Do children's books need age certificates?

The author GP Taylor appeared on BBC Breakfast yesterday to argue that that children's literature has become too frightening and should be marked with an age certification system. There was a debate a few years ago about age-ranging (see previous posts), and some publishers do now put guidance on the back covers of their books, but it was largely considered a bad idea. At least, however, it was guidance they were talking about and they weren't saying that no child under a certain age can read a certain book. Guidance is fine, as long as it is not totally prescriptive (and doesn't appear on the book cover to embarras the nine-year old whose favourite book is labelled 7+). Children develop and mature at different ages, both emotionally and in their ablity to read, so the same book can be enjoyed by different people at different stages. Librarians want to encourage young people to read, and telling them they are either too young or too old for a book is likely to hinder that process in my opinion.

The counter-argument was put by Patrick Ness who appeared on the BBC alongside Taylor. The Guardian published a summary of both sides and today has Charlie Higson arguing "Let's not revive this dead debate about reading ages on books." The debate has also spilled onto Twitter, between these three (@GPTAYLORAUTHOR, @Patrick_Ness and @monstroso) and others. Which side are you on? I'm with Ness and Higson, as you can probably tell - this seems to me to be verging on censorship. If you want guidance on children's books, either for your own children or for those you teach, ask someone who knows about them - but remember, you are the one who knows the child, and the child is the only one who knows for sure what he or she likes. You won't get expert advice if you buy books in the supermarket, but independent booksellers can help, or, of course - ask a librarian! There's a very sensible post on Voices for the Library which makes exactly that point.

Age related reading lists from NLT

Students often ask for age-related reading lists. The National Literacy Trust has recently updated its lists for age-groups 0-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13+. Check their website for these and many other useful resources:
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/search/45?qr=general+booklists&tags

Apologies for the lack of a hyperlink. I haven't used this blog for a while because I've been away on holiday and have come back to a completely changed interface on Google Blogger. There seems to be something up with it today as the formatting toolbar is obscured. Let's hope it's fixed next time!

Age ranging part 5

Time for another round-up on the campaign against age-ranging, which has its own site, No to Age Banding with lists of supporters and their comments. Perhaps the most impassioned is Philip Pullman's speech to The Society of Authors Conference. CILIP has also issued a statement in favour of the campaign which appears on the site, and which has generated some publicity in the Guardian and the Bookseller. More comment is forthcoming from the States, e.g. in Read Roger, the blog of the editor of The Horn Book magazine, Roger Sutton. While generally supportive, he's a bit critical of Pullman's speech, or "rhetorical pearls" as he puts it. Roger feels the speech is too much about the feelings of the authors and illustrators, whom Pullman calls "the people who matter most", and not enough about the feelings of the children who will be reading the books:

"They are the people who matter most in this question. They are the ones who will have to suffer walking around with a book they want to read but are officially too mature for; they are the ones who will be told "you aren't ready" for a book deemed Too Hard. The problem with the age-banding proposal is not that it ignores authors, it's that it ignores young readers."

It's difficult to fault that.

Age ranging part 4

The Education Librarians' Group (ELG) has come out against the idea of age guidance being printed on children's books. ELG chair Lucy Gildersleeves has made the following statement:

"We appreciate that some adults who wish to choose material for a child may be grateful for the guidance. We feel, however, that retailers already do a sufficient job of this kind of age banding via their shelf displays and that there are many suitable review guides which can offer advice for teachers.

It is ELG's opinion that such banding could easily embarrass and discourage readers who find their level is 'below' the indicated age - and equally it could hold back confident readers 'above' the level. We are familiar with the parental perception that "you can't read that because it's for older children". It is much more important that the needs and tastes of the individual child be considered - in libraries, in bookshops and by teachers - in line with the present educational commitment to a personalised approach, than applying a banding system that will either necessarily be too rigid or will have to be so encompassing to be too vague to be of any point.

We feel that publishers have experimented with this kind of banding in the past (and recall frustration at the time with what felt to us as readers 'wrong' targeting) and note that publishers dropped this attempt. We do not see the need to reintroduce it now, and that publishers seem to be confused about what they are really trying to achieve here."

You can also read the views of award-winning author Nicola Morgan on the BooksfromScotland.com website. She too is against age-ranging for many of the reasons outlined above, and thinks it's all just to make it easier for supermarkets to sell books. She gives some helpful suggestions for people who might not know how to choose books for children. Basically, go to a proper bookshop where there are staff trained to advise you. (Or of course, ask a librarian).

Age-ranging - part 3.

This argument simmers on. Authors campaigning against age ranging on children's books have found an unexpected ally in children's minister Ed Balls, who has raised doubts about the scheme and advised parents to seek expert guidance instead of relying on cover labels. Read about in in the article in the Guardian on September 12th. For parts 1 and 2 of this saga, click on the age-ranging label below.

Carnegie and Greenaway Medals

CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) awards the Carnegie Medal for an outstanding book for children and young people, and the Kate Greenaway Medal for an outstanding book in terms of illustration. Every year, thousands of schools shadow the medals and use the shadowing website to post reviews and share their views. Last year, a special site was added to celebrate 70 years of the medals with a living archive of information about all the past winners. This year's winners have just been announced: they are Philip Reeve and Emily Gravett.

Reeve won the Carnegie for his novel Here lies Arthur, a dark retelling of the Arthurian legend which portrays the king as more of a gangster than a hero, and Merlin (or Myrddin) as a hard nosed Alastair Campbell type who tries to build him up into a leader who can unite the British against the Saxons. The Telegraph published an article about the award last week. Reeve has already won three other major prizes, the Nestle Children's Gold Award (2002) and the Blue Peter Book of the Year (2003) for his first book, Mortal engines , and the Guardian Children's Fiction Prize in 2006 for A darkling plain. He has also entered the debate on age-ranging, which I have covered a couple of times. According to the Bookseller, he supports putting age guidance on books, which he feels will give him some say over where his titles are stocked in bookshops. Click here for those in stock at Jordanhill Library.

Gravett's award winning title is Little Mouse's big book of fears. The Guardian covered her on both June 27th and June 28th. One of the points of interest is that she used rat pee to discolour the pages of this book about a phobic mouse who eventually, after much nervous nibbling, feels better when he realises that even humans can be cowardy custards too. This is Gravett's fourth title - she also won the Greenaway medal for her debut picture book, Wolves. Again, check here for our holdings.

Age-ranging - part 2.

I blogged on 22nd April about the proposal to put suggested age-ranges on children's fiction books, which has turned out to be quite a controversial issue with many authors being against it. I added a PS to the original post with some reactions but feel there is enough now to add a second entry. In the Guardian (12/6/08, p. 37), Simon Juden writes that adults unfamiliar with children's books would welcome the guidance on content and age-ranging could both help them and boost sales. The Society of Authors has also entered the debate (Bookseller, 13/6/08, p.7), calling for age guidance plans to be temporarily suspended pending a review following on the authors revolt against them. Jonathan Douglas, Director of the National Literacy Trust, also has a perspective to offer. There'll be more to follow I'm sure.

And, PS, there is more. The Bookseller, 10th July, describes a recent meeting between the Publishers Association, the Society of Authors and Philip Pullman (on behalf of almost 3,000 signatories of the online statement "No to age banding" which now include J K Rowling). The two sides presented conflicting research into the issue - the SoA said that 77% of authors were against age guidance, while publishers insisted that 75% of authors have agreed to it.

Age-ranging of children's fiction

The vast majority of children's publishers, including Penguin, Scholastic and HarperCollins amongst others, have backed plans to introduce age guidance for children's books from this autumn. A black and white design will appear on the back of books, near the barcode, with one of the categories 5+, 7+, 9+, 11+ or 13+/teen. These categories indicate reading level interest rather than ability - for more details, see the article Age-ranging gets the thumbs up from the current edition of the Bookseller.

As a PS to this, it appears that many authors are not at all keen on the idea. See Age guidance prompts author rebellion, also from the Bookseller (3/6/08) and Classification dismissed (Guardian, 6/6/08). However, Publishers press on with age guidance (Bookseller, 4/6/08). Watch this space!