Monday Guest Blog by Lisa
June 16, 2008
< Shelly the tortoise says: “NO TO AGEIST AGE BANDING!” Well, he looks like he could be saying that…
The debate about age-banding on children’s books is everywhere right now. Philip Pullman, Michael Rosen and Michael Morpurgo are firmly against the idea, and Darren Shan too has had a lot to say on the subject. Many children are also having their say on the CBBC Newsround pages.
Although age banding won’t affect the books I write, it will affect the books I read. I’m not comfortable with age ‘branding’, and I think stickers on the fronts or backs of books with “Age 8-10″ or “Age 11-13″ emblazoned on them would be ridiculous. Some authors are hopeful that it will be discreet 8+ etc, on an inside page of the book. I suppose we will have to wait and see regarding the exact details, which might well change over the coming weeks.
I signed the petition at No to Age Banding, as I hate the idea that age banding is going to be pushed on the authors who are absolutely against it. Now, Darren Shan says that after categorically refusing, his publishers have agreed to leave age-banding off his titles, but Darren Shan has clout, he’s sold ten million books. What about the authors with less influence? Will they be given a choice, or will the choice only be given to those who are considered too valuable to upset?
My view is that if each author is genuinely allowed to choose whether or not age banding is put on their books (without pressure to conform to what the publisher wants), then okay. But some booksellers are already saying that it would be confusing to have some books with age banding and some without, and therefore giving authors a choice would be No Good. But if some bestselling authors will be getting a choice anyway, we’ll already have a two-tier system, so why not offer that choice to everyone, irrespective of how much profit the publishers are making out of them?
Here is an extract from the article Darren Shan published on Vulpes Libris:
Several weeks ago, I heard from my publisher that “the industry” had decided to implement age branding, because someone did a survey which stated it would be good for the business, and that authors would sell more books because of it. I immediately objected and said I didn’t want any age branding on my books. I was going to make my objections public at the time, but kept quiet because I was hoping that if enough writers objected to their publishers, that the idea would be dropped like the stupid, harmful, insulting hot potato that it is. (I’m still stunned by the fact that no writers were included in the decision-making process!!!) I never like having to have a go at publishers in public, and I was hoping they would see sense and spare themselves the embarrassment of starting a public war with their authors. Unfortunately they don’t seem to have taken the hint and are still pushing ahead with age branding. So I can hold my peace no longer!!!
I am 100% against age branding, as I see it as (a) a very stupid idea, (b) a definite, irrevocable step towards censorship, and (c) a way for publishers to exert even more control over their authors, to make writers conform to THEIR idea of what a book should be, how it should be pitched and marketed, and – even more crucially and worryingly – how it should be written in the first place. I think it’s very telling that authors were not asked about this in advance of the “decision” being made — I just got an email one day telling me it was going ahead. My response? Well, to quote the late Charlton Heston, “from my cold, dead hands!!!” I refused point-blank to allow age branding be put on my books. And my publishers, HarperCollins, to their credit, respected my stance and have agreed not to put any branding on my books.
Of course, not everyone is against age banding. Mark Thwaite at the Book Depository speaks from another position.
Children are as likely to “dumb-up” as dumb-down with regards to age range — wanting to read older books to be more grown-up. If they stick to age-appropriate books that just shows how useful the branding is!
The fact that it is over-prescriptive is silly: you aren’t going to be prevented from buying any particular title, you are just going to be given a little bit more guidance as to whether what you are buying is considered, on average, to be the kind of thing that most children of a particular age enjoy and can cope with.
I’ve seen a fair bit of the book industry and I know lots of writers, and I can’t help feeling that in this industry many authors don’t feel particularly valued. In fact, at times I’d say that authors are treated as if they are the lowest of the low. Even if I thought age banding was a good idea (which I don’t) it would still make my heart glad to see authors making a stand together, taking on the powers that be and demanding a say. Good luck to them.
Hey Lisa,
Nice piece — and thanks for linking to my blog article on all this …
Actually, I’m not particular passionate either way about this! And I’d quite happily change my position (which is, in effect, I can’t see the harm and, if anything, it looks like a sensible and potentially useful idea to me) if I saw some good arguments marshalled against the proposal.
But all I’ve seen is panic from those against the idea and precious little substance. Even what you’ve chosen to quote above (from Darren) doesn’t stack up.
Darren states his three reasons against: “(a) a very stupid idea, (b) a definite, irrevocable step towards censorship, and (c) a way for publishers to exert even more control over their authors”
Well, a) isn’t a reason, b) isn’t true or needs to be fully substantiated (censorship is about stopping us reading things; this is a proposal to help guide children to reading more things — even if flawed, it certainly isn’t censorship) and c) seems to me to be very arguable too. At the very least as authors and publishers are both in the game of getting more books sold then “control” seems to be besides the point.
But, as I say, I’m happy to be converted!
Hi Mark
Thanks for commenting! We’re such a new blog and it’s really nice to see new faces here.
I quoted your column because I think you make good points there. However, I keep thinking that if there had been more in the way of author consultation then a lot of this outcry might have been avoided. It’s possible that many authors wouldn’t much mind a discreet symbol inside their books, perhaps something like Barrington Stoke use. I don’t know.
Now that this has been presented as a done deal, I think authors are terrified of what might be to come: obtrusive age stickers, for instance. Some sort of discussion to begin with might have found common ground.
I do think there’s a culture in which the author is always the last to know, and this seems to have been the case here.
I thought the remarks of the children on the CBBC Newsround site were interesting too. If it does turn out that most of the kids don’t want age banding, and most of the authors don’t want it either, what then? But then maybe those opinions will be deemed beside the point. Perhaps it’s one of those executive decisions of the ilk: ‘Like it or lump it, unless you’re very important to us,’ which is a poor attitude in my view.
Really interested to hear any other opinions on this too.
P.S We at Two Ravens Blog would love you forever if you’d add us to your list of publisher blogs ;)
Absolutely agree that authors should have been consulted first.
And agree, too, that kids’ opinions should be taken into account. (But I would’ve thought this was most useful to teachers/librarians/guardians so the kids opinions don’t count for everything here.)
And, yes, subtlety over great big dobbing stickers anyday!
But none of the above means that a well-run scheme of age-branding couldn’t prove to be useful …
Oh, have added your blog to Editor’s Corner blogroll on The Book Depository site now too!
Thanks Mark! You’re a gem :)
Slipping in here to say that I’m kind of on the same wavelength as Mark on this issue in that I don’t feel terribly strongly about it either way but I don’t really see the harm in it. I live in a country (France)that has age-banding on some children’s books (Bayard and Gallimard are two publishers that spring to mind) and I don’t find it a problem. I think it’s most useful for people who don’t have children as opposed to parents who know their children well.
Just a few points; I find the idea of age-banding more helpful for unknown writers than for well-known ones in that it gives some notion about a book that you’ve heard nothing about as opposed to the ones like the Harry Potter books or the Tom-Tom and Nana series (very popular French comic-type books)which are a lot easier to position.
Secondly, in my experience, there’s very little peer pressure between children about age-banding. I don’t think reading as an activity is considered cool enough to merit peer pressure. The pressure is much more likely to be between parents; they say things like “My little Johnny adores Harry Potter” (although Johnny is only 6) in a loud voice to emphasise how brilliant their child is but children themselves are really only interested in a good (and, in our house, preferably funny) story.
Finally, people have compared the age-banding of books to ages on films but one big difference is that for films it’s the content that being assessed but for books it’s the reading difficulty of the language used.
Mary, that’s really interesting. I had heard that age banding was in use in France, but I didn’t realise it was only on some children’s books. I suppose that indicates that it doesn’t necessarily have to be an all or nothing scenario.
I do wonder if content will come into it, mind you. Could it be that it won’t just be about difficulty of language in the book, but could also come to be about whether certain events/experiences are present in that book?
For instance, I was talking with a friend about the way that some children react to death in novels – obviously there are children that react very badly to the death of characters. For instance, some children were so distraught at Hedwig’s death in the final Harry Potter that they couldn’t read on. And I remember really breaking my heart when Matthew died in Anne of Green Gables. I have a feeling that books might well be banded according to their content. Really hard to make those sorts of decisions, I’d have thought. Who would decide? If it did happen that books with potentially upsetting deaths of characters were deemed age appropriate for say, I don’t know, 9+, I can imagine that having an influence on the choices that the author makes.
I know I keep saying it but if all of this had been discussed in advance, authors would have been able to ask relevant questions and perhaps things wouldn’t have become so heated. Presenting age banding as a fait accompli was not a fair way to go about this, I feel.
Lisa, I’m pretty sure that age-banding here is based entirely on reading capability rather than on content although I’m sure that authors do tend to adjust in some ways their content to the age-group they are writing for. Content is difficult though. I don’t think my children would have a big problem with death for example because it’s not very real for them yet but different things will disturb different children and it’s not easy to know if you don’t know the children very well. My own personal approach to this is that I don’t need to censor books as much as images because I think it’s easier for a child to stop reading and close a book if something disturbs them whereas sometimes they can be frozen in fear in front of a TV unable to react to stop the flow of images. For example recently on Youtube my daughter and I were listening to music and one song – La Corrida by F. Cabrel – denounces bullfighting and was set to an actual bullfight. She wanted to see it but after a minute or two I had to intervene and stop it because she was getting very upset. I don’t think a book would be the same because there’s a participative element and if the child doesn’t want to participate any more it’s easier for them to pull out.
Sorry for the ramble but I do agree that this furore might have been averted if authors had been consulted more.