Society today largely revolves around children, and perhaps too much. In the entertainment world, children are restricted from certain themes or content, but whereas films have age restrictions and music has parental guidance stickers, books lack any external content information system. Yet are we protecting them too much anyway? An audience member commented that the idea of keeping children in a protected bubble is an adult construct with no grounds in reality - in other words, children are already exposed to 'adult' content far more than is often admitted. C J validated this with tales of her own experience - when researching her books, she spent a lot of time listening to teenagers in public, and said it was "an education". They are discussing themes and using language that many parents would like to think they are ignorant of. She also made the point that ratings are really for the parents rather than the child; they exist so the parent can be aware of what the child is consuming, but kids will read, watch and listen to things regardless - if their friends are doing it, they'll do it too, with or without an age restriction.
 |
| C J Daugherty and Dinah Hall discussing a ratings system for teen fiction |
I'm always cynical about rating systems because they seem to me to be inequitably applied at best, and potentially harmful.
ReplyDeleteLet's be frank: this system will most likely be used to warn that the contents contain sex, or references to homosexuality. Graphic violence will, as always, be perfectly acceptable as will criminal behavior, aside from recreational drug use. It will likely be applied to books which have "strong language." (One wonders if "Huck Finn" will find itself labeled in such a fashion.)
Has the "Parental Advisory" system for music in the United States done anything beyond spawn a t-shirt industry? The only thing this system "protects" children from is hearing the same sort of language they hear around them every day. As Dee Snyder so eloquently testified before the senate, a panel reading a lyric outside of its context cannot accurately judge whether or not a piece is something children should not be exposed to.
If we look at books which most commonly get objections/protests (and would likely find themselves slapped with that dreary label) it is almost always ideological objections, which-- frankly-- often have little or no actual merit, such as concerns that "Harry Potter" is teaching "witchcraft" or that high schoolers' minds are too delicate to take the strain of seeing the "N word" in Mark Twain's novels. Sadly, it is the objections of a tiny minority which sometimes control what the vast majority will have access to. These labels will simply make it easier to accomplish the goal of censorship. "See? It has a warning label from the publisher!"
They also may cause retailers or libraries to refuse to carry the work, a practical form of censorship which can have very real consequences for those in rural areas with no other access to bookstores, or the poor who rely on libraries as their only source of reading material.
The cynical side of me wants to call labels like these "shortcut parenting." Parents who are truly concerned about what their child is reading will sit down and read the book themselves before deciding if it's appropriate for their kid, rather than relying on a label which may or may not reflect their family's values.
Lastly, the labels are ineffective at protecting the very target audience they're deigned for. If mom refuses to buy a book for Little Janey because of the label, it doesn't mean Little Janey will prudently follow Mom's judgement and eschew the book. It will likely make her more determined to read it. (I recently read a lovely little inspiring tale of a high school student who started a "banned books" library in an empty locker next to her own. The kids were eager to read the books that were deemed too filthy for them and discovered a passion for reading in the process.) Little Janey may also turn to piracy to secretly acquire a copy, which could have legal and financial repercussions for the whole family.
Thanks for your thoughts Lissa. I'm in complete agreement with you.
Delete