HisDarkMaterials.org

The Guardian reports: The practice of indicating suitable ages for goods bought by or for children is rarely the subject of controversy. Apart from the children themselves, who always desire whatever happens to lie in the age bracket above, most adults find such advice helpful in avoiding potentially dangerous or inappropriate items.

But publishers' plans to introduce age ranging guidance onto children's books have met with fierce opposition from authors including Philip Pullman, Anne Fine and Michael Rosen, following a report of the growing protest last week on guardian.co.uk.

In a letter to the Bookseller magazine, to be published this Friday, over 80 authors and illustrators have described the plans as "ill-conceived, damaging to the interests of young readers."

Reasons adduced for the objections include the claim that children easily feel "stigmatized" and may discard books classified as too young, and that it will feed into a child-rearing culture that is already "over-prescriptive".

Commenting on the protest, Rosen, the UK's children's laureate, told the Guardian that the trend of breaking up childhood into layers was becoming "inhumane".

"Of course if something was actually physically dangerous for, say, a child below the age of three, then age stamping it would be fine.

"But in a context where our entire concept of education is reduced to one of development, where we have become totally obsessed with marking which 'level' our children are at, extending age classification to recreational literature is a tragic idea, really."

So far few voices have come out in favour of the publishers' plans, which according to Rebecca McNally, publishing director of Macmillan's children's division, are aimed at increasing consumer confidence and sales.

"We've written to our authors and had a positive response," she told the Guardian last week.

Meg Rosoff, one of few children's authors so far publicly to have expressed firm support for the idea, also published an article on the Guardian's books blog, arguing that age banding would be extremely helpful for parents.

"Of course the age-ranging system is imperfect, but it's an excellent start in breaking down the gulf between booksellers and book buyers."

The debate is set to continue on Friday after the authors' letter is published in the Bookseller magazine. An additional article by Philip Pullman will also be published in the Guardian Review on Saturday.

6 comments - Add yours

#1 SO STUPID

NO IT’s the8 0z#nfg.jgfbljxfgklsgfmdk;ljsrtgsrtdojdhflmjjgljsrt;ljkij;lg

# June 6, 2008 20:26 by LordEC

#2 Sorry

But it’s really that stupid

# June 6, 2008 20:27 by LordEC

#3

I do personally think that this is a little extreme but then again i suppose i can see the need for it. Of course there are some books out there that should not be read by young children, but that really should come down to parental discresion. Like i said, it is extreme but i can see the other side to the argument.

# June 11, 2008 07:45 by Bek

#4

the sad fact is that our children are reading less and less as it is. And this age limit idea i fear will only add to the decline in recreational reading. it sickens me. and yes i can see the logic of the opposite side, but as an avid reader i am sickened at the thought that some people wish to limit reading options. it is limiting imagination in my opinion.

# June 15, 2008 05:42 by eleanorrigby