Good for Jo! I can’t believe there are places that STILL don’t have the 7th book. I’d die if that were me.

I agree with Jo (and Pullman who’s also against the band), it’s basically saying ‘you’re too young’ to read a certain novel. I mean, I can see that there’s a fine line between say, Harry Potter and a harlequin but otherwise it’s unfair to children who might be on a higher reading level than their peers. Just imagine sorcerer’s stone might be rated 7+ and then what is a 7 year old going to do when their parents see that order of the phoenix is 11+ when the kid gets to it?

I agree that age bands shouldn’t be on books. I know a few people who will tease others if they read ‘children’s books’ (I am talking about 15 year olds) and having it printed on the cover will make the whole issue even worse. I for one enjoy reading both adult novels and young adult novels such as His Dark Materials or Harry Potter and I think these age bands could get people down about the books they want to read.

I agree with jo! I really hate buying books that say like Ages 8-12 on the shelf! It’s so not right!

Why not let parents decide which books are appropriate for their kids?

Any idea how much that is in US dollars?

Unlike video games or movies, books tend to have their own age limitations built in, which I think people outside of education wouldn’t recognize. Vocabulary is the biggest limitation – just because a child can decode a word doesn’t mean they understand it. Not until they have seen the word in context a few times would they understand the meaning. And with such limited life experiences, a 6 year old is just not going to be able to fully understand the deeper context in Pullman’s or even Rowling’s books. You can only take from a book an understanding at the level you can handle. A lot of kids that read Harry Potter, especially the books later in the series, at age 8 or 9 will go back and re-read them at 18 and find that there’s a whole different level to the books that they missed the first time. It’s one of the reasons why those books appeal to such a wide audience.

I also agree with Jo regarding the age bands. I think it discourages kids from reading more difficult books because they may be intimidated by an age band that is marked for an age older than their own and could lead some parents to think that the material may be inappropriate for their child’s age when it really isn’t. I think it also discourages kids in that a child who doesn’t have “average” reading skills for their age group may decide to just not read at all rather than to risk being made fun of for reading a book marked for a younger age.

I can see why Jo is against it; her books were written for children but have a massive adult following.

I also think that, whatever its original intentions, it is a step towards censorship and may prevent more children from branching out beyond their age range or experimenting, as well as discouraging people from reading perfectly good books because of a low age rating. This shows the modern tendency to stick everyone into the same narrow little pigeonholes, or even ‘nanny state’ syndrome. I know it’s not meant as more than a guide to parents but what happens when shopkeepers start to become afraid of selling higher age rated books to younger children in case their parents sue them? And how can a teenager progress onto adult books that are perfectly suitable for them? I for one was reading (or having books read to me) adult books from the age of 11-15, some of them at school even; ‘1984’ at age 14 for example.

” a 6 year old is just not going to be able to fully understand the deeper context in Pullman’s or even Rowling’s books.”

i agree with kim on this point, in fact i know a few adults who don’t understand the deeper context of these books. which is why we should choose books based on the individual persons level of understanding, not there age.

Age bands can only hold people back. It is up to the maturity and personal skill of the reader what they choose to read. In the case of Harry Potter, there has been much discrimination of age as it is called a children’s series, when the later books especially have material that will present itself in different ways once a person reaches adulthood. It is simple enough for a child or an older reader to decide whether they are of proper age to read a book. It is too individual a process to be held back by labels.

As a parent, I completely agree with Jo and others on this. I think putting age bands on books would cause kids on levels to not read as much. Those kids who read on a lower level than their peers might stop reading. Parents of children who read on a higher level might not think the book is appropriate for their child if they were just going on that alone.

I think it’s a parent’s responsibility to choose their child’s book based on what is needed for that child. Age bands would only be a hindrance.

The whole age banding thing just sounds like an incredible waste of time and resources to me. I mean honestly, you’re going to create an entire beauracracy just to say that a book is suitable for a 9-year-old but not a 7-year-old? Give me a break.

I say having them divided up between children’s/young adult/adult is good enough. And even that much is deceptive. Take movies for example. Some G-rated movies are great movies regardless of your age. Of course you wouldn’t want a 7-year-old reading an extremely adult novel, but a parent can stop that from happening, not an age band.

Age bands wouldn’t do a thing except confuse everyone and waste resources.

I don’t quite see the age bands as such a big problem? Don’t most books often have an advised age on the back? Anyone can still buy it, can’t they?

When I went to buy, say, ‘His Dark Materials’, I had to go to the children’s section as well…?