Article on health warnings for violent childrens books.

Quote

Children's books are becoming so violent and sexualised they should be accompanied by explicit content warnings, it has been claimed.

Vulnerable children, parents and grandparents are increasingly at risk of buying novels without realising they feature bloody or pornographic scenes, a former president of the National Association of Head Teachers believes.



Dr Tutt said: 'The level of violence and adult themes in children's books is a worrying trend.

'People didn't used to write for young children in this vein. It is a new problem. Some children will be protected because they won't have the reading ability to cope.

'You will have others whose reading is extremely advanced but they don't have the maturity to cope with the themes.'

Dr Tutt is calling for dialogue between authors, parents and children.

She said: 'Sometimes adults buy a book for a child and don't realise what the content is.

'I just think there needs to be a lot more discussion about how we may need to guide people about some of the books aimed at quite a young age for children who don't have that level of maturity to cope.




The content of children's books has also caused controversy in Australia, where Requiem For A Beast won the 2008 Children's Book Council prize for the best picture book.

It featured the word 'f***' numerous times, as well as illustrations of a bloody axe and violent images of a man turning into a beast.

Firstly I can't believe a childrens book has the word fuck in it. And it got nominated at all? That's horrifying.


HOWEVER. I feel that their definition of children and mine is way different (or they're trying to make more drama with the wording). Once you hit 13 I consider you a teenager, and between 13 and 14 I reckon a little "sexual content" or "violent content" is okay, if you wanna go heavy wait just a little while - We have enough criminals and teen mothers around. I consider 12 pre-teen and anyone 11 and under could be considered as child to me.

So when they say the word "novel" I'm like wait, how old are these "children"? When I was 13 we read The Outsiders as a class, which has a fair amount of violence and stuff, but it was okay for my age group.

If the children are 11 and under I think it might be a little more of a battlefield. I don't want to shelter them but I don't want to hand them a knife and say welcome to the real world. I had the magic sparkle taken from me when I was younger so I know how the world feels when you realise what "reality" is.

I think tales of mythology, religion, and history - epic stuff and historical stuff, it's okay....but there are lines there. Obviously you need to remember with artwork, that there's CHILDREN reading, so minimal blood/gore is a must... But with that said I don't want short stories coming out full of violence and stuff.

A good example is Diary of a Wimpy kid. My 7 and 8 year old siblings have been reading the series for months now, and are so excited to hear there's a movie coming out it's not funny. I think when I was reading it there was one scene where the kid was punched. I think that's violent, but acceptable. If the kid had a knife drawn on him I would have told mum she should confiscate the books cause that's not cool for them to be reading. Next thing you know they can't walk into school cause they're terrified of being stabbed. If they were 10 or so I'd feel different though.

Anyway, your thoughts.

What's your definition of "child" and is violence okay in books for that age group?

Bunny (02:40pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

What's your definition of "child" and is violence okay in books for that age group?

Any useful definition of "child" based on biological age is inherently flawed when you try to use it to classify literature. Kids don't all mature at the same pace. I've always been a fast reader; I was reading preteen novels when I was nine and teenage literature (16+) at around eleven. I got my books at the local library which at first refused to let me borrow them, so my mom got them for me. She always encouraged me to read, something that I'll always be grateful for. I read my first "mature" novel featuring an explicit sex scene around the age of 12, and I remember finding it quite boring.

Reading was an important part of growing up for me, and if I had been stuck with books for my intended demographic I'm sure that it would have retarded my growth. As experience has tought me however, my aptitude for reading is quite high compared to others my age. In college I find that I read texts more than twice as fast (interestingly, it holds true for all three of the languages that I can use).

As for the average reader, I would still argue that the recommended age groups for most media, not just books, underestimates the capacity of children to deal with so-called questionable content. The main problem is that some parents are just plain irresponsible and do a bad job of raising their children. If a child grows up without the proper context to place stories in, fictional or otherwise, they will get access to violent or sexual content intended for their age group, even though they might not be able to process it properly.

In closing, I'll repeat that it's up to the parents, not the government to decide whether or not a specific child is ready move up his reading level or not. If the child itself is asking for more or harder books or if he seems bored of what he or her is currently reading, by all means give him something harder to read.

Lilienthal (05:42pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

Any useful definition of "child" based on biological age is inherently flawed when you try to use it to classify literature. Kids don't all mature at the same pace. I've always been a fast reader; I was reading preteen novels when I was nine and teenage literature (16+) at around eleven. I got my books at the local library which at first refused to let me borrow them, so my mom got them for me.

Amen. I was like that too, but I was a late starter. I was put into the "dyslexic classroom" for 2nd or 3rd grade and learnt to read, write, and say my alphabet through one on one tuition - which started with alphabet flashcards. Say the letter then sound it out then give an example...it was actually really hard for me but once I got it, I really got it. When we had reading tests in 6th grade I was told I was entering into college level with the words I could read. I didnt know what they all meant though LOL.

But while I had the experience of reading the higher books at a younger age, not everyone is like that...

Lilienthal (05:42pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

Reading was an important part of growing up for me, and if I had been stuck with books for my intended demographic I'm sure that it would have retarded my growth. As experience has tought me however, my aptitude for reading is quite high compared to others my age. In college I find that I read texts more than twice as fast (interestingly, it holds true for all three of the languages that I can use).

While that may be true, the "age range" should be specified for the majority. The minority USUALLY have decent parents who will help them out, or have librarians who appreciate that sort of thing. If they dont, there should be somewhere they can go to get help. Hell, my teacher helped me cause my parents couldnt LOL.

Smart kids are just that - smart. If they want to do something they'll find a way.

Lilienthal (05:42pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

As for the average reader, I would still argue that the recommended age groups for most media, not just books, underestimates the capacity of children to deal with so-called questionable content. The main problem is that some parents are just plain irresponsible and do a bad job of raising their children. If a child grows up without the proper context to place stories in, fictional or otherwise, they will get access to violent or sexual content intended for their age group, even though they might not be able to process it properly.

In closing, I'll repeat that it's up to the parents, not the government to decide whether or not a specific child is ready move up his reading level or not. If the child itself is asking for more or harder books or if he seems bored of what he or her is currently reading, by all means give him something harder to read.

I agree, but the government needs to lay down some guidelines. Something basic parents who have no idea can follow, or at least understand. IF they know their child is above the guidelines they can throw them out .

As an added point, who says books have to have more mature content to be harder to read/understand?

Bunny (07:05pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

As an added point, who says books have to have more mature content to be harder to read/understand?

I certainly didn't. But given that the topic is about questionable content, not reading levels I focused on that.


Also, in a perfect world, bad parents would follow these guidelines and learn to become good parents. Unfortunately, bad parents are just that: they can't raise their children properly, and I doubt that in the cases where it actually matters, where bad parenting results in maladjusted children, that the parents will bother to follow any guidelines at all.

When something like Axe Cop exists, I don't think you understand how much younger kids know of violence and other things.

Andre Vienne (10:59pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

When something like Axe Cop exists, I don't think you understand how much younger kids know of violence and other things.

Axe cop?

Lilienthal (07:20pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

Bunny (07:05pm Fri, Mar  5, 2010)

As an added point, who says books have to have more mature content to be harder to read/understand?

I certainly didn't. But given that the topic is about questionable content, not reading levels I focused on that.


Also, in a perfect world, bad parents would follow these guidelines and learn to become good parents. Unfortunately, bad parents are just that: they can't raise their children properly, and I doubt that in the cases where it actually matters, where bad parenting results in maladjusted children, that the parents will bother to follow any guidelines at all.

Well that's true, but that's been true since people were giving birth lol. I was meaning them for the decent (and good) parents to follow....then again you can be a bad parent FOR following things too harshly.

Axe Cop

If what my 9yr old wants to watch on tv is anything like what exists in children's books it would seem that violence and sex are quite common.
I know I attempt to monitor the type of novels my children are reading - but I have an 11yr old who is bored reading 'kids' books and would rather delve into a Kylie Chan book (which includes sex scenes).
I myself read Gone With The Wind at age 11, as well as an assortment of 'adult' books.
I would rather there be less violence in general as far as children are concerned, not only in books, but on tv, movies etc, but I am also well aware of how much of that kind of information is dealt out in our society in ways I cannot control.

It is also somewhat hypocritical of a lot of those who complain about violence in children's entertainment - Roadrunner anyone? (Yes, i know it was a cartoon - but it was incredibly violent - but worse than most cos it leads kids to believe that you can jump off a cliff and survive.)

So what is the point of removing violence from children's novels when they are bombarded with visual violence constantly?

Violence HAS been acceptable in childrens books, but since we as a society are so aware of it now isn't it the responsibility of the parents or guardians to monitor what their own child is exposed to. I feel like I wasn't protected from anything growing up, I was reading anything and everything at the age of 11 and 12 and I was watching movies with a lot of violence and sex in them from about the age of 8 or 9 and I definitely wish I'd been kept away from that. My niece is 11 and a half years old and she is of course starting to become more grown up but she hasn't lost that childhood innocence yet. I only wish I could have been so lucky. If a movie is rated for 12 year olds she is usually not allowed to watch it and she doesn't mind because she knows she can watch it when she's 12. She is in no rush to grow up. Of course this is just one child but I do feel that a lot of children would feel like they didn't have their innocence robbed from them had they been better protected from things beyond their level of maturity.

As long as it doesn't condone it, I can't see the issue. I played call of duty and played grand theft auto religiously growing up (parents didn't know) and I've never been in a fight nor have I ever threatened anyone with physical violence.

The world we live in now is so violent and a lot of children see it on a daily basis, whether it's in their home or neighborhood. The only good thing about violent childrens books are parents do not have to buy them, and if it's in their school the parent can let the teacher know that their child is not allowed to read certain literature. As a writer it is amazing to go where our imagination takes us and to take others along with us. We are grown for the majority of our lives we are children for such a short time, and in that time we should not have a care in the world. Anything a child reads should be something positive that will guide and carry them through life. Things that will build their self worth, respect and intelligence.     

I don't think it is always bad to include violence in a children's book, but the subject must be handled with great care.  I do not think it is a good idea to get to graphic or intense and the violent actions should not be sprung on the reader so as to be shocking. Children can be very sensitive and easily frightened or disturbed by the images put in their imagination.  If violence is important to the story line, in my opinion a good way to handle it would be to warn the reader in a way that it is coming and then not go into any graphic details. Keep it vague enough that they won't have a horrible image in their mind if they are not already familiar with what that act would look like.

If a children's book  is about violence such as school shootings or bullying, which is something they have to deal with nowadays, it could be a book on what they can do in those situations. Other than that let children read about rainbow's and unicorns and let the parents deal with everything else.

I think that there has always been some violence in children's books. Even back in the early 1950's when I was a kid, the comic books and cartoon were filled with people falling off of cliffs, and things like that.
However, it was done as part of a cartoon, and not presented as something that ever happened in real life. We all understood, even as little kids, that if you get thrown off of a cliff, you are not going to just spread out your arms and float down, nor are you going to hit bottom with a splat, and then just get up and walk away.
I think that many of the things today not only have violence in them, but they are presented as a real thing that can happen in someone's life.

I only remember one book like that when I was a little girl, and it definitely made an impression on me, which is undoubtedly why my mother bought it and read it to me.
It was about a little girl with beautiful long hair, just like me. She played with matches, caught her hair on fire, and burned up to cinders.
Obviously, my mom did not want me playing with matches !

Being a writer myself I understand that I cannot tell another writer what he/she should or should not write about. I just feel with the world we live in everywhere you look whether it's on t.v., movies, the internet, homes, schools or neighborhoods it's saturated in violence. Children just need a peaceful escape from all the chaos and madness, nowadays they have to deal with things that many of us never had to deal with when we were young. I personally would only write children's books that would bring them joy and lift them up. They need a happy escape.

Writeaway, I agree with you and think that this world is far too full of violence, and it permeates all the way down to our smallest children. We need more "Cinderalla" stories that show a happy ending to the story and not just violence and more violence.
The bad part of that , is that people are so used to seeingit, that even the things that seemed really gruesome to us just a few years ago, are now an everyday thing.
I remember when we only saw the vampire, ghosts andzombie movies the week or so before Halloween, and then theywere gone for the whole year. Now, theyare almost apart ofeveryday life, and people are used to seeing all of these atrocities.
Maybe I still belong in the land of the 1950's, because there is sure a lot of what is taken for granted today, that it is hard for me to accept is even being shown.  I think even some happy kids stories would be a good start !

It depends on the age of the children too, and how they are getting the story.  Many of the old stories, like Grimm's Fairy Tales had violence in them, but children were not sitting alone reading these stories, they were being read to them by a parent of grandparent in a family setting, all together and safe.  That makes a huge difference in the effect it has on the children.