Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Children's Fiction
>
Is "all-ages" a dirty word?
date
newest »
newest »
Quite possibly. All-ages implies that it would be readable to someone in middle school, so some adults may fear that it will be too childish. That said, though, many adults are very interested in Young Adult fiction and might not necessarily be put off by "all-ages." Additionally, it might be a term that people are unfamiliar with - I know I have never really heard a book marketed as one for "all-ages." Have you thought of possibly marketing it as something more familiar, such as Young Adult? I think that implies that it is readable by both children and adults and might make it more accessible.
As a ring leader of a circus would loudly proclaim, 'Ladies and Gentleman, Children of all ages..' Usually yes, the whole 'all ages' commonly refers to children.
Tia wrote: "Have you thought of possibly marketing it as something more familiar, such as Young Adult? I think that implies that it is readable by both children and adults and might make it more accessible."Young Adult is not meant for children. It's meant for 14-18YOs. It can be too gritty for the parents of teenagers, but just fine for the teens themselves.
"All ages" or "Rated G" usually implies there's nothing inside that could possibly offend or upset anyone of any age. That usually translates into "pabulum" for most people.
Al wrote: Why don't you just say "Rated 'G'"?
That wouldn't mean anything to UK readers. We have a different rating system.
That wouldn't mean anything to UK readers. We have a different rating system.
How about just saying "general audiences"?
How about 'age X and upwards'? (Fill in the X as appropriate.)
And we're back to making it sound like "kiddie lit".
Hmm, yea I think maybe there should be a scale or system to rate books, like there is for movies. Thoughts?-Nihar
www.niharsuthar.com
I've always been happy with the movie ratings, but those don't seem to be universal.Does anyone know of a system that is understood in all countries?
After that, we get into cultural flame wars. What's "obscene" in Syria may be PG-13 in a western nation.
two dirty words I would have thought, even though it's hyphenated :-)
Nihar wrote: "Hmm, yea I think maybe there should be a scale or system to rate books, like there is for movies. Thoughts?"It always boils down to who's doing the rating, and how. The pathologies of the MPAA ratings system (for films shown in the U.S.) are well-known. The similar systems for music and computer games are just as capricious. I have little faith that a ratings system for books would make any more sense or be applied in any less arbitrary manner.
Mike wrote: "In the process of trying to promote my book . . . and while "all-ages" is a great way to explain the audience, I am staring to wonder if it's a "dirty word" of sorts in book promotion / marketing? ..."I know that publishers and agents tend to prefer a 3 to 4-year age range. (12-16, or 14-18, or 8-11). If your book is truly for all ages, then another way to promote it that is less of a turn-off can be to go ahead and give a target age-range/reading level, and then call it "Family Friendly" - that lets readers know what sort of writing style to expect, but also that your story is clean and appropriate for even younger audiences.
Just my two cents.
There is no need to put an age on any book, the adult buying it or the child buying it will both be able to know if they think it interesting and or understandable.If the work gets into bookshops they too can easily decide where it goes.
If we don't do it, governments will do it for us -- and chances are, we won't like their solution.The problems are a combination of language and subject matter.
A book that might appeal to both adults and mid-grade kids can be colored by the use of "colorful" language (parallel intended). Never mind that the little darlings probably use worse terminology when away from home (I once listened to a group of around 5th grade brats having a shouting argument and every 3rd word was the "F"-bomb. Not inner-city, out in the 'burbs.).
Another book with bleach-clean language and no sex, may not be suitable for younger readers because the subject matter is more likely to appeal to adults only and would bore or scare a kid.
So, we almost need a rating system that takes into account language, sexual content, violence, and likely interests.
And as soon as you solve that, you'll run into a reader like me who never grew up ;-)
Al wrote: "If we don't do it, governments will do it for us -- and chances are, we won't like their solution..."I can't think of a single instance where the government has imposed a ratings system on any form of mass entertainment in the U.S. (Even the Production Code was an industry invention.) The problem is, the ones enacted by industry are arbitrary and hypocritical.
In any reasonably diverse society, you'll never find a universal definition of "family friendly" or "suitable for ages X-Y" that you can use to put a sticker on a poster or dust jacket. Al pointed out just two of the many instances where a rating system will break down.
To get back to the original question: whatever you call your book, it's going to turn off somebody. There are people in this country who'd even object to classic kids' stories like Treasure Island, and there are some who truly believe Harry Potter is satanic. OTOH, I probably wouldn't touch a modern book billed as "family friendly" or "all ages" with a pair of fire tongs. Position your book for the people you think might best enjoy it (hint: it's not the entire population), and if you get a spillover audience, so much the better for you.
Yes, I know people who won't let their 12 year old see the Disney movies that have witches.
Do reviewers and readers avoid as soon as they see "all-ages"?
Appreciate any thoughts?
FYI - my all-ages book
Earthlings