Age-ranging is handy for people who aren't sure, and doesn't do any harm for the kids who are reading ahead -- they just ignore it. It's been very useful for me, with say, Jacqueline Wilson; M went through a JW pash phase and wanted to read everything she'd ever written. But the stuff that's written for slightly older girls was just not appropriate for the 7/8 year olds who like the younger books. Buying online makes this worse.
JW is terrible for picking books in a hurry because they've all got Nick Sharratt covers so they all look like they *should* be good for 6 year olds. She's written a very few that are great for Small's age range (5-7), a few that are good for 7-9s and a load that really require a bit more maturity. In a book shop or a library at least you can check the print sizes to give you an instant clue, but online you're in trouble.
What really annoyed me about that article is that it muddles up age range guidance on books, which are just a label for information, with unnecessarily strict librarians and teachers insisting that you should never read anything above your nominal age range. The two issues are entirely distinct, unless I've mistaken the proposal, and it actually calls for a BBBC and criminal penalties for booksellers providing books to the underaged.
There are legitimate arguments against the proposal, (not wildly convincing ones to my mind, but legitimate) but this is not one of them, because I'd be staggered if it prevented any bright kid getting their hands on books above their calendar age. Did she never read Just 17 as a thirteen year old like the rest of us?
This is what I was going to say. The age ranges are simply guidance, and any teacher or librarian who thinks they are set in stone should be sacked on the spot. Not sure what we should do about the parents...
As for the "it would discourage the readers who aren't that good... Give me strength!
Having not read the article yetajrJune 2 2008, 17:59:23 UTC
Age ranges on children's books are great, because they tell you at a glance which ones are going to be very simple, which ones are going to have a broad appeal, and which ones are likely to have shagging and excessive violence in them.
Theoretically, you could replace it with a ratings system that says what each book contains and so leave ages out of it, but that would probably end up being unnecessarily complicated and hard to understand.
I'd never not read a book because of it being outside my age range, and nor would I try and stop other people reading a book simply because they're the 'wrong' age.
In short, age ranges good, abuse of age ranges bad. I may comment again after reading the article.
No. The "wrong" age range will deter a lot of young readers - a book that's "too young" may be ignored because it's "babyish"; a book that's "too old" might be ignored by some less confident readers who might enjoy a book because it's "too hard". I also agree that forcing confident, well-adjusted readers to "read down" is likely to turn them off books.
I think "YA" tagging of books also stigmatises them in the proper adult market.
By all means group them in the shops, but not on the book itself.
I didn't read much childrens' fiction; I was on 'adult' SF by about the age of nine, so the whole age-range minefield never really bothered me.
Then again, I'm not a parent. I'm not sure I'd be too chuffed if, say, a nine year decided to pick up some David Peace or James Ellroy from my shelves. ;)
Having recently become one by default, my answer is a strong 'yes'.
Buying books for a 4-yr old that's bright is hard enough, getting stuff too complex is bad, and getting stuff aimed at 2-yr-olds is pointless, and I can't tell.
And I don't think there'll be a problem with her thinking books are too young given the amount of kids/YA stuff on our shelves when she gets to that stage.
I changed my vote; my instinctive reaction was No, but then I read the article, and the writer is such an enormous twat that the argument was LOST by making it.
Comments 13
Reply
In a book shop or a library at least you can check the print sizes to give you an instant clue, but online you're in trouble.
Reply
The two issues are entirely distinct, unless I've mistaken the proposal, and it actually calls for a BBBC and criminal penalties for booksellers providing books to the underaged.
There are legitimate arguments against the proposal, (not wildly convincing ones to my mind, but legitimate) but this is not one of them, because I'd be staggered if it prevented any bright kid getting their hands on books above their calendar age. Did she never read Just 17 as a thirteen year old like the rest of us?
Reply
As for the "it would discourage the readers who aren't that good... Give me strength!
Reply
Theoretically, you could replace it with a ratings system that says what each book contains and so leave ages out of it, but that would probably end up being unnecessarily complicated and hard to understand.
I'd never not read a book because of it being outside my age range, and nor would I try and stop other people reading a book simply because they're the 'wrong' age.
In short, age ranges good, abuse of age ranges bad. I may comment again after reading the article.
Reply
I think "YA" tagging of books also stigmatises them in the proper adult market.
By all means group them in the shops, but not on the book itself.
I didn't read much childrens' fiction; I was on 'adult' SF by about the age of nine, so the whole age-range minefield never really bothered me.
Reply
Reply
Buying books for a 4-yr old that's bright is hard enough, getting stuff too complex is bad, and getting stuff aimed at 2-yr-olds is pointless, and I can't tell.
And I don't think there'll be a problem with her thinking books are too young given the amount of kids/YA stuff on our shelves when she gets to that stage.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment