The other day we were talking about privacy and how some borrowers prefer to use the self-checkout station because they don't want anyone to see what they read. And I asked why no one has ever invented a sheet of paper or a bag that could go over the book to conceal the title and subject, but have a hole cut out where the barcode sits, so it can be scanned . Sure, it's pointless and unnecessary, but if I felt like keeping my reading habits private, I might fold a sheet of paper over my book, secure it with a rubber band and tear an opening for the barcode to be scanned.
And that kind of surprised me that I've never seen anyone do that before.
But maybe that would just draw more attention to the subject matter. Maybe the desk clerk couldn't give a crap until she saw the comical banded camouflage.
I think the better solution is misdirection. If you need to read about a health issue, then also get a book on lesbian sex. Or if you need to read about ED (why? every 8 minutes, some TV commercial tells you how to get free erection pills), grab a copy of Mein Kampf. It's like when I need to fill my prescription at WalMart for some personal ointment, I also buy some K-Y and some Hot Wheels cars or a Barbie or a bowling ball. Misdirection. No one is going to remember that I have a farm animal transmitted skin allergy if they're wondering about the lubricant and the 12-pound Brunswick beauty.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. I was wondering what libraries would be like if books had ratings like movies (and now TV) do. What if Jack Valenti had worked for the Library of Congress? (Never mind that crazy Hays Code.)
I was thinking about this because of this story about the parent who complained about his 11-yr. old child borrowing an R-rated from the local library. The movie Underworld Evolution" got a restricted rating 'for pervasive strong violence and gore, some sexuality - nudity and language.'"
And it made me think about all the books I've read with "pervasive strong violence, " descriptions of "gore," "sexuality" and "language." The only real difference is nudity. I guess reading about "glistening orbs" or "bulging manhood" can only titillate so much.
One of my favorite movies is The Browning Version. In it, the student, Taplow, discusses the Agamemnon as being interesting because of all the violence. Much classical literature is loaded with sexy and violent references. And (I've heard that) The Bible is filled with sex and violence. So I guess these are the reasons why the printed word seems to be exempt from the rules of still or moving images.
When I published my own book, the novel-of-which-we-dare-not-speak, I included a black and white message on the back cover that warns: "reader's advisory EXPLICIT language" because I thought it was good customer service to warn the reader that there be dragons between the covers. The only other books that seem to have any ratings at all, are graphic novels with their mentions of "adults" and "mature readers."
So now I wonder what ratings we would give to most of our books, if we had to enforce MPAA guidelines. I just did a search in NoveList, "a fiction database that provides subject heading access, reviews, annotations, and much more for over 135,000 fiction titles" for books with the words "sex" and "violence" in any field and I got back 1120 titles. That's less than one percent.
When I removed "adult" titles from the search, the list drops to 70. If I remove "YA," it goes down to 8 books for children that have plots or descriptions that include the words "sex" and "violence." And so you end up with titles like, Bring me the head of Oliver Plunkett by Colin Bateman; not really sexy or too violent (based on reviews).
I think kids tend to read what interests kids. They want to read about characters like themselves. Sometimes they want to read stuff they're not supposed to. But as long as they're reading, I guess it's okay.
