it is bulls##t.Now rate it!

June 5, 2008 12:24 am | link

wow thats horrible!

June 5, 2008 1:08 am | link

I am completely with Pullman on this one. I think that’s just completely ridiculous to have age groups for literature.

June 5, 2008 2:34 am | link

It is the responsibility of parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to read, not a publisher. So a child of 10 shouldn’t read a book intended for 11+???

June 5, 2008 6:21 am | link

This is ridiculous.

June 5, 2008 2:54 pm | link

I would like to know what silly people are behind this useless idea, and what their motivation is. And is it just Scholastic that is planning this?

Go to “notoagebanding.org” to sign up and show you reject age banding for books.

June 6, 2008 7:37 am | link

Hasn’t anyone else accidentally stumbled on content far too old for them at the time? “The Mists of Avalon” was completely ruined for me because I read it before I was ready for that kind of content, and had no way of knowing what was coming. I always took the age recommendations to be *recommendations* rather than requirements, and frequently read things marked for older kids. My parents kept an eye on what I was reading, and occasionally suggested I wait a while, but could only do so if they had read the book in question–and reading every book before I did was not a viable option during my most voracious years.

Should the rating system for films also be rejected in this same spirit?

June 6, 2008 9:28 am | link

It’s ridiculous with books, I mean if they have serious content which may disturb children, as in stephen king books disturbing, or sex, fair enough to rate them 16+ or whatever, but things like “11+” are too far… I read Northern Lights aged 9, Animal Farm at 10 (the politics largely went over my head, obviously), Catcher in the Rye at 12 and 1984 at 13. They haven’t screwed me up. Children should read books when they feel ready.

June 7, 2008 3:42 am | link

‘You simply can’t decide who your readership will be. Nor do I want to, because declaring that it’s for any group in particular means excluding every other group, and I don’t want to exclude anybody. Every reader is welcome, and I want my books to say so. Like some other writers, I avoid giving the age of my characters for that reason. I want every child to feel they can befriend them.’

Philip Pullman; taken from the guardian site.

June 7, 2008 5:07 am | link

[…] Guardian newspaper about the impending categorisation of children’s book which we wrote about a few days ago. Pullman describes how he felt when he was first informed of this developement, and […]

Trackback June 7, 2008 5:43 pm | link

I’m a YA book-reviewer and my personal feeling has always been that children will read books when they’re ready. If there’s something in the book that they don’t understand, it will go over their heads and they will enjoy the book on a different level.

The thing that stops most children reading books that they’re ‘not ready for’ is boredom. A particular book might be hard for them to read, they get bored, and stop. This is a much better filter than having blaring age categorisations on the covers of books.

June 8, 2008 5:47 am | link

the age marking isn’t going to stop anyone from reading the books, at least i hope not, but it is likely to be restrictive when the gap is more than a certain number of years especially at younger ages. being one of those rare specimens who could read at three and indeed raced through the unabridged ben-hur at ten, i took great objection to the guideline “if you can’t read five words on the first page, the book is too hard for you”. comfort zones are made to be broken (as are rules against reading); i think a kid knows whether he or she is able and willing to read a book.

June 10, 2008 5:42 pm | link