With the topic of banning still lurking in my mind, something came to me.
Why don't authors or publishers have those age-group ratings on their books that games and movies have- you know, those "Rated E for Everyone, M for Mature, PG-13, and Viewer Discretion is Advised things?" If games and movies, two major forms of media that actual SHOW inappropriate images and SAY inappropriate things in them are let off the hook because they have age-group ratings, why do books take such a large brunt of the criticism?
No, this may not be a solution and yes, there are many other things to consider but really, why not books?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, they should have a rating "C for controversial".... but then book critics would not be able to criticize about anything! They would go jobless, and then our economy would falter because of this loss of jobs. It is also important to consider the impact on young readers. A rating system would undoubtedly put restrictions on eager young readers' minds. Our future generation would be unable to explore the touchy issues as we can debate about today. Lastly, a rating system would put more strain on our taxes, because Canada would have to establish an organization for the sake of these ratings, and these organizations would need money to operate.
ReplyDeleteIf we consider all of these issues that arise, I think it is safe to assume that books should not have ratings.
In response to what Henry said, I do not think that people would really be restricted by a rating system. Many children watch movies that are rated beyond their age group, but they watch it anyways. Games like COD and CS that are rated teens always have 8 year olds playing them. I think that it is the forbidden that actually attract people.
ReplyDeleteYea, I was going to say what Ray said, just because there is a rating system doesn't mean you are not allowed to read the book. It's like video games and movies like Ray said, they still do it. The ratings only act as a warning before you read the book so you can expect something inappropriate along the way. Critics should not lose their jobs because there is a rating system, what you said, Henry, in my opinion doesn't make sense. Movies and games have ratings but critics still rate games and critique them? Critiquing a book is about the content of it, a rating only gives a sense of the age or maturity of the reader, therefore should not interfere with the jobs of book critics.
ReplyDeleteRay, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I first agree that there should be ratings, but then proceed to point out all the negative aspects from implementing ratings, and conclude by saying that having no ratings for books is still the best idea.
ReplyDeleteWesley, I will not deny that my first argument is absurd. As I was typing, I thought that book critics criticize, not critique. But alas, I was obviously wrong.
But in case if you were wondering about my thought process was, here it is:
1 Assume that books have ratings.
2 Hence, approved books have no controversial or outstanding material that can be discussed in great lengths or criticized.
3 Assume that book critics criticize (bear with me here)
4. Therefore, if there is already a rating system, and if what's controversial and critical has already been stated, then critics have nothing left to criticize.
Obviously, my logic is flawed. As you appropriately pointed out, Critiquing a book is about the content of it, a rating only gives a sense of the age or maturity of the reader.
So book critics wont go hungry then, I apologize. :[