|
Post by jayvee on Jun 26, 2006 23:33:36 GMT -5
Catcher in the Rye?
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 27, 2006 10:13:45 GMT -5
As a Nocturnal-American, there isn't even a recognized category for what I am. So we're trying to fight to even be seen as a minority enough to be persecuted. Right now we're persecuted by omission and the lack of our stories being told is like a silent holocaust. In terms of the gay kids in middle school, i wonder if any of the younger people will chime in here as to whether this would be relaistic or not. In terms of it being a bad business decision, if that is the case, i would chalk it up to risk averse publishers (which PT definately is not) run by old white men.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 27, 2006 16:51:41 GMT -5
I'm just saying, even risky publishers have to take into account the difference between rating something R and rating something X. Putting material that introduces sexual identity issues into a kid's hands is begging for a boycott. And, as Co-Editor-In-Chief, it's in your hands NOT to market a book like PT to younger kids, knowing full well that the inner content won't be suitable for their digestion. 18+ or 17+, rated M for Mature or whatever should never fall into the hands of impressionable minds who don't yet have the judgment to process it.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 27, 2006 20:49:35 GMT -5
I'm just saying, even risky publishers have to take into account the difference between rating something R and rating something X. Putting material that introduces sexual identity issues into a kid's hands is begging for a boycott. And, as Co-Editor-In-Chief, it's in your hands NOT to market a book like PT to younger kids, knowing full well that the inner content won't be suitable for their digestion. 18+ or 17+, rated M for Mature or whatever should never fall into the hands of impressionable minds who don't yet have the judgment to process it. I think there's a pretty clear line between romance and sexual identity and outright pornography. It doesn't seem to bother people when material comes out about girls thinking a guy is "cute" or vice versa. Heterosexuality seems to underplay the idea of a big hard thing ramming itself in to a woman's most delicate regions. And I think that kids can handle a lot. Frankly I don't think that a "protect the children" approach ever means something other then "this frightens me and I want to keep it out of the hands of adults." The minds of children aren't anywhere near as impressionable as adults would like to think. Honestly, though, I doubt many copies of PT will even make it in to the hands of kids. The magazine does have a "no porn/obscenity/libel" policy. But things like Boccaccio's Decameron, Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, Burton's translation of Arabian Nights, Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover, Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, Burrough's Naked Lunch, the acclaimed film The Tin Drum and just about any material related to birth control were once deemed obscene and pornographic so the standards for things really do shift. Part of the problem with obscenity in the internet age (outside child porn, which is generally seen as bad everywhere, or at least bad enough to keep under wraps) is the "community standards" portion. In terms fo a global community, the standards could be read as either the physical location where material is found (which completley ignores the non-physical community of the internet), the standards of the community of internet users (which would end up being a hell of a lot different) and unless the most liberal standard is applied, you end up with a standard that only ends up allowing things not offensive to anyone. But there's yet to be a substantial legal ruling regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 27, 2006 22:49:56 GMT -5
Kids CAN handle a lot, I'll agree, but what seems to be little things to us can change the entire course of a child's development. For instance, your child-molesting uncle doesn't even have to touch you for that to have a major impact on developing trust issues. Just the fact that he reached for you in the first place can derail natural development. It's a touchy issue and difficult to navigate in terms of what's acceptable and what's not.
Like I said, no big deal for ages thirteen and up but for the rest... I have my reservations.
That being said, Lulu makes you rate your product when you're putting it together, from all ages to adult. I guess you can keep it private, too, but I'm curious what you're going to list PT as if you're this adamant about letting eleven- and twelve-year-olds see material that my be obtrusive to their natural development.
I'm one of the most hardcore liberals you'll ever see but with the expected type of content, I think it's a little irresponsible for you as the one-half of the driver's seat to think this whole issue isn't an issue. Why don't you also have one of her tween personalities be pregnant while you're at it? Or better yet, be dying of AIDS? It's the same lines, something for an older mind with more education and experience to take in--in fact, those are intriguing concepts for an adult audience... I'm not scared of any of it and I'm not one to hide things like that forever, but it's not something to be actively marketed to tweens.
Just set my mind at ease and say you'll have a MAX-like EXPLICIT CONTENT advisory label on the cover.
P.S. I think it's a shame no one else is weighing in on this.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 27, 2006 23:40:27 GMT -5
Kids CAN handle a lot, I'll agree, but what seems to be little things to us can change the entire course of a child's development. For instance, your child-molesting uncle doesn't even have to touch you for that to have a major impact on developing trust issues. Just the fact that he reached for you in the first place can derail natural development. It's a touchy issue and difficult to navigate in terms of what's acceptable and what's not. Like I said, no big deal for ages thirteen and up but for the rest... I have my reservations. That being said, Lulu makes you rate your product when you're putting it together, from all ages to adult. I guess you can keep it private, too, but I'm curious what you're going to list PT as if you're this adamant about letting eleven- and twelve-year-olds see material that my be obtrusive to their natural development. I'm one of the most hardcore liberals you'll ever see but with the expected type of content, I think it's a little irresponsible for you as the one-half of the driver's seat to think this whole issue isn't an issue. Why don't you also have one of her tween personalities be pregnant while you're at it? Or better yet, be dying of AIDS? It's the same lines, something for an older mind with more education and experience to take in--in fact, those are intriguing concepts for an adult audience... I'm not scared of any of it and I'm not one to hide things like that forever, but it's not something to be actively marketed to tweens. Just set my mind at ease and say you'll have a MAX-like EXPLICIT CONTENT advisory label on the cover. P.S. I think it's a shame no one else is weighing in on this. Actually, I think it would probably end up with a mature readers rating or whatever the equivalent of that is. But at the same time, honestly, books don't need ratings so I don't think comics need them either. And movies, well, the rating system there is just a mountain of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 28, 2006 8:45:20 GMT -5
You gotta give people a rating so they can weed out the stuff they don't wanna read.
It's a service, more than it is censorship. Like putting books on shelves by genre.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 28, 2006 10:25:43 GMT -5
You gotta give people a rating so they can weed out the stuff they don't wanna read. It's a service, more than it is censorship. Like putting books on shelves by genre. Actually, putting books on shelves by genre shows how silly the whole idea of "genre" and "literature" actually is. For example Ray Bradbury is apparently in the SF/F section but J. G. Ballard and Kurt Vonnegut aren't (or weren't the last time I was in the bookstore like a week ago). Apparently Steven King is horror but Poe, Hawthorne and Mary Shelley aren't. And apparently Joyce Carol Oates and Toni Morrison belongs in "Literature" too. It looks like L. Frank Baum has made it over there too. And if you look at www.umich.edu/~genreevo/ even the definitions of what fits in a genre seem to have changed. I think of those kinds of things serve more as a method of segregation now then anything else.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 28, 2006 14:57:27 GMT -5
Vonnegut's in our bookstore's sci-fi section.
But that's not the point. With genres being so loosely defined--and they are, I'll admit--it still helps to have some order while shelving. Some is better than none, when people are browsing for something they want to buy. It's got nothing to do with segregation or "don't read this!" because if it was about not reading things, the stores wouldn't carry them at all.
It's just helpful, is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 28, 2006 15:04:31 GMT -5
Vonnegut's in our bookstore's sci-fi section. But that's not the point. With genres being so loosely defined--and they are, I'll admit--it still helps to have some order while shelving. Some is better than none, when people are browsing for something they want to buy. It's got nothing to do with segregation or "don't read this!" because if it was about not reading things, the stores wouldn't carry them at all. It's just helpful, is all I'm saying. Honestly, with the barriers for genres blurring more and more, I really think its something more useful for marketing people then critics, the same way that arranging things by age group is more useful for overprotective parents who can't imagine that kids would ever see X then actually doing anything substantial for literature. I mean Christ, most of the Harry Potter readers are adults.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 28, 2006 18:08:00 GMT -5
That's what I'm talking about here, too, is marketing.
I don't think PT will ever be aggressively marketed to tweens so the conversation became kind of moot.
As for arranging by age, I don't think that's a censorship issue, either...
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 28, 2006 21:34:45 GMT -5
That's what I'm talking about here, too, is marketing. I don't think PT will ever be aggressively marketed to tweens so the conversation became kind of moot. As for arranging by age, I don't think that's a censorship issue, either... But we mgiht publish a project or two that would appeal to tweens. And I totally think that segregating things by age appropriateness is a de facto form of censorship. It encourages people to try things that are appropriate for all ages and uses vague criteria to determine what is appropriate for which ages.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 28, 2006 22:17:05 GMT -5
Not taking into account reading levels?
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 29, 2006 10:04:45 GMT -5
Not taking into account reading levels? Well in a country where like 1/3 of the adult population is estimated to be functionally illiterate, its hard to come up with a reasonable definition of reading levels in terms of age groups. Back on Topic (I've been a bad administrator for contributing to thread rot like this, if there are any girls on here who want to punish me, let me know)...I think that the best way to do a project aimed at a group like this would be to respect their intelligence and give them stories, in whatever genre, that they can connect to in some way rather then trying to give them watered-down material.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 29, 2006 15:33:24 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it "thread rot" so much because we WERE talking about marketing to tween girls throughout... BUT, you're right about the last thing there. The best way to get a demographic interested in your work is not to insult their intelligence.
|
|