Parental Inconsistency: That's what you're bothered by?
This Friday night, my roommates and I had a movie night. One of my roommates got a Redbox of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and we watched it. It was a well-done movie. Of course, another roommate didn't like how I jokingly described it as "angsty Percy Jackson makes out with rebellious Hermione Granger." It was just a comment on casting. After it was done, one of my roommates decided she wanted to read the book. I have read the book, and I liked the book, but felt that I needed to tell her, "Just so you know, the book is more explicit and illicit than the movie. They toned it down in the movie. If they followed the book exactly, that movie would not have been PG-13." In fact, the book is one of the most commonly "challenged" books, meaning most commonly suggested for censorship. This doesn't necessarily mean much, because To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men are also on that list, but it is.
This started a discussion about those parent review websites where they decide how age appropriate something is and why. And sometimes, those websites make me laugh. For example, on one of the most common ones, called CommonSense Media, marks Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a book for twelve-year-olds. It's probably a bit dark, but I don't think that there is a huge problem with a mature nine- or ten-year-old giving it a crack. Personally. But why do they rank it that way? Oh, the sex (you mean kissing?) and the (get this) consumerism! Let's not talk about the snake the comes out of the zombie woman, or the snake biting people's necks until they die. Or any of that. Let's worry about the consumerism.
And then, some of them it seems to me that they are ignoring much more mature things. The Perks of Being a Wallflower has a lot of questionable material. Some pretty strong language, a lot of drinking, some drugs (including an acid trip), smoking, domestic violence, an abortion, homosexuality, making out, rape and sexual abuse. But, the CommonSense page focuses more on how they didn't like the book because the narrator character, Charlie, swings back and forth between unhealthily emotionally unstable and disturbingly emotionally detached. And apparently, that could hurt the children. Actually, in the context of the book, it all makes sense in the end why Charlie is that way. But, really. That's what you choose to critique? They did say that the go-ahead age on it is 16, but really? Just worry about how the character isn't "realistic" (even though he actually is).
Even better are the ones that are Christian-based. Because they are more concerned about alternative belief systems than they are about pretty much anything else. For example, they find it more concerning that Percy Jackson is about Greek gods than the fact that the fifth book is pretty violent. People (almost exclusively minors to boot) are injured in pretty much every way imaginable (guns, knives, swords, spears, acid, poison, fire, explosions, claws, teeth, etc.). The Spiderwick Chronicles details children being attacked by every mythical creature known to man, and all three of the kids have some family issues that could be pretty disturbing to young children. But it's not so much the fact that they have blood coming out of their wounds that worries the parents, but heaven forbid it is done by a FAIRY! And any time there is maybe questionable material, they rationalize it, but only if the author is openly Christian.
I have nothing wrong with the idea of a website that lets parents know about any objectionable material in media. In fact, I think it's a great idea. It helps parent make good parenting choices, especially when they may not be able to read the book before the kid. But, maybe the rating system needs to be redone.
This started a discussion about those parent review websites where they decide how age appropriate something is and why. And sometimes, those websites make me laugh. For example, on one of the most common ones, called CommonSense Media, marks Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a book for twelve-year-olds. It's probably a bit dark, but I don't think that there is a huge problem with a mature nine- or ten-year-old giving it a crack. Personally. But why do they rank it that way? Oh, the sex (you mean kissing?) and the (get this) consumerism! Let's not talk about the snake the comes out of the zombie woman, or the snake biting people's necks until they die. Or any of that. Let's worry about the consumerism.
And then, some of them it seems to me that they are ignoring much more mature things. The Perks of Being a Wallflower has a lot of questionable material. Some pretty strong language, a lot of drinking, some drugs (including an acid trip), smoking, domestic violence, an abortion, homosexuality, making out, rape and sexual abuse. But, the CommonSense page focuses more on how they didn't like the book because the narrator character, Charlie, swings back and forth between unhealthily emotionally unstable and disturbingly emotionally detached. And apparently, that could hurt the children. Actually, in the context of the book, it all makes sense in the end why Charlie is that way. But, really. That's what you choose to critique? They did say that the go-ahead age on it is 16, but really? Just worry about how the character isn't "realistic" (even though he actually is).
Even better are the ones that are Christian-based. Because they are more concerned about alternative belief systems than they are about pretty much anything else. For example, they find it more concerning that Percy Jackson is about Greek gods than the fact that the fifth book is pretty violent. People (almost exclusively minors to boot) are injured in pretty much every way imaginable (guns, knives, swords, spears, acid, poison, fire, explosions, claws, teeth, etc.). The Spiderwick Chronicles details children being attacked by every mythical creature known to man, and all three of the kids have some family issues that could be pretty disturbing to young children. But it's not so much the fact that they have blood coming out of their wounds that worries the parents, but heaven forbid it is done by a FAIRY! And any time there is maybe questionable material, they rationalize it, but only if the author is openly Christian.
I have nothing wrong with the idea of a website that lets parents know about any objectionable material in media. In fact, I think it's a great idea. It helps parent make good parenting choices, especially when they may not be able to read the book before the kid. But, maybe the rating system needs to be redone.
Comments