things like sexuality.
If they were to do the same for books as they do for movies, then they'd have to stop kids from reading the bible.
Probably not the reason, but it was a funny thought, to me anyway.
If they were to do the same for books as they do for movies, then they'd have to stop kids from reading the bible.
Probably not the reason, but it was a funny thought, to me anyway.
There are a lot of things about books that get grandfathered in. Libraries, for instance. What modern publisher would support a state-run institution where literature pirates enjoy their content for *gasp* free?
Most of them probably don't (and that number is only rising). I tested into college-level English during middle school, though. What kept me from more mature books was the subject matter--like you said. A 900-page erotica would have been immeasurably boring to me as a kid (and even now).ToTaL LoLiGe said:
A few books I read had a "suitable for x audience" in the front somewhere, but I didn't pay attention to those.
Really? Because I bet that said people also defend the ban of certain books.Suicidejim said:
Really? Hollywood releases a handful of films every year, but everyone else produces a lot more.smearyllama said:
I sometimes walk past Indian stores and they have a metric ton of DVDs. Bollywood and other cities in India always have churn out loads of movies and they are rated.
I have always found that in books you can never really produce an image that offends the reader, this is not to say they are less graphic in any way it is just to say they way your mind structures a scene can not produce something you would consciously object to seeing.
You also can not produce any image that you have no knowledge of a 6 year old reading a pornographic romance can not picture what is described. combine this with the fact reading takes effort and that adult books are generally unreadable by kids as well as the simple lack of interest and the concern goes away.
You also can not produce any image that you have no knowledge of a 6 year old reading a pornographic romance can not picture what is described. combine this with the fact reading takes effort and that adult books are generally unreadable by kids as well as the simple lack of interest and the concern goes away.