I'm not wanting to open a discussion on the morality of writing explicit material for younger audiences (which I define as under age 18).

But it seems odd to me that the writing industry has thus far escaped the rating system that has been enforced in cinema and is now being used on music CDs. I am wondering how long it will be before we have to have a rating before we can be published.

It never occurred to me before that such a step would be necessary, but recently I've seen comments by other Hatrackers about the explicit stories they've seen in bookstores, etc, that have been targeted toward Young Audiences. Are these publishers insane? I can see a whole level of bureaucratic hoops in our future that authors will have to jump throughy just to get a story published.

Has anyone heard anything along these lines in the industry? I can't fathom I'm the only one who is recognizing the trend and dreads the day that we get slapped with stringent restrictions. The publishing field has so abused the boundaries of what is appropriate for kids that we stand to end up in the same boat that movie-makers are in.

A disclaimer should be located on the merchandice. It's that simple. That way you can avoid all lawsuits and other problems. If a parent is upset, they will be upset at their child, not at the publishers. THen again, you might get the parent who says "Oh, the content was to easily availible for my child." How about some respnsibility? Your child picked up that book not because it was too easily accessible, but because they are too weak to resist their desires.

I have spoken to writers in the Christian publishing business, and this is an issue there. One author ended up rewriting and cutting much of his manuscript during the editing process. Then on the other side of the coin some stronger content is being considered where it wouldn't have been before. Things are constantly shifting. And every publishing house is different.

Literature is a difficult thing to control. I think the biggest issue is--and here we are back to this again--the parents really need to become more involved. So much about the art of the written word is left up to personal interpretation. How can anyone rate that? Sex, I think, may be the issue that will bring the YA rating system to the forefront if it's even brought up at all. Personally I think it's not going to happen.

My 0.02 cents...

Also, there's a huge difference between a book that is explicit and one that is merely (ha!) sensual. For instance, some of the most passionate scenes I've read between a man and woman were in Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, and I and several friends read that in seventh grade.

That's the clause where the author agrees to "hold harmless and indemnify the publisher from any suit" brought against the publisher because of the author's work.

If you can get the indemnity clause changed to words like the one in the SFWA model contract

http://www.sfwa.org/contracts/hc_cont.htm

which are "The Author shall hold harmless and indemnify the publisher from any recovery finally sustained by reason of any violations of copyright or other property of personal right; provided, however, that the
Publisher shall with all reasonable promptness notify the Author of any claim or suit which may involve the warranties of the
Author hereunder; and the Author agrees fully to cooperate in the defense thereof. The warranties contained in this article do not extend to drawings, illustrations, or other material not furnished by the Author" you'll be much better off.

While both of my kids are now adults in their twenties, I remember what it was like when they were teens. The school was particularly uncommunicative (due in large part to huge budget cuts and overworked teachers), and some of the teachers were, frankly, idiots. Kids with allowances buy books (and music and movies) and don't need parental controls to do so. Most of the time the parent never knows what comes in the front door in a backpack, and if you have a healthy relationship with your teen (and see no overt reason to distrust them), then respecting their privacy is something you have to do.

When I was a teen all I read was horror novels filled with blood, guts, and gore. I didn't even read YA novels until I reach adulthood.

My point: If they want to read it, they will.

Besides it's not up to a board of "elders" to decide what's okay and not okay for my kids. That's my job. I mean, "they" want to read my six-year-old "My Two Mommies" in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to go by what they say.

I've read similiar comments by other professionals. It makes snese that publishing industry incorporates some guidelines. Whether a novel is categorized as children, young adult, or adult seems to be the same as G, PG and PG/R... hmm.. I see you point.

I guess it really is about the intent of the author. I read "Orbis" recently by Scott MacKay, which includes a gang-rape scene, a man receiving electrical shock treatment to his testicles and brutal beatings and decapitations. Strangely, the book does contain _any_ explicit language worse than "damn."

But MacKay is not condoning or encouraging any of these harsh elements. His story seems to be a "fable" that discourages and shows the evil of oppression.

I read another SF novella a while back that had explicit sexual scenes between a human and alien. There was no plot, it was just somebodies fantasy. It condoned multiple partners and "free-love".

Some people make feel that is fine, which is an opinion they are welcome to. But it is an opinion which is not common enough. I thought a story like that deserved some type of warning, even though it wasn't anywhere as brutal as Scott MacKay's.

But if the parent is doing his/her job then the kids know the boundaries. if the parent states: "No smut" Then the kids know, "If I get caught with "smut" I'm screwed". Because if/when they're caught there is a consequence. Teach your kids morals and they will be able to think for themselves. Show them *why* things are wrong. But also put up some clear boundaries. Kids (teens) aren't supposed to be little versions of the parent. If we teach them to think for themselves then we give them tools for a lifetime.

You can't protect your kids from everything. If McDonald's makes you fat then don't eat there. Everyone complains about the "big guys" being at fault. It's better to take what responsibility you can and make the most of it. The "big guys" will always be out there. Laws will NEVER make them go away. They'll just take another form.

Personally, I don't want the government making any more laws that pertain to my kids. The more laws there are, the more of my rights they take away.

I am so glad nobody tried to do that with my reading when I was a kid. Admittedly, I didn't stumble across graphic S&M materials, for which I'm also thankful, but the idea of keeping me out of the adult section of the library would have greatly offended me. And still would.

This is the heart of the problem with any warning system. Someone (sorry, don't want to look up who) said their parents didn't approve of Harry Potter. I find that notion more preposterous than I can possibly express with words. But it's their right to make that decision for their kids.

When I was fifteen, I started getting curious about sex and romance novels so my mom gave me some sexually explicit material to read. Other parents might be horrified by her action but she thought it would be better to let me read the things she had read and thought were relatively decent depictions of sex and open the floor for me to talk to her about it. That, too, was her right as a parent to make that decision.

One of my goals as a writer is to have my novels, all of them, put on a banned book list. Ahh, I would join the greats. Mark Twain, J.K. Rowling, and of course, Christine.

I hope you can see my point here. My biggest problem with rating systems, even the ones that currently exist, is that they're bogus. Someone decided to categorize their own personal view of morality and appropriateness, not to mention their own philosophy on how this pertains to raising kids (most going by the theory that kids shouldn't see this stuff at all and probably, neither should adults but we can't stop them).

Meanwhile, I've seen shows intended for kids on the Disney channel recently...I wouldn't let my kids (young kids of the target audience) watch that crap. No, there was no sex or violence but neither was there plot, character, realism, problem solving, or anything else that might have made it anything other than a completely mind-numbing waste of time.

Inappropriate material targetted at young kids, huh? What is this inappropriate material and who decided it was inappropriate?

I really think that this is wisdom on your part, 'Graff. I was raised in a home that was VERY strict. And I think that it made me feel like I had to squeeze past the limits just to find air.

The comic book industry has a rating system that they use in their catalogs, so as to aid librarians in their acquisitions.

quote:

---

"If I get caught with "smut" I'm screwed".

---

That's funny.

Maybe the publishing industry would be taken to task if anybody read anything anymore. Most kids are too busy with video games. Hopefully that changes as the Harry Potter kids grow up at the same time my writing career matures.

And I'd like to strongly agree with what someone above already stated, about how a book full of horrific crimes didn't seem as foul to him as one full of senseless smut. My WIP deals with a sexual assault. This topic is important to me, and I wanted to show what a horrible thing this is, and the recovory of a victim. It would probably get a more mature rating. Yet I've read lots of YA books loaded with water-downed premarital sex. Books aimed at 12-yr-olds -- I can find them in the children's section next to alphabet books. These wouldn't have a high rating, even though they condone morally objectional things. Yet my WIP that deals with a serious topic in a way I find moral (no premarital sex, no explicit, smutty sex scenes, people trying to build strong families) would almost certainly be slapped with a more mature rating than a fluffy YA book full of premarital sex. Thus I am whole-heartedly against a standardized rating system, not because I think publishers should market sleaze to kids, but because I think any rating system created by a comitee will be inherintly and horribly flawed.

And, frankly, I can see such behavior having a truly negative effect on the writers of fantasy--because the books will already be labeled with that big ol' m on the cover, authors might feel the need to fill the books with material that warrants that rating.

On the flip-side, a rating system does not ensure that young adults won't be reading the books we write--it will probably ensure that parents will look twice before letting their child read any particular book. Whether or not that is good or bad is a personal choice, though it's my belief that if the material warrants the rating it should be denoted where even an unobservant parent can take note.

Also, I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, and will be reading books 6 & 7, but I will say this: an appropriate rating system should definitely rate the later books higher than the first two; the books have grown darker and more violent as they have progressed, which is indicative of her audience (think about it: I read the books the year the third came out in England, and I was in the sixth grade. I'm now going into my freshman year of college. Rowling treads a fine line between retaining her older, more mature audience and her newer, younger, more innocent one. I think she's done a great job of it so far, but I think that it's a huge responsibility for parents to know the contents of any book they give their children, and know their children well enough to be sure they won't be traumatized by reading it. Whew. That was a huge parenthetical).

----------
Wellington

Edit: I somehow rearranged the order of my paragraphs. Oops.

Or maybe it won't be them. Maybe it will go to a different extreme -- someone who only thinks sex is bad but doesn't mind graphic violence. Will they take content into consideration?

The real reason that they currently rate books as "YA" or "Children's literature" and so forth is because of the assumption that books written for an older audience will be too boring or difficult (in terms of vocabulary, plot, etc.). It has very little to do with content of material that may be "inapporpriate".

"YA" doesn't mean "this contains no objectionable scenes or ideas", it just means "we think this won't bore your reading teenager to tears".

If more than 5-10% of the youth population were reading books as a primary means of entertainment, then that would change. But we're probably moving in the other direction. Kids are becoming less literate overall, and have more alternatives in terms of entertainment.

I welcome the thought that literature might regain a position of such prominance as to make the banning of books anything other than an easy way of portraying fictional societies as intolerant and hate-mongering. I'd even more welcome the day when the imprimature of various organizations promoting morality became a sought after marketing tool for the publishing industry.

As someone who works in the publishing industry, I can tell you for a fact that's not true.

[Edit: I will add to this statement that I do not personally approve of everything that comes out in the YA genre (the book "Rainbow Party" for example), but that book is not marketed to younger (under 13) audiences.]

[This message has been edited by Thieftess (edited July 15, 2005).]