All this controversy about Manhunt 2 has made me think. Video games and films are rated, so why not books?

This is something I feel strongly about. A couple of years ago I was at a second-hand bookstall and I bought several books, to see if I could find any new authors that I liked. One of these was a horror book. Several chapters in it told of a man breaking into a house where there was a young girl alone. Or maybe he kidknapped her and brought her to the house, I don't remember very well. You can imagine what this guy did to the little girl, I don't want to describe it. I don't know exactly how far the author went as I had to put the book down, but what little of that chapter I read made me feel really disgusted. Since then I've not even touched another horror book, although I never was a big fan of the genre in the first place. 

The point is that this novel was in a stall alongside books aimed at teenagers. It had no 18+ sign, no warning of the content inside it. Books can be just as sick as some adult films and games. If fact, they are sometimes worse IMO as it seems they can get away with more. 

This has been ignored for too long, books should have age ratings just like those for films and games.

Call your congressman - this forum wont get the change done.

I agree, and films should be restricted as much as games. But it's not gonna happen.

Shrug, most fantasy novels tend to be authors BDSM fantasy (Forget his name) or George R. R. Martin's bestiality dreams. Yet they aren't ellicit content.

"I'll make you screw his entire army, and their horses if it would get me my kingdom"
- Nope. Not at all creepy. Especially not since it's a brother telling his 13 year old sister.

Honestly?

While book sales are higher than ever before -- due to increased population world wide and improved technologies for printing -- the current generation is not a reading one. Many people buy books, to make quaint libraries and to look smart, yet never actually finish the vast majority of books they purchase.

There are exceptions to your complaints though, for instance one can readily look at porno magazines. Of course it isn't a novel, and the obvious visuals make it a target. But their are books like "The Anarchists Cook Book" which many stores require you to be 18 to purchase, just as a liability issue.

But in all reality, the major irony of this who concept is that in most, at least American, public high schools Shakespeare is manditory reading.

Good old Hamlet and his incest with his Mother never seem to bother any of the adults, as they get too charmed by the language. That or they are trying to hard to be sophisticates.

Chausers Canterbury Tales is another great, and hilarious, example. One of the guys on trip is an eunuch who, as a result of the procedure, becomes homosexual. Yet all the uber right wing "fundamentalists" have no problems with this as it's "cultured."

Books are one of the few sources in which people can unlock parts of the cultural hegemony that we all get thrust into. Thing is, they take time and effort to absorb; Something, sadly, our generation has shown little interest in.

Because kids don't read books.

Bingo!

I remember seeing a funny picture with three product based on Narnia.

Book - Great for kids!
Movie - Who cares?
Game - Turn them into killers!

Kind of sums up how some people think if you ask me.

Answer: Reading is good, even if you're reading about something really disturbing.

Atleast you're becoming a better reader! Usually books have built-in rating systems (longer, more confusing words to a child). Of course when YOU read a book, you understand whats going on, and how disgusting it is, but a kid doesn't (hopefully) know what "Slut", "Sodomy", or even "rape" mean, so they'll probably stop reading out of confusion anyway.

I have a feeling that most of the difference is attributable to advertising.

Parents who play games don't care about ratings - they know enough to protect their kids to the extent they see fit.

Parents who watch a lot of movies don't care about ratings - they know enough to protect their kids to the extent they see fit.

Parents who read modern literature know what's in that too, and they know what their children are reading.

Ratings primarily serve parents who don't share that particular interest with their children. They're good for parents who don't play games or who don't keep up with movies. They only exist because there's significant demand for them.

However, the demand is only there because parents know that games and movies have content they find objectionable, and they know this because of advertising. Anyone, not just a gamer, can see a commercial for GTA3 or God of War 2. "My kid is playing this?" It wakes parents up to a threat to the mental well-being of their little ones, and they demand that they have some way to protect them that doesn't require them to actually take an interest in what their kid is doing.

Being poorly read is not a trait specific to the current generation. Parents don't read that much either, particularly not the fantasy/sci-fi genres that attract a lot of younger people. However, as is not the case with games and movies, book publishers don't run graphic advertisements for their products on broadcast television. Parents don't know what their kids are reading.

And, of course, reading -is- better for children than playing a video game or watching a movie. Society has a certain amount of interest in making sure that there's nothing stopping a child who wants to read from reading, and I have a feeling that a lot of parents would actually be more than happy to have their kid read something questionable - it's reading, after all, and parents hear little else but how beneficial it is.

I also think that there's a certain difference between a presentation of sex or violence in a movie or game, where nothing is left to the imagination, and the same presentation in words. While someone already familiar with the themes can be disturbed/aroused/etc, violence is generally much less visceral in print and sex, while recognizable as 'dirty', is not going to elicit the same reaction in an inexperienced fifteen year old as would hardcore porn.