Books with very inappropriate scenes w/ children

[Trish]

Serious issues are never appropriate. We should all be far too polite to discuss, much less write about, anything like sex, drugs, religious conflicts, racism. It's just rude. And for politeness sake, if someone should dare to do so, they should only hint about it or whitewash it to avoid someone feeling uncomfortable.

 

Can't believe this is even being seriously discussed.

 

Writers and readers write and read about subjects that are real and unreal. Some of it isn't pretty. They write with detail to place the reader in the story. They write about all kinds of sin and taboo things and the graphic ways humans do those things because that's just as much a part of life as roses and sunshine.

 

If you don't want to read about dark and awful things, then I can certainly understand that. I don't care too either most of the time. Real life is hard enough, I tend to prefer light and laughter for my casual reading and TV enjoyment.

 

But it's simply ridiculous to insinuate that writers who do write on unsavory topics or readers who read it are all depraved individuals. Do you also think cops, morticians, taxidermist, and more who choose to work in graphic and disturbing subject matter must be mentally deprived to do so?

 

This is the second thread to insinuate the writers who write about unpleasant topics and those that read their books are somehow ... What? Morally questionable?

 

 

Would've been nice if you had quoted the person who made that argument,since I looked for it in vain.

 

And yes a warning label would be helpful for the particularly darker content, especially when it isn't obvious from the nature of the book.

[unsinkable]

So, I'm at McDonald's again, killing time and using their wi-fi, and I about choked on my diet coke when I lol'ed at Martha's statement:

 

"Awakening sucked."

 

So funny, the bluntness of it.

 

Reminds me of Rainman, "Kmart sucks."

[Mrs Mungo]

 

I've read The Handmaid's Tale. It was terrible in every way. I've had no desire to read more, and that was supposedly "her best, ever." Well, if that's the best she can do, she's a pet progressive shock jock, all message and no meat. I still keep running into her publicity stunts in newspaper articles, and she had done nothing to reverse that opinion.

 

So, your answer is no, you haven't read much Atwood. Therefore, you dismissing her as nothing but an author writing for shock value isn't really an informed opinion. And you obviously haven't read much Stephen King, either, if you don't think he adds titillating details for shock value and nothing more. We obviously have very different taste in authors. I once bought a book by Jennifer Weiner in a used book store because I had some credit to use up before I moved. It was the first book *in my entire life* (and I read a LOT) that I didn't finish because it was SO insipid. I actually threw it in the trash.

 

Anyhow, it would be much easier to find your limits if you had some level of warning up front about what a book might contain, just like you do with movies and even MUSIC. I almost picked up Girl With A Dragon Tattoo before I heard about what it was REALLY about--the book jacket gives you noooooothing--and while I still might read it later when I'm in the mood, I was pretty ticked off at having had no real warning of what I would have been in for. Even if I had thought the book was great, I still would have been peeved! And I'm okay with violence and explicit content in books. I can't imagine how someone who isn't would have felt.

 

There are dozens of places to access book reviews, to include asking people who work at bookstores. The author has frequently mentioned the books being inspired by a gang rape in interviews. *I* knew that I didn't want to read it because that information is out there.

 

....And so what? Movies do it now. (Minus the "kids disobeying their parents" bit.) If YOU don't want to read graphic sex in ANY context, you should have the ability to avoid it. I don't care if it is art or if it isn't. Making it art doesn't make a person who is unwillingly subjected to it feel any less violated.

 

The ability to know what a book is about already exists. It isn't the fault of the book industry if consumers *don't bother* to access that information.

 

Explicit works are largely excluded from middle school libraries on the basis of the explicit content without regard to whether it may or may not be "art." (There was an attempt to challenge this about 10 years ago. That failed, as parents made it clear that explicit toddler-rape wasn't appropriate for 6th graders no matter how "ghetto literary" the author was.) It doesn't matter how "artistic" it is or it isn't--unguided 12-year-olds should not be wandering into the middle of certain books. With their parents' permission and guidance Sure! No problem. I read all KINDS of adult books in middle school. But that wasn't coming from a library meant for me to have free roam at that age but from bookshops and the adult section.

 

You must not have attended my junior high or high school at all. I firmly reject the notion that books with violent or explicit content are not to be found in school libraries.

 

To argue that something's supposed artistic value allows for explicitness that a book with no artistic aspirations wouldn't be allowed is a very, very dangerous game. As far as your attempt at making Huck Finn too objectionable--it isn't. I don't know why people gravitate toward trying to say that some sort of rating system might exclude that single book, but it wouldn't. I know it's made it onto a number of "banned lists" because of the "n-word" and the belief by some that it is very racist (and THAT'S an ongoing debate, for sure!), but it still isn't a book that's got much to object to if you're counting instances of violence, sex, etc.--which is what a rating system counts. Its contents fit just fine within a middle grades reading list, quite firmly in the middle. It is in no way an example of something that is truly outre but still "real art."

 

I just don't see how books would fit into the same context as movies. How many naked people will you see in a (non-graphic novel) book? Zero. How many instances of whores, homosexual sex and violence in Gilgamesh? Several. How about The Bible? Many. That's why it doesn't work.

 

I don't know if it was mentioned, but wouldn't the christian bible fall under this category?

 

just sayin...

 

Clearly, some people haven't read it. Wholesale slaughter of women and children? Check. Rape? Check. Slavery? Check. Tossing your concubine to the local rape gangs, then cutting her into bits as a warning for the groups to which they belong? Check. Conquering a people, making them get circumcised until there is a mountain of foreskins and then killing them? Check.

[Mrs Mungo]

And yes a warning label would be helpful for the particularly darker content, especially when it isn't obvious from the nature of the book.

 

Warnings are already available in spades. I didn't read Lullaby because I look up what books are about before I read them. It is extremely easy to do so. There are entire books written about book recommendations. There are websites dedicated to it. My phone can access Amazon reviews. If people don't take advantage of information already out there, then that is their own fault.

[WishboneDawn]

Reya, you're an adult. There's an expectation that you can do a bit of research on a book before you read it or that you have sufficient maturity and life experience to deal with controversial material in a novel. We have to do this with life in general, we should be able to do this with our reading material.

 

Ratings systems are generally in place because of concerns for children. I don't think adults need to be treated like children.

[Violet Crown]

There's some slippage here from the original objection, which was to anatomically detailed, graphic descriptions of child rape, to ancient literature that refers to horrific events. It's easy slippage to make, as there's no way to post comparative passages. I would happily post the unpleasant passages from Gilgamesh or the Bible here; I could not post (for example) the relevant parts of the Walker Percy book I was foolish enough to read, as it would be immediately deleted by the moderators and possibly get me banned.

 

I'm also disappointed to see the suggestion that people who find such passages unnecessary and obnoxious, even when committed by Great Authors, must have not read the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Can we discuss this without the personal unkindness?

[Mrs Mungo]

There's some slippage here from the original objection, which was to anatomically detailed, graphic descriptions of child rape, to ancient literature that refers to horrific events. It's easy slippage to make, as there's no way to post comparative passages. I would happily post the unpleasant passages from Gilgamesh or the Bible here; I could not post (for example) the parts of the Walker Percy book I was foolish enough to read, as it would be immediately deleted by the moderators and possibly get me banned.

 

I'm also disappointed to see the suggestion that people who find such passages unnecessary and obnoxious, even when committed by Great Authors, must have not read the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Can we discuss this without the personal unkindness?

 

That is NOT what I'm saying at all. There is no personal attack in my posts, please do not imply that one exists. In fact, I specially stated that *I* do not like such content in the literature that I read, and I avoid those types of books. Therefore, your assertion that I am making a personal attack on people who do not like such content is completely unfounded.

 

What I am saying is that one cannot develop a rating system *for literature* that does not accidentally enmesh great works of literature.

 

I find books with such content easy to avoid because I read book reviews and/or ask people about books. Information about book content is already *widely* available. Therefore, a rating system is unnecessary and would potentially damage the access teens have to great works of literature.

[unsinkable]

There's some slippage here from the original objection, which was to anatomically detailed, graphic descriptions of child rape, to ancient literature that refers to horrific events. It's easy slippage to make, as there's no way to post comparative passages. I would happily post the unpleasant passages from Gilgamesh or the Bible here; I could not post (for example) the relevant parts of the Walker Percy book I was foolish enough to read, as it would be immediately deleted by the moderators and possibly get me banned.

 

I'm also disappointed to see the suggestion that people who find such passages unnecessary and obnoxious, even when committed by Great Authors, must have not read the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Can we discuss this without the personal unkindness?

 

I agree about the slippage of the thread.

 

There are some ways for the OP to avoid these surprises in books by researching and there are concerns about rating systems, booking banning, etc. that can be shared, too.

 

And we can say it kindly, if we want.

[Violet Crown]

 

 

That is NOT what I'm saying at all. There is no personal attack in my posts, please do not imply that one exists. In fact, I specially stated that *I* do not like such content in the literature that I read, therefore I avoid those types of books. Therefore, your assertion that I am making a personal attack on people who do not like such content is completely unfounded.

 

What I am saying is that one cannot develop a rating system *for literature* that does not accidentally enmesh great works of literature.

 

I find books with such content easy to avoid because I read book reviews and/or ask people about books. Information about book content is already *widely* available. Therefore, a rating system is unnecessary and would potentially damage the access teens have to great works of literature.

Obviously I have misunderstood you, and I'm happy to apologize for that, as it seemed unlike you. Could you help me out and unpack for me your above sentence, "Clearly, some people haven't read [the Christian Bible]"? Who are the "some people," and why is it clear they haven't read it?

 

ETA: I don't think however, that I said, either, what you're characterizing me as saying.

[Mrs Mungo]

Obviously I have misunderstood you, and I'm happy to apologize for that, as it seemed unlike you. Could you help me out and unpack for me your above sentence, "Clearly, some people haven't read [the Christian Bible]"? Who are the "some people," and why is it clear they haven't read it?

 

If one believes that a rating system designed to keep books out of the hands of groups of people (like the teens specifically mentioned in the posts that I quoted) without preventing access to great works of literature, then that person clearly has not done a careful reading of the Christian Bible because The Bible contains scenes that in another work would be considered unacceptable. Alternatively, you could argue that the person hasn't really given their argument a lot of thought.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm also disappointed to see the suggestion that people who find such passages unnecessary and obnoxious, even when committed by Great Authors, must have not read the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Can we discuss this without the personal unkindness?

 

 

That is NOT what I'm saying at all. There is no personal attack in my posts, please do not imply that one exists. In fact, I specially stated that *I* do not like such content in the literature that I read, and I avoid those types of books. Therefore, your assertion that I am making a personal attack on people who do not like such content is completely unfounded.

 

 

ETA: I don't think however, that I said, either, what you're characterizing me as saying.

 

 

What is it that I am characterizing you as saying, that you think you didn't say?

[Violet Crown]

 

 

If one believes that a rating system designed to keep books out of the hands of groups of people (like the teens specifically mentioned in the posts that I quoted) without preventing access to great works of literature, then that person clearly has not done a careful reading of the Christian Bible because The Bible contains scenes that in another work would be considered unacceptable. Alternatively, you could argue that the person hasn't really given their argument a lot of thought.

 

Ah. I understand you better now. I suppose in theoretical principle I disagree - it doesn't strike me as that difficult to construct a rating system that would distinguish between graphic anatomical descriptions and references to horrible events - but I'm not going to push that, as a rating system for books not intended for children is a really terrible idea in the first place. I don't think there ought to be a rating system for films, for that matter, other than G = intended for young children and X = intended for the porn market.

 

Anyway, I apologize again, as I see now where I misunderstood you.

[Violet Crown]

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it that I am characterizing you as saying, that you think you didn't say?

 

I think there is a lot of room between "unkindness" and "attacking."

[Hockey Mom]

I don't know if it was mentioned, but wouldn't the christian bible fall under this category?

 

just sayin...

Glad I continued reading the thread, because you just posted what I was thinking. LOL

 

Traumatic events, whether they happen to minors or adults in a book, are genrally pivotal to the story. The whole premise of The Lovely Bones was due to the traumatic event that took place with the girl. If the author hadn't written it in graphic detail, it would have never illicited strong reactions. It's one thing to read "she was raped and killed" to describe what happened, but it's entirely a different response when you are actually there "witnessing" the vile act.

 

It's really not that hard to figure out what a book is about prior to reading it. And generally speaking, one can usually tell where things are heading and skip those parts of a book if they offend.

 

I am 100% against ratings on books, or censoring/banning books based on content.

[Wheres Toto]

Wow, interesting discussion.

 

I don't think a book rating system is necessary. Anyone who finds certain scenes or types of literature disturbing could easily find appropriate books by looking at book reviews on Amazon, Good Reads, Barnes and Noble, and probably lots of other places.

 

I've read just about everything by Stephen KIng and definitely find some of it disturbing.

 

I read The Handmaid's Tale, and for some reason found it more disturbing than Stephen King (maybe because it seemed more "real"?). For that reason, I haven't read any other Margaret Atwood books. As a literate adult, I'm able to make those kinds of choices for myself, without the need for warning labels or censorship.

[Nakia]

I don't know. I'm the type of person who doesn't mind really hard stuff in books I read. I don't "like" to read about rape and violence exactly, but my favorite book in the world has both, and a lot of it. It's part of the story, it happens, it's gut-wrenching, but that's okay. I don't always want a light fun and fluff read.

 

I read The Lovely Bones. The rape itself didn't stand out to me as much as the quality of writing, which I found to be severely lacking (this is my opinion only of course!).

 

There was a horrible scene in The Kite Runner. It was so hard to read and haunted me. Still, it was necessary for the book and development of characters. I am glad I read that book.

 

I do get the annoyance with scenes written just for shock value though. One popular author who comes to mind is Jodi Picoult. Ugh. I read two or three of her books and found the endings contrived and ridiculous. They had nothing to do with rape.

 

I have a lot of Margaret Atwood books on my "to be read" list. :)

 

Anyway, we all have to make our own judgements.

[Word Nerd]

I don't want to read graphic depictions of r@pe, child abuse and other forms of extreme violence in books either but don't find it difficult to avoid that content in my book selections. I think the potential for unintended--but predictable--consequences of a warning system for books would not justify any minor benefit it might give readers who don't use reviews, articles, and other freely available ways to find out about a book's content when deciding what to read. We all have different standards of what content is disturbing or may be a trigger. The onus has to be on the reader, not the author or publisher, to avoid that material.

[I.Dup.]

And that's the moral of this thread-know your limits and know what you're reading.[/font][/size]

 

I tried to make it clear (although I guess I didn't do a very good job of it) the concept of surprises coming up that had nothing to do with the story line. The Lovely Bones was a poor choice of this (although I mentioned it because I remember being especially shocked and disturbed by the graphic nature of what was described) but I have read other books where these scenes come out of freaking nowhere. I browsed some reviews on "Oryx and Crake" last night and not one mentioned any scene depicting graphic molestation of children. I'm not sure how to look for things like that before I read a book, or even if I should be searching for "molestation of children" before I read a book, since that is clearly one of my limits.

 

I understand needing to bring issues to light.

 

There's some slippage here from the original objection, which was to anatomically detailed, graphic descriptions of child rape, to ancient literature that refers to horrific events. It's easy slippage to make, as there's no way to post comparative passages. I would happily post the unpleasant passages from Gilgamesh or the Bible here; I could not post (for example) the relevant parts of the Walker Percy book I was foolish enough to read, as it would be immediately deleted by the moderators and possibly get me banned. I'm also disappointed to see the suggestion that people who find such passages unnecessary and obnoxious, even when committed by Great Authors, must have not read the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Can we discuss this without the personal unkindness?

 

Exactly. I would come across as a total pervert if I were to quote those passages. Passages in the Bible do not have explicit descriptions of anatomy and what the child is doing, etc.

 

Serious issues are never appropriate. We should all be far too polite to discuss, much less write about, anything like sex, drugs, religious conflicts, racism. It's just rude. And for politeness sake, if someone should dare to do so, they should only hint about it or whitewash it to avoid someone feeling uncomfortable. Can't believe this is even being seriously discussed. Writers and readers write and read about subjects that are real and unreal. Some of it isn't pretty. They write with detail to place the reader in the story. They write about all kinds of sin and taboo things and the graphic ways humans do those things because that's just as much a part of life as roses and sunshine. If you don't want to read about dark and awful things, then I can certainly understand that. I don't care too either most of the time. Real life is hard enough, I tend to prefer light and laughter for my casual reading and TV enjoyment. But it's simply ridiculous to insinuate that writers who do write on unsavory topics or readers who read it are all depraved individuals. Do you also think cops, morticians, taxidermist, and more who choose to work in graphic and disturbing subject matter must be mentally deprived to do so? This is the second thread to insinuate the writers who write about unpleasant topics and those that read their books are somehow ... What? Morally questionable?

 

Wow. I'm not even sure how to address this. :confused1:

 

I think it would be easier for me to understand this conversation in that context if the OP had started with trashy thrillers as her examples. Yes, there are definitely writers who use shocking events of all kinds to sell books and that's not something I like, though as someone who believes strongly in free speech and generally believes in the market of ideas, I think you let them do it and then ignore them, which I'm usually fine with doing. However, the OP chose two authors who are respected literary writers. One of them, Alice Sebold, actually experienced rape as a teenager and therefore it's no surprise that she might want to explore issues of s*xual violence in her writing. And the other one, Margaret Atwood, is an author who has been using shocking scenarios and dystopian settings for decades to explore the darker side of all kinds of issues. She is a Booker prize winner. She's undisputedly one of Canada's greatest living writers and one of the greatest female novelists of all time. If "trashy sensationalism" is the gist of the OP's argument, then she undermined it from the very start by giving the precise counter-example in a book of great literary merit.

 

Nope, I did not say that Sebold or Atwood are writing trashy sensationalism.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't want to read graphic depictions of r@pe, child abuse and other forms of extreme violence in books either but don't find it difficult to avoid that content in my book selections. I think the potential for unintended--but predictable--consequences of a warning system for books would not justify any minor benefit it might give readers who don't use reviews, articles, and other freely available ways to find out about a book's content when deciding what to read. We all have different standards of what content is disturbing or may be a trigger. The onus has to be on the reader, not the author or publisher, to avoid that material.

 

Exactly. This information is already widely available. We don't need a new warning system. Read book reviews, problem solved.

[Murphy101]

There are dozens of places to access book reviews, to include asking people who work at bookstores. The author has frequently mentioned the books being inspired by a gang rape in interviews. *I* knew that I didn't want to read it because that information is out there.

The ability to know what a book is about already exists. It isn't the fault of the book industry if consumers *don't bother* to access that information.

You must not have attended my junior high or high school at all. I firmly reject the notion that books with violent or explicit content are not to be found in school libraries.

 

I completely agree. My middle school library had extremely explicit books available. Graphic depictions of all kinds of sex, including rape. Plenty of stuff I read because it was there that I wouldn't have read otherwise and would never let my kids read.

 

 

As for unkindness. I think the only unkind thing I have said is that Reya's statement that upper class girls don't know anything about rape is a moronic presumption and I stand by that. If it's unkind to note that someone is ignorant of something or presenting an entirely empty argument, then I suspect the world seems brutally unkind to an a plethora of people.

 

Call me rainman if you want. He wasn't unkind in his frank honesty though.

[Parrothead]

 

Who should do the ratings?

Who rates movies, video games and TV shows?

[Candid]

I have no idea what you mean by "get away with" as it's completely legal.

 

 

Quite, true on the legality part, but why? You couldn't show a film showing child sexual abuse or even still photos, so why print?

 

I'm not trying to argue with your point her, just wondering what the difference is between print and visual.

 

I guess one difference is that with the visual if you use an actual child, then you are breaking a crime to get the photo. But it is not illegal to own depictions of actual murders or other crimes so why child abuse?

 

If this is a bunny trail, please forgive me, just puzzling.

[I.Dup.]

Like I said, there ARE NOT ratings for these kind of scenes. Not that I have found. I would prefer if there were anything sexual involving CHILDREN that it would be labeled in some way. All it takes is one graphic scene involving children to upset me, and I'm not sure how one is to be warned of something like that.

 

The Shack, for example, did not upset me, but at the time I read it there were no reviews I found that listed the graphic nature of those scenes. It was all about the God factor in the book.

[Murphy101]

Who rates movies, video games and TV shows?

 

I don't know, but they really suck at it IMO. We don't even look at ratings because they are completely useless to us. There are things that are marked PG or PG13 that I wouldn't let my kids watch and there's stuff that is R that we view as family movies. Absolutely no way do I want anything even remotely like a rating systems for books. Grown adults need to figure it out on their own. If anything the idea of a rating system for any of it, tv, movies, or games, is outdated. There is no reason why anyone who is concerned can't do an Internet search or ask on FB or whatever.

[Farrar]

 

Nope, I did not say that Sebold or Atwood are writing trashy sensationalism.

 

Not you, but Reya used those exact words.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

Quite, true on the legality part, but why? You couldn't show a film showing child sexual abuse or even still photos, so why print?

 

I'm not trying to argue with your point her, just wondering what the difference is between print and visual.

 

I guess one difference is that with the visual if you use an actual child, then you are breaking a crime to get the photo. But it is not illegal to own depictions of actual murders or other crimes so why child abuse?

 

If this is a bunny trail, please forgive me, just puzzling.

 

The difference is in the legal definition of child p*rnography. To portray it graphically using visual media would mean that an actual child would be shown posed or engaged in sexual activity or in a titillating manner. These laws have been found to not apply to the written word as no child is physically involved. Virtual child p*rnography has recently (last 4-5 years or so) has also been found to be legal for the same reason.

[Parrothead]

 

 

 

 

Good grief. Your ignorance abounds. Actually, no your kid cannot go see any movie they want or buy any video game they want. They are refused tickets if under 18.

 

 

Actually what she said was a parent can take his kid to any movie they want which is true. The theater cannot stop a parent taking his child to an R or even XXX rated movie.

[Mrs Mungo]

Quite, true on the legality part, but why? You couldn't show a film showing child sexual abuse or even still photos, so why print?

 

I'm not trying to argue with your point her, just wondering what the difference is between print and visual.

 

I guess one difference is that with the visual if you use an actual child, then you are breaking a crime to get the photo. But it is not illegal to own depictions of actual murders or other crimes so why child abuse?

 

A visual representation is considered different than a written description. But, part of it is the factor of whether the content is worthwhile or has artistic value. That's why the Musee d'Orsay can hang this (explicit painting warning) in their gallery, but not pictures from Penthouse.

 

Like I said, there ARE NOT ratings for these kind of scenes. Not that I have found. I would prefer if there were anything sexual involving CHILDREN that it would be labeled in some way. All it takes is one graphic scene involving children to upset me, and I'm not sure how one is to be warned of something like that.

 

The Shack, for example, did not upset me, but at the time I read it there were no reviews I found that listed the graphic nature of those scenes. It was all about the God factor in the book.

 

Read book reviews.

[Word Nerd]

Like I said, there ARE NOT ratings for these kind of scenes. Not that I have found. I would prefer if there were anything sexual involving CHILDREN that it would be labeled in some way. All it takes is one graphic scene involving children to upset me, and I'm not sure how one is to be warned of something like that.

 

The Shack, for example, did not upset me, but at the time I read it there were no reviews I found that listed the graphic nature of those scenes. It was all about the God factor in the book.

 

Many book titles (including Oryx and Crake) have Wikipedia entries that would divulge this kind of content. Admittedly, it's hard to read very much of those summaries without reading spoilers as well.

[I.Dup.]

Read book reviews.

 

 

That's what I mean. I have read book reviews. How many hours am I supposed to spend poring over book reviews to see if even one of them mentions an inappropriate scene regarding children? I spent about 20 minutes looking at the reviews of Oryx and Crake last night and not one mentioned it.

[Parrothead]

I suppose if i knew all about the book, there wouldnt be much point to reading it.

Even if i were to agree with that, it makes absolutely no sense inthe 21st century to whine about it. It takes about 20 seconds to pull up a title with reviews and synopsis.

 

 

 

 

Yes, everyone takes their computer to the book store when they are wandering the stacks.

 

When I read Janet Evanovich I expect at least one hot steamy sex scene. When I read fanasy/sci-fi or action adventure or just a general fiction book a warning of some sort of graphic sexual content would be nice.

[Murphy101]

Quite, true on the legality part, but why? You couldn't show a film showing child sexual abuse or even still photos, so why print?

I'm not trying to argue with your point her, just wondering what the difference is between print and visual.

I guess one difference is that with the visual if you use an actual child, then you are breaking a crime to get the photo. But it is not illegal to own depictions of actual murders or other crimes so why child abuse?

If this is a bunny trail, please forgive me, just puzzling.

 

For one, visual woud require the actual use of a real child.

For two, for the same reason it's going to be hard to convince someone that the smoking gun in your hand didn't kill the dead from gunshot to the chest man on the ground 4 feet in front of you. It's going to be hard to convince someone that the picture of a real child actually being sexually assaulted in your photograph doesn't actually have anything to with that child being sexually assaulted. It's illegal because it points to having actually done an illegal act against an actual person.

 

Like I said, there ARE NOT ratings for these kind of scenes. Not that I have found. I would prefer if there were anything sexual involving CHILDREN that it would be labeled in some way. All it takes is one graphic scene involving children to upset me, and I'm not sure how one is to be warned of something like that.

The Shack, for example, did not upset me, but at the time I read it there were no reviews I found that listed the graphic nature of those scenes. It was all about the God factor in the book.

 

Again, the problem with ratings is it's an arbitrary judgement. I found The Shack much worse than The Lovely Bones, tho truth be known I hated both. And oddly enough the child assault aspect isn't what I hated most about the books.

[Mrs Mungo]

The difference is in the legal definition of child p*rnography. To portray it graphically using visual media would mean that an actual child would be shown posed or engaged in sexual activity or in a titillating manner. These laws have been found to not apply to the written word as no child is physically involved. Virtual child p*rnography has recently (last 4-5 years or so) has also been found to be legal for the same reason.

 

I am going to have to disagree with this. There are laws against comics or graphic novels that represent a child-form (even if it's a demon or something else in the story) in a sexual manner. I actually used to know someone (a comic book store owner) who was convicted under such a law.

[Jenny in Florida]

Quite, true on the legality part, but why? You couldn't show a film showing child sexual abuse or even still photos, so why print?

 

I'm not trying to argue with your point her, just wondering what the difference is between print and visual.

 

I guess one difference is that with the visual if you use an actual child, then you are breaking a crime to get the photo. But it is not illegal to own depictions of actual murders or other crimes so why child abuse?

 

If this is a bunny trail, please forgive me, just puzzling.

 

Actually, there have been many films made about child abuse, a number of which portray scenes of abuse featuring child actors.

[I.Dup.]

Again, the problem with ratings is it's an arbitrary judgement. I found The Shack much worse than The Lovely Bones, tho truth be known I hated both. And oddly enough the child assault aspect isn't what I hated most about the books.

 

Reviews are more arbitrary than what I am thinking. I didn't start this thread with the intent of trying to enact book ratings, but I don't think it's a bad idea to put "graphic sexu*l scenes regarding children" or "graphic violence against children" or some other such short, concise warning.

[Mrs Mungo]

That's what I mean. I have read book reviews. How many hours am I supposed to spend poring over book reviews to see if even one of them mentions an inappropriate scene regarding children? I spent about 20 minutes looking at the reviews of Oryx and Crake last night and not one mentioned it.

 

From the two editorial (therefore in the main section about the book, not lost in the midst of user reviews) reviews on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0385721676

Meanwhile, beautiful Oryx, raised as a child prostitute in Southeast Asia...

 

the two friends first encountered Oryx on the Net; she was the eight-year-old star of a pedophilic film on a site called HottTotts. Oryx's story is a counterpoint to Jimmy and Crake's affluent adolescence. She was sold by her Southeast Asian parents, taken to the city and eventually made into a sex "pixie" in some distant country.

 

These don't give you an idea that the novel might contain something graphic?

[Parrothead]

I don't know, but they really suck at it IMO. We don't even look at ratings because they are completely useless to us. There are things that are marked PG or PG13 that I wouldn't let my kids watch and there's stuff that is R that we view as family movies. Absolutely no way do I want anything even remotely like a rating systems for books. Grown adults need to figure it out on their own. If anything the idea of a rating system for any of it, tv, movies, or games, is outdated. There is no reason why anyone who is concerned can't do an Internet search or ask on FB or whatever.

As unlikely as it seems, not everyone has access to the internet at their finger tips 24/7.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

I am going to have to disagree with this. There are laws against comics or graphic novels that represent a child-form (even if it's a demon or something else in the story) in a sexual manner. I actually used to know someone (a comic book store owner) who was convicted under such a law.

 

The decisions ruling that virtual child p*rn are relatively recent . I believe one was a USSC decision over turning a state conviction. So yes, people have been convicted for the graphic novels you described, but I do not believe that is still true.

[I.Dup.]

These laws have been found to not apply to the written word as no child is physically involved. Virtual child p*rnography has recently (last 4-5 years or so) has also been found to be legal for the same reason.

 

Regarding the bolded, I do see the difference between an actual child being involved, of course. But I feel it as some sort of mental assault against the reader to spring up with scenes so graphic involving children. I just wonder what the point of that is. Is there anyone alive who can't imagine what "rape against a child" or "child molestation" means? What purpose does it serve to have the act described in such intricate detail?

 

If the rest is true, I find this very disturbing.

[Parrothead]

Read book reviews.

Where are you finding these all these book reviews?

 

And I'll say it again, not everyone has access to the internet while standing in the bookstore.

[Mrs Mungo]

As unlikely as it seems, not everyone has access to the internet at their finger tips 24/7.

 

Are you suggesting that most libraries these days lack computers...or librarians to ask?

[I.Dup.]

 

These don't give you an idea that the novel might contain something graphic?

 

I obviously missed those. LOL!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

Regarding the bolded, I do see the difference between an actual child being involved, of course. But I feel it as some sort of mental assault against the reader to spring up with scenes so graphic involving children. I just wonder what the point of that is. Is there anyone alive who can't imagine what "rape against a child" or "child molestation" means? What purpose does it serve to have the act described in such intricate detail?

 

If the rest is true, I find this very disturbing.

 

I guess it depends on what the author is trying to convey.

 

Doing some quick research, the virtual child p*rn law was rewritten after being struck down previously, and a new challenge to it is working its way through the court system.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

That's what I mean. I have read book reviews. How many hours am I supposed to spend poring over book reviews to see if even one of them mentions an inappropriate scene regarding children? I spent about 20 minutes looking at the reviews of Oryx and Crake last night and not one mentioned it.

 

I think that's where the other part of being an adult reader comes in. If you come across something disturbing in a book, deal with it. Put the book down, skip the part, whatever.

 

Serious books for adults will contain serious content. To go into a novel with the expectation that nothing offensive will happen, especially with regards to writers like Margaret Atwood, seems naive to me. Writers of good books write about life and how the events in a life shape people and there are a lot of events in most people's lives that, written down, can be greatly offensive.

 

We're adults. We should be able to maturely deal with content that disturbs us in one way or another.

[Mrs Mungo]

Where are you finding these all these book reviews?

 

I posted a link to the amazon page for the book in question. The problematic bits are directly mentioned in the two editorial reviews under the synopsis of the book.

 

And I'll say it again, not everyone has access to the internet while standing in the bookstore.

 

Well, the problem with bookstores is that they started selling books at low, low prices and have been reduced to a literary version of K-Mart. When you pay your employees minimum wage, then you cannot expect them to be experts in the subject. If you frequent independent bookstores, then you can often ask the booksellers for more information about specific books. Sometimes you get lucky and get some great, knowledgeable employees at mass market bookstores, but it is more frequent that you get one who cannot type "Ovid" into a computer.

[Parrothead]

 

Are you suggesting that most libraries these days lack computers...or librarians to ask?

No. I'm saying that one does not always have a way to access the internet to review a book one is holding while standing in the bookstore contemplating a purchase.

 

Am I the only one in the world that browses bookstore stacks? Does everyone else go into a bookstore with a specific agenda and purchase in mind? If so, then it is my problem.

[I.Dup.]

 

I think that's where the other part of being an adult reader comes in. If you come across something disturbing in a book, deal with it. Put the book down, skip the part, whatever.

 

Serious books for adults will contain serious content. To go into a novel with the expectation that nothing offensive will happen, especially with regards to writers like Margaret Atwood, seems naive to me. Writers of good books write about life and how the events in a life shape people and there are a lot of events in most people's lives that, written down, can be greatly offensive.

 

We're adults. We should be able to maturely deal with content that disturbs us in one way or another.

 

Please. I have no problem with most offensive content, that is not what this thread is about. I honestly didn't even think there would be "another side" to this discussion, I thought we would all agree that these scenes are disturbing and someone would be able to give me some valid insight on why they need to be described in such detail.

 

Just because I started a discussion here does not mean I'm not "dealing with it." I just wanted to talk about it.

[mommymilkies]

I agree and disagree with a lot said on here. Now, I can see why it is in books like The Lovely Bones or whatever. My problem with these scenes are the almost glee a few authors put into writing graphic child rape scenes. As someone who dealt with this firsthand as a teen, it is...not good when I come across it in a book where I did not expect it. I always read book reviews, but sometimes these things aren't even mentioned. Like in the Game of Thrones book 1. That severely disturbed me. I about burned it after reading that part. And I am against burning/banning most books.

[WishboneDawn]

Where are you finding these all these book reviews?

 

And I'll say it again, not everyone has access to the internet while standing in the bookstore.

 

 

I'd suggest that if certain content is such a big issue for someone they should probably do some research before going to the bookstore.

[Parrothead]

I posted a link to the amazon page for the book in question. The problematic bits are directly mentioned in the two editorial reviews under the synopsis of the book.

 

 

 

Well, the problem with bookstores is that they started selling books at low, low prices and have been reduced to a literary version of K-Mart. When you pay your employees minimum wage, then you cannot expect them to be experts in the subject. If you frequent independent bookstores, then you can often ask the booksellers for more information about specific books. Sometimes you get lucky and get some great, knowledgeable employees at mass market bookstores, but it is more frequent that you get one who cannot type "Ovid" into a computer.

 

What? Are we not to go to bookstores anymore? The guy that owns the independent bookstore in my town would rather grunt than answer a simple question about a book.

 

And even if he would actually talk about his stock, I don't expect him to have read every word of every book in his store. That is thousands of books. It is unrealistic to expect.