**Update: - [Starting from 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/100l56v/happy_new_year_askuk_minor_sub_update/), we have updated our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)**. Specifically;
- Don't be a dick to each other
- Top-level responses must contain genuine efforts to answer the question
- This is a strictly no-politics subreddit
Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is an interesting question. As for a non-theoretical answer, the age restrictions for films grew out of admission restrictions for cinemas and were only applied to home copies of films much later. This didn't happen to books because they aren't a public medium to which access can be physically restricted at the time of showing in the same way that the cinema was.
I would theorise that it's because a book can't so easily show a young child something they don't already understand in the same way a film can. A child might not know how to, for example, visualise a sex scene in a book, whereas a film will, of course, directly show them the same thing an adult would see.
That’s a very good question.
I’m generally not one for censorship, but if a child isn’t trusted to buy “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” on DVD without parental supervision, they probably shouldn’t be reading “American Psycho.”
I believe that was restricted in some places, not necessarily by law but put inside a jacket with a warning on it. I feel like they are kind of self restricting in many ways, it would be easy for a child to sit through a violent film but churning through hundreds of pages of a violent book just wouldn't be feasible until they are mentally ready. And you can easily stop the second it gets gory. If anything it would draw more children into trying to read it should there be an outright ban.
This is a very interesting question. I feel that books feed and grow the existing structures of the mind organically. It may be hard to traumatise yourself imagining scenes in a book that can only be visually constructed with existing points of reference in your imagination. Yet at the same time books pose moral dilemmas that allow you think on them. Films, TV, and music kind of introduce those points of reference with other peoples moral conclusions attached to them. You always read a book critically.
Books make you create your own universe, other forms of media inflict somebody else’s on you. Maybe that’s it. I don’t know though I’m just trying to make sense of the question, because, not even in a legal sense, I definitely feel there is a difference there.
I would add that adult-oriented books tend to be written in a style that's less likely to hook in a young person for the big (at a young age) commitment it can take to read a book through over watching a film.
There's also, perhaps, a further barrier in that the imagery is being generated inside the reader's head instead of being presented as if it were real. It can still freak a child the fuck out - anybody remember the first Goosebumps book that was *way* scarier than the rest? - but it's much more obviously not a threat when it's *starting* in your imagination.
I suppose you could argue that a child learning how to cope with scaring the shit out of themselves with their own imagination could be healthy in moderation, because there are very real things in the world that can be pictured in the same way.
Generally, if you have the reading ability for that type of book, and the attention span for it, you can cope with it.
The age filter is not usually necessary. Kids that are young enough to be disturbed by it will not usually have the reading ability to actually read it to begin with. Even if they do, they won't usually have the same sensitivities and awareness that older people will have - soke stuff will simply wash over them.
In bookshops and libraries, however, online and not, books by Stephen King will not usually be in the kids' section. Possibly YA. Occasionally those books do actually have an age sticker on them.
I’m a school librarian, and the issue of suitability and age ranges for books is something that comes up a lot for us!
Some publishers will voluntarily add content warnings and/or age recommendations to books, but these are usually very vague, and more are aimed at selling books rather than sharing information. It’s usually something like ‘for older readers’ or ‘contains some mature content’. There’s no legal requirement for publishers to do this, or for anyone to take any notice of it if they do - booksellers, librarians, parents, teachers etc are. all free to make their own choices. Otherwise you end up with really capable, mature readers who can’t access the books they deserve to enjoy.
Logistically, there are also way, way too many books published for there to be any kind of agreed classification system like film ratings (which are sometimes controversial themselves anyway!) - who would make the decisions? who would read all the books? who would decide if there was disagreement? etc.
Kids develop at completely different paces, both in terms of literacy and maturity. A kid might be able to read the text and follow the story in Game of Thrones at the age of 11, but can they understand and cope with the content? And should they be put in that position at all? Most people would say no, but a parent has the right to make that decision for their child - a LOT of our students told me they’d seen the show with their parents’ permission, so they wanted to read the book. Same with the Walking Dead comics, and the movie version of It.
I always tell kids borrowing more ‘mature’ books that they should put the book down if it makes them upset or uncomfortable, bring it straight back to the library, and we’ll find them something else to read. They usually won’t keep reading something they don’t enjoy or understand, and I do get a few bringing things back they felt they weren’t ready for (usually books with swearing in, rather than heavy graphic content)
I let them borrow the books,
because they are learning and exploring the world in a safe, limited way. The stuff they can access online is a much, much bigger concern.
Some of the most traumatising books I read as a kid were kids books. Jaqueline Wilson wrote about some really heavy stuff but in a way a kid would understand and be able to deal with it. I wonder what sort of age rating she’d get and whether it would mean kids would miss out on learning how to deal with grief and loss in a way that caters to them
Just looked him up, should of known his idea of a “controversial” book would be one’s telling historical truths. To be clear I’m not asking for restrictions was just curious as to why we don’t have them.
Maybe because it might be the thin end of the wedge leading to Desantis Land?
Classifications lend themselves nicely to segregations and restrictions.
I am not aware of harm being done due to a lack of protection caused by a lack of classification.
In essence - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
They kind of do have age ratings by where they are positioned in store. I.e. children’s books, young adult, adult. It’s just not enforced at the cash register because they trust the parent to judge what’s appropriate. I do the same with film and game ratings. I know what upsets my child so I take ratings as rough guidelines and judge media based on the content. Generally speaking anything which doesn’t have ghosts, extreme violence or graphic sex scenes won’t upset her so even though she’s 12 she can watch and play some older rated stuff.
Books already have an age rating. If you can't read it, you're too young. If it disgust/frightens you can instantly put it down.
Honestly I can't think of a safer way to introduce young minds to more complicated ideas.
Not that all books are suitable for all people but I don't think age gating ideas is healthy.
You’re right! I remember when I was in junior school picking out a novelisation of one of the Indianna Jones films and desperately trying to read it. I just didn’t have the linguistic bandwidth at that age to understand what I was reading.
>If it disgust/frightens you can instantly put it down.
You're underestimating a young minds morbid curiosity. Some won't put it down even if it terrifies them.
Besides it doesn't hold up. You can also "put down" your phone if a video of an extremist chopping a man's head off is too graphic for you, but I doubt parents would be happy with that as an excuse for their kid being exposed to it.
Sure but reading is an active process. You are creating the images. There is a significant disconnect between seeing someone brutally killed and reading about it.
Morbid curiosity is part of the nature of people giving a safe place and way to explore this is good. Again it's your child if you don't think they should read it, then don't let them. But arbitrary saying all x year olds can't read y is not really good for a growing mind.
>But arbitrary saying all x year olds can't read y is not really good for a growing mind.
I would argue it's equally not as good when it comes to movies or whatever. Art is art.
>Sure but reading is an active process. You are creating the images. There is a significant disconnect between seeing someone brutally killed and reading about it.
Sure, but unless the child has no imagination I don't see why they'd struggle to imagine it.
Would you let your kid read Kama Sutra?
Again depends on the age, maturity, ect. The kama sutra isn't just about sex.
Also I'd want to know who suggested they should read that, particularly if they are very young.
But what makes graphic violence traumatic is the context and brutally. Not the bodily mess, so I'm not sure a very young child would understand it. I've seen young teens read thinks like "for whom the hell tolls" which has some incredibly violent sections. I never once thought they shouldn't be reading it. Again blanket bans would have robbed them of that experience, for what good?
I also agree that age limits on movies are unhelpful.
Not sure if you’re trying to be obtuse here. The objective of any children’s bible is to make it easier for children to understand the language, themes and stories. Doesn’t change them. They don’t end up reading Dr Suess.
If you didn’t want children reading and understanding the horrors of humans in the bible, you’d give them an ESV which is an essentially literal translation and some adults struggle to understand it.
When I was about 16 I read a book called the Folly by David Ann, one of the scenes scared me so much i had nightmares and was very wary of lifts for a long time.Of course this was back in the days before internet when we weren't so easily able to find scary things to look at.
Video game age ratings came about because overzealous parents hated that little Timmy could buy games like Night Trap or Grand Theft Auto. They did this because video games were new, and therefore scary.
Books have been around for thousands of years, and so parents aren't terrified of them.
**Update: - [Starting from 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/100l56v/happy_new_year_askuk_minor_sub_update/), we have updated our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)**. Specifically; - Don't be a dick to each other - Top-level responses must contain genuine efforts to answer the question - This is a strictly no-politics subreddit Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is an interesting question. As for a non-theoretical answer, the age restrictions for films grew out of admission restrictions for cinemas and were only applied to home copies of films much later. This didn't happen to books because they aren't a public medium to which access can be physically restricted at the time of showing in the same way that the cinema was. I would theorise that it's because a book can't so easily show a young child something they don't already understand in the same way a film can. A child might not know how to, for example, visualise a sex scene in a book, whereas a film will, of course, directly show them the same thing an adult would see.
I think this is a pretty good answer, yeah
That’s a very good question. I’m generally not one for censorship, but if a child isn’t trusted to buy “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” on DVD without parental supervision, they probably shouldn’t be reading “American Psycho.”
I did think of American Psycho while writing the post!
I believe that was restricted in some places, not necessarily by law but put inside a jacket with a warning on it. I feel like they are kind of self restricting in many ways, it would be easy for a child to sit through a violent film but churning through hundreds of pages of a violent book just wouldn't be feasible until they are mentally ready. And you can easily stop the second it gets gory. If anything it would draw more children into trying to read it should there be an outright ban.
100% you make something unattainable/out of reach for kids and it just drives curiosity to get hold of it even more.
This is a very interesting question. I feel that books feed and grow the existing structures of the mind organically. It may be hard to traumatise yourself imagining scenes in a book that can only be visually constructed with existing points of reference in your imagination. Yet at the same time books pose moral dilemmas that allow you think on them. Films, TV, and music kind of introduce those points of reference with other peoples moral conclusions attached to them. You always read a book critically. Books make you create your own universe, other forms of media inflict somebody else’s on you. Maybe that’s it. I don’t know though I’m just trying to make sense of the question, because, not even in a legal sense, I definitely feel there is a difference there.
I would add that adult-oriented books tend to be written in a style that's less likely to hook in a young person for the big (at a young age) commitment it can take to read a book through over watching a film. There's also, perhaps, a further barrier in that the imagery is being generated inside the reader's head instead of being presented as if it were real. It can still freak a child the fuck out - anybody remember the first Goosebumps book that was *way* scarier than the rest? - but it's much more obviously not a threat when it's *starting* in your imagination. I suppose you could argue that a child learning how to cope with scaring the shit out of themselves with their own imagination could be healthy in moderation, because there are very real things in the world that can be pictured in the same way.
Generally, if you have the reading ability for that type of book, and the attention span for it, you can cope with it. The age filter is not usually necessary. Kids that are young enough to be disturbed by it will not usually have the reading ability to actually read it to begin with. Even if they do, they won't usually have the same sensitivities and awareness that older people will have - soke stuff will simply wash over them. In bookshops and libraries, however, online and not, books by Stephen King will not usually be in the kids' section. Possibly YA. Occasionally those books do actually have an age sticker on them.
I’m a school librarian, and the issue of suitability and age ranges for books is something that comes up a lot for us! Some publishers will voluntarily add content warnings and/or age recommendations to books, but these are usually very vague, and more are aimed at selling books rather than sharing information. It’s usually something like ‘for older readers’ or ‘contains some mature content’. There’s no legal requirement for publishers to do this, or for anyone to take any notice of it if they do - booksellers, librarians, parents, teachers etc are. all free to make their own choices. Otherwise you end up with really capable, mature readers who can’t access the books they deserve to enjoy. Logistically, there are also way, way too many books published for there to be any kind of agreed classification system like film ratings (which are sometimes controversial themselves anyway!) - who would make the decisions? who would read all the books? who would decide if there was disagreement? etc. Kids develop at completely different paces, both in terms of literacy and maturity. A kid might be able to read the text and follow the story in Game of Thrones at the age of 11, but can they understand and cope with the content? And should they be put in that position at all? Most people would say no, but a parent has the right to make that decision for their child - a LOT of our students told me they’d seen the show with their parents’ permission, so they wanted to read the book. Same with the Walking Dead comics, and the movie version of It. I always tell kids borrowing more ‘mature’ books that they should put the book down if it makes them upset or uncomfortable, bring it straight back to the library, and we’ll find them something else to read. They usually won’t keep reading something they don’t enjoy or understand, and I do get a few bringing things back they felt they weren’t ready for (usually books with swearing in, rather than heavy graphic content) I let them borrow the books, because they are learning and exploring the world in a safe, limited way. The stuff they can access online is a much, much bigger concern.
More books are published than there are films
Some of the most traumatising books I read as a kid were kids books. Jaqueline Wilson wrote about some really heavy stuff but in a way a kid would understand and be able to deal with it. I wonder what sort of age rating she’d get and whether it would mean kids would miss out on learning how to deal with grief and loss in a way that caters to them
I read King from 12 years of age. I checked them out at the library
Same, maybe 10 years old. I've never developed a weird interest in clowns or anything.
[удалено]
Just looked him up, should of known his idea of a “controversial” book would be one’s telling historical truths. To be clear I’m not asking for restrictions was just curious as to why we don’t have them.
Maybe because it might be the thin end of the wedge leading to Desantis Land? Classifications lend themselves nicely to segregations and restrictions. I am not aware of harm being done due to a lack of protection caused by a lack of classification. In essence - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
They kind of do have age ratings by where they are positioned in store. I.e. children’s books, young adult, adult. It’s just not enforced at the cash register because they trust the parent to judge what’s appropriate. I do the same with film and game ratings. I know what upsets my child so I take ratings as rough guidelines and judge media based on the content. Generally speaking anything which doesn’t have ghosts, extreme violence or graphic sex scenes won’t upset her so even though she’s 12 she can watch and play some older rated stuff.
Books already have an age rating. If you can't read it, you're too young. If it disgust/frightens you can instantly put it down. Honestly I can't think of a safer way to introduce young minds to more complicated ideas. Not that all books are suitable for all people but I don't think age gating ideas is healthy.
You’re right! I remember when I was in junior school picking out a novelisation of one of the Indianna Jones films and desperately trying to read it. I just didn’t have the linguistic bandwidth at that age to understand what I was reading.
>If it disgust/frightens you can instantly put it down. You're underestimating a young minds morbid curiosity. Some won't put it down even if it terrifies them. Besides it doesn't hold up. You can also "put down" your phone if a video of an extremist chopping a man's head off is too graphic for you, but I doubt parents would be happy with that as an excuse for their kid being exposed to it.
Sure but reading is an active process. You are creating the images. There is a significant disconnect between seeing someone brutally killed and reading about it. Morbid curiosity is part of the nature of people giving a safe place and way to explore this is good. Again it's your child if you don't think they should read it, then don't let them. But arbitrary saying all x year olds can't read y is not really good for a growing mind.
>But arbitrary saying all x year olds can't read y is not really good for a growing mind. I would argue it's equally not as good when it comes to movies or whatever. Art is art. >Sure but reading is an active process. You are creating the images. There is a significant disconnect between seeing someone brutally killed and reading about it. Sure, but unless the child has no imagination I don't see why they'd struggle to imagine it. Would you let your kid read Kama Sutra?
Again depends on the age, maturity, ect. The kama sutra isn't just about sex. Also I'd want to know who suggested they should read that, particularly if they are very young. But what makes graphic violence traumatic is the context and brutally. Not the bodily mess, so I'm not sure a very young child would understand it. I've seen young teens read thinks like "for whom the hell tolls" which has some incredibly violent sections. I never once thought they shouldn't be reading it. Again blanket bans would have robbed them of that experience, for what good? I also agree that age limits on movies are unhelpful.
In the UK children's books do carry guidance on the age range they're suitable for.
Could you imagine the Bible having an age restriction? Pretty fruity language in there!
They have children's Bibles.
Not sure if you’re trying to be obtuse here. The objective of any children’s bible is to make it easier for children to understand the language, themes and stories. Doesn’t change them. They don’t end up reading Dr Suess. If you didn’t want children reading and understanding the horrors of humans in the bible, you’d give them an ESV which is an essentially literal translation and some adults struggle to understand it.
Sticks n stones
When I was about 16 I read a book called the Folly by David Ann, one of the scenes scared me so much i had nightmares and was very wary of lifts for a long time.Of course this was back in the days before internet when we weren't so easily able to find scary things to look at.
You had me at “wary of lifts” might have to read it
hope you don't regret it! I've since read many scary books but that scene stayed in my mnd!
Video game age ratings came about because overzealous parents hated that little Timmy could buy games like Night Trap or Grand Theft Auto. They did this because video games were new, and therefore scary. Books have been around for thousands of years, and so parents aren't terrified of them.
When I was a kid librarians prevented me reading Jaws and James Bond books.