Skip to main content

To age band, or not to age band, that is the question

There's something of an unseemly struggle going on in children's publishing in the UK, usually a very civilized place. Most of the children's publishers feel it would be a good thing to put an age label on the back of the book, along the lines of 9+, 11+ or whatever to indicate the target age range. A large group of authors, including big names like Philip Pullman, plus many librarians, are dead set against it.

You can see the anti-banding concerns at their website. In essence the argument is that many people either to match their ability or for fun like to read books that technically aren't aimed at their age group. Putting suggested limits on a book would stigmatize those who like to read a 'younger' age book, and put young people off stretching their reading beyond their age band.

The publishers, genuinely bewildered by the reaction, I think, don't see the problem. It will just be a little label on the back. Many books are bought by an adult for a young reader, and this will help them choose something appropriate.

I have to admit I can see both sides of the argument. I know just how sensitive children are - anything that suggests they are reading something for a younger child will put them off, and the last thing you want to do is put children off books. On the other hand, it can be difficult to know what will work for your friend's eight-year-old when buying a present. Some kind of guidance in the shop is handy.

In the end, I signed up with the No to Age Banding site because I think the labelling misses the point. Labelling on shelves already directs people in bookshops and libraries to the right kind of books. But by not putting the label on the book itself, there's no stigma to being seen with a book that's 'too young for you'. There is simply no need for age banding, it could put some youngsters off, so let's do away with the idea and move on.

Comments

  1. I’m on the other side of the fence on this – young readers are already highly aware of what’s “too young” or “too old” for them – and mostly, they go ahead regardless and read what they feel like (btw, why not print the things on removable stickers? Then they can be there as guidance for adult purchasers – their intended use – but not be a barrier to reading out of one’s age group).

    The real tragedy of this issue is that so much hot air has gone into it, when far bigger issues (e-royalties, anyone?) truly jeopardize the interests of authors – and are largely being ignored...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think I must be one of the few members of the Society of Authors that voted for banding. Having seen what was being proposed (via a powerpoint presentation on the Society of Authors website) I thought it suitably subtle (it was truly tiny - next to the bar code) and helpful for people buying books for children as presents.

    A removable label is an excellent idea too! Can't think why this hasn't been mentioned before - or if it has I have not heard of it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter -
    If they were removable I think I could jump the fence... but I've not seen anything that suggested they might be.

    However I still think there are some stigmas - or why would they bother printing crossover books with childrens and adults covers? I always buy the children's cover on principle.

    Yes there are much bigger issues - I'm happy to put this one aside now and get onto bigger ones!

    Clare - I can see both sides, but until Peter's cunning sticker idea I went the other way. I still don't see why it's necessary, though, and since so many authors are against it...

    ReplyDelete
  4. This might be a bit of a sidetrack...

    While I agree with you, Brian, I remember being quite disturbed-is-perhaps-too-strong-a-word to find the Philip Pullman books in the young-reader part of the library i.e. Next to stuff like the Famous Five books (in Manchester).

    I don't have anything against Pullman's books, but I think that they do require adult "supervision" in a way that Enid Blyton's books don't. Perhaps the parent just needs to be aware of what the child has picked up, and be ready for a little talk if a little talk is required. Please don't misunderstand me - I was brought up reading everything, but my mom would make a point of discussing books that had adult-ideas, and I think that this is a good thing.

    I agree that the removable label is an excellent idea - especially with Christmas coming up. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bronwen - I don't think any librarian would do this. The chances are that a reader has picked it up flicked through it and stuck it back randomly on a shelf.

    If you don't believe do this kind of thing, try going round a supermarket with one of my teenage daughters. They will stick something in the basket I don't want to buy. When I say 'put it back' they horrify my sense of order by putting it on the nearest shelf, whatever that shelf holds.

    I don't think labelling will prevent this! But I do think the removable label idea is so good I'm going straight over to the anti-labelling site and see if there's any way to pass on Peter's excellent idea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Latest hot news on the Peter Cox patented age banding sticky label. I emailed the No To Age Banding people to suggest it. Here is the reply from no less a personage than ex-children's Laureate, Anne Fine:

    "The idea of age-banding by easily peel-off stickers has been raised before, several times, over the spring and summer. Interestingly, the publishers have so far dismissed it outright on grounds of expense. And it seems that the big supermarkets have rejected peel-off stickers on the (somewhat undeniable) grounds that 'they might peel off'."

    Hey ho.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense