A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Graphic Sex and Violence

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Audrey
User ID: 1878484 Sep 30th 0:35 AM
I think Martin's use of graphic sex and violence in the series adds to it. It's the first fantasy series that I've read that pushes the limit in this regard. All other fantasy series' that I've read have either ignored sex completely or hid it with generous spaces between paragraphs. Perhaps authors up until this point are scared of breaking the "nice" genre of fantasy writing and giving us a hardcore view of all the wars that go on in these things? I hope that this trend towards "realism in fantasy" continues.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 30th 11:01 AM
I absolutely agree. GRRM's style of writing is mature, _real_, so why should he leave out real part of the life he describes? I always despised these sugar-coated fantasy books, and I think Martin's style is fabulous. The story would be poorer without these aspects.

There are readers who think otherwise, though. I read a comment directed to Mr. Martin on the Legends board some month ago, anbd that woman threatened him that she would stop reasing if he would continue to display sex like that. Can you believe it?

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Sep 30th 11:31 AM
I agree with both of you. People _do_ talk and act like Tyrion, Cersei, and Theon. The descriptions he gives are not gratuitous -- they are necessary to emphasize the seamy underbelly of power politics and the mores of the people who occuply those positions. Plus, as our own little incident here in the U.S. demonstrated, sexual issues often can have a major impact on political issues.

LindaElane
User ID: 7733333 Oct 1st 9:43 PM
You know, I just sort of hope that younger kids don't read the books. However, Martin has never put a really graphic scene in the first few chapters, so if they can get deep into the book, perhaps they are mature enough in their understanding to hear of the borrors that Martin describes in detail. For me, it does not bug me, as I am an adult. I certainly like a sex scene described as if sex were the beautiful thing it is, btw.

I admit I personally would appreciate all the rape and incest, particularly when it involves 13 and 14 year children, to be spoken of in less detail. (Note the word personal) I also feel that it happens more in the books that in the world (well, rape and incest toward children anyway...its so very common in the books). However, it certainly does happen in the world, far too frequently, and it would be silly for adults not to speak of it.

LindaElane
User ID: 7733333 Oct 1st 9:50 PM
PS I remember this discussion over a year ago on the original board. Some thought me hypocritical because I did not object to the violence in the books. (Note: its not that I really object to the sex in the books..see above) Its just that the violence did not strike me as over the top in these books. However, it is certainly possible for something to be too violent. I have seen films where I felt that they included the grossest things possible in order to sell tickets, and to me, that is obscene. Of course, I do not determine what is obscene for everyone, key words were "to me".

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Oct 2nd 6:39 AM
well, I'm 18( soon to be 19), and I must say that neither the sex nor the violence would have prevented me from reading this when I was 14 or 12 or 10. I'm a small believer in censurship - while SOME censorship might be justified, parental censorship is usually a tool to prevent your children from seeing or learning about things you're uncomfortable about, that's all.

I defnetly don't believe that books should be restricted. I read Stephen King when I was around 12, and I don't think I've turned into a freak, violent adult( well, maybe a little :-)... young people should be encouraged to read, not discouraged( is that a word?)

Min
User ID: 9433023 Oct 2nd 10:28 AM
Well, Linda, what would you call "younger kids"? For violence, and definitely sex, are a part of our world. While I do not think it necessary to confront kids with porno-videos or some such, I see nothing wrong in letting them read a book of which sex is a part of the story. Kids of, let's say, ten or twelve (and younger kids would not read the books anyway), should not be cheated as to what sex is and can be about. And as soon as a kid is able to read and understand and appreciate a book like Martin's (which can be at very different ages, concerning his maturity and intelligence), I wouldn't have a problem in giving him the book to read. Would you?

LindaElane
User ID: 7733333 Oct 3rd 0:24 AM
Ten or twelve year olds reading graphic child rape scene? Yes, I would have a problem giving them the book to read.

The world just seems sort of upside down to me. People accuse me of "censorhip" just because I say that kids should not be exposed to certain things. To that I say......well, I am going to censor what I way :-).

At any rate, I think I mentioned that I came to peace within myself regarding Martin's style. He does bury very graphic things deep within the book, and anyone with the mind to get deep into the books is probably able to understand about the horrors of the rape of children and such.

My only possible objection was that children might read it,and I have answered that for myself. I do not think it exactly qualifies as "hard core" porn (far from it) for adults. I believe "continental" standards are different, and that children in Europe are exposed to all kinds of things at young ages, but I just cannot adjust to that.

It may be my own cultural assumptions speaking, but I am very big on "protecting children" no matter what it takes. Better to overprotect, in fact, than to expose kids under 13 to graphic material. Thats my humble opinion. So I favor what some would call "censorship" of children's materials. But after all, how many people object to the movie rating system and call it censorship? I am only saying that it may be impossible to have a rating system for books, but in an ideal world, such a thing would be attempted.

Now I will sit back and wait for people to imply that I am a prude because I care about children. Thats what always seems to happen. (If you think I am hurt that it always seems to happen, you have read into what I am thinking.)

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Oct 3rd 4:51 AM
I object to movie censorship. The way I understand it, most studies discuss the effect of violence on children. But we don't stop violence from reaching kids - we just stop gorn and semi-porno stuff. That's being hypocritical, not protective.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Oct 3rd 6:14 AM
I do not object in general, Linda, and even agree in some parts. Concerning movies (and, for that matter, video and computer games) I back up censorship. I also agree concerning hard-core-pornography or violence.

It is different with books (good books, and we all agree that ASOIAF is such). I read other than children's book quite early, and I can tell that I took out of the books only what concerned me, only what I was able to understand. I just did not grab the things that were too high for me to understand. Would I have read AGOT, for example, I would have understood that something horrible happened in the scene Chyswick told and Arya witnesses, but it would not have haunted my dreams. I would just have taken it as it was - as something bad Chyswick was punished for later. I would not have virtually _seen_ what happened.

There is no such chance when a child watches a movie or is allowed to play games like Unreal or Duke Nukem or Doom or whatever on the computer. The child will be forced to _see_ the violence and brutality happening, no matter if it was ready for it or not. It would be different there.

I, too, have the opinion that children should be protected of such stuff. I just think that is a kid is mature enough to read ASOIAF, it will be either mature enough to unerstand what happens there, or it will read just the story about heroes and villains, without "seeing" the actual rape of a girl happening before his eyes. And that is both ok.

And btw: I don't think you prude now, Linda. I just think our opinions diverge. :-)

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Oct 3rd 1:07 PM
For what it's worth, I believe that if there's something children should be protected against, it is not the violence and the sex itself, but the instances where, for instance, violence and rape is _glorified_, or it may be construed in such a way by a child.

I have no children of my own, but if I did, I'd never let them watch a movie like 'Clockwork Orange' alone. I would not initially let them see it in any circumstances, until I was sure they were mature enough to understand what it was really about. At the very least, I would see it together with them, and discuss it with them later. Young minds are impressionable, after all.

Bottom line is; it all begins and ends with parents. The responsibility is and must always ultimately be theirs - a responsibility to learn their child about right and wrong, and ensure that they do not get the 'wrong ideas'.

Which I presume must be the reasoning for demands of censorship in the first place? ('wrong ideas' I mean)

Anyway, to take the discussion back to the series - I do not think that GRRM actually glorifies rape or violence. He is showing the horror of war bare naked, and doesn't want to sugarcoat it.

Maybe - just maybe - this will not be obvious for a child. Maybe the child will read about Jaime and Cersei and think; "Cool. I must try that with my sister."
I kinda doubt that, but you never know.

But still, this all comes back to parents. It's their responsibility, and we do no one a favor by heaping resposibility on everyone else but them. If you don't want your child to read the series, make sure they don't get access to it. If you are afraid what they might get out of it, discuss it with the child beforehand.
It is a much better way than censorship, IMHO.

Audrey
User ID: 1439244 Oct 3rd 2:22 PM
I somehow doubt that most children as young as ten to twelve would be interested in reading a book as large and complicated as 'A Game of Thrones' or 'A Clash of Kings'. If they were I would guess that they are more mature and intelligent then other children their age. The youngest age group I see reading this sort of novel is about fifteen.

Anyways, I completely agree with the "glorification" of this sort of thing being bad. I don't think that anyone needs "protection" from a book or movie though. That's plain silly. I don't think that rape or killing should be made to seem good at any age or level. They're simply bad things that shouldn't happen. Martin does a very good job at not glorifying these things as well.

This is a line that a lot of people have difficulty drawing due to their upbringings or religious beliefs. To some all sex must be kept hidden and away from people under the age of eighteen years old. That's terrible because for the most part, sex is a good thing. Children, especially teenagers, should learn about sex, most particularly how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. Let's face it, at 15 most girls are completely grown, are sexually mature, and are horny. Boys are the same, although they grow bigger until about 21 or so. I don't think it's right to tell teenagers that they aren't to have sex. I think that all the options should be presented to them, as well as abstinence. Let them decide. Anyways, I go off on a tangent.

Even in his battle scenes, Martin doesn't glorify violence. He writes that it's awful and that it hurts and kills people. To clarify that point, look at the battle scenes Mat is involved with in 'The Wheel of Time'. They are glorified to a large extent.

I believe that if children are exposed to violence and rape in such a way that they know it happens and they know the consquences of how awful it is then perhaps they would grow up "normal". That is why schools today show 'Schindler's List' and 'American History X' in classes. They are terribly violent and horrible movies but they show people that it is not good.

I also don't agree that Americans are particulary more or less prudish then Europeans. Young children in Europe aren't exposed to sex and violence (unless they live in Eastern Europe) on a higher level then in America. It is just the sort of violence to which they are exposed. Europeans are taught that sex is good and violence is bad while in America they are taught that sex is bad and violence is good. This is done through movies and other media, not actual teaching.

It is interesting to note, however, that Jordan is American while, I believe, Martin is English.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Oct 3rd 2:57 PM
Martin is American. :) Born in New Jersey (which might be the reason for the confusion, if someone referred to him as being 'from Jersey.')

He currently lives in New Mexico.

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Oct 3rd 3:56 PM
I'm with LindaElane on this. Maybe its because we're parents, but I also would not let a kid of mine read this book until he or she was at least 13 or so. Minimum. I've got an 11 year old niece who's very intelligent, good kid, but I wouldn't let her near it.

If that's "censorship", its fine by me. Suppose the book was far more graphic in terms of both violence and sex, less well written, shorter, and written far more simply to boot. And assume it gloried violent sex. Would you let a seven year old read it? It think most of us probably would not. Yet wouldn't that properly be considered censorhip as well, under that same definition?

IMHO, there is only one kind of censorship. That's where the government bars the sale or production of a book, movie, or whatever to adults. Not funding something, not including it in a library, or limiting its purchase to adults only simply isn't censorship.

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Oct 3rd 4:19 PM
I agree that there's a difference between government censurship and parental censorship, btu nonetheless, I don't think either are justified.

Not that parents shouldn't have consideration about what their children are doing or seeing - I, for one, don't think I'll have a TV set at my house when I'll have children - simply because I think TV viewing, generally, is a waste of time and a dumbing experience. that's why I do it so oftem :-)

But I feel that when parents censor their children, especially from graphic sex or violence, they don't shield them for the children's sake, but for the parents sake. I heard about many studies regarding the effects of ciolence on children, but it has always been 'violent oriented tv shows' or things like that. Never have I heard about the gore effecting the children. And of course I haven't heard about children being effected from reading.

It seems to me that tv shos like Power rangers glorify violence, and is much more harmful for children, then watching, for example,the Playboy channel.

Oh, and btw, I think there are more then one kind of censurship, Jeff. If a pressure group prevents someone from being heard, or a great company silences unfriendly press, that's as much censorship as govermential one.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Oct 3rd 4:53 PM
I agree with Kay-Arne fully, and with Audrey in most of it. Jeff, it's us again. ;-)

Audrey had the point. If a child is mature and intelligent enough to be interested in ASOIAF, it would be mature enough to read it without harm. As I said above, violent movies (movies that _glorify_ violence, thank you, Kay) are a different matter.

And in the last instance, it all comes down to the parents. They are the ones to decide if something will harm their child or will not. Sadly, parents nowadays seem to be glad to be rid of the responsibility, and try to give it away to whomever they can find. But that, too, is a completely different matter.

I disagree with Audrey in one point, though: Americans are definitely, absolutely MORE prudish than Europeans. I lived in Canada and the US for awhile, and nothing ever could change my mind that they aren't. There are exceptions, for sure, and I generally hate to generalize :-). But there it is. (Each American on the board may feel free to see himself as an exception - if you want to hear the truth, mail me ;-))

jane
User ID: 0826264 Oct 3rd 7:28 PM
'If a child is mature and intelligent enough to be interested in ASOIAF, it would be mature enough to read it without harm.'

I totally agree, Min. : ) I myself am 13 years old and am 3/4 through _A Clash of Kings_. I wouldn't recommend giving this book to any kid, really, but I've always been an advanced reader, I suppose. I read Frank Herbert & Marion Zimmer Bradley before I picked up a Martin book. What can I say? _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is remarkable and *realistic* series, without the over-done cliches that have become redundant in modern fantasy.

Audrey
User ID: 1439244 Oct 3rd 9:59 PM
Cheers, Jane! I am glad that you enjoyed the series as much as I did and do.

I don't think it's realistic to suggest that someone wouldn't give the book to a seven year old to read. No seven year old COULD read this book. That's part of my point here. Children of that age are not capable nor interested in reading this sort of book. I do like the point about the Power Rangers though...no parent would want their child to read this novel but would allow them to watch that show? It seems rather hypocritical to me. Anyways, I don't think we have to worry about children being traumatised or turned violent by these books like we do about so many other types of media.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Oct 4th 3:56 AM
jane, welcome to the board! Moreta will be glad to hear that she's not the youngest anymore. :-)

Watcher Oct 4th 11:29 AM
Omer, I disagree with your premise that not allowing a child to read this book is censorship. I don't think it is age appropriated to someone younger then 15 or 16. I think it is a matter of them understanding it then protecting them from something you don't want them to know about. I would give a 15 year a general book on quantum mechanics but not an advance book on that subject. The math and theories would simply be beyond their level of comprehension. There are exceptions but still I wouldn't give them the book, sorry Jane.

Omer has South Park been to Israel yet? It lampoons the hypercritical American movie rating system, where any amount of violence is fine but sex and nudity and "bad language" is taboo. It is also one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Audrey User ID: 1878484	Sep 30th 0:35 AM I think Martin's use of graphic sex and violence in the series adds to it. It's the first fantasy series that I've read that pushes the limit in this regard. All other fantasy series' that I've read have either ignored sex completely or hid it with generous spaces between paragraphs. Perhaps authors up until this point are scared of breaking the "nice" genre of fantasy writing and giving us a hardcore view of all the wars that go on in these things? I hope that this trend towards "realism in fantasy" continues.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 30th 11:01 AM I absolutely agree. GRRM's style of writing is mature, _real_, so why should he leave out real part of the life he describes? I always despised these sugar-coated fantasy books, and I think Martin's style is fabulous. The story would be poorer without these aspects. There are readers who think otherwise, though. I read a comment directed to Mr. Martin on the Legends board some month ago, anbd that woman threatened him that she would stop reasing if he would continue to display sex like that. Can you believe it?
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Sep 30th 11:31 AM I agree with both of you. People _do_ talk and act like Tyrion, Cersei, and Theon. The descriptions he gives are not gratuitous -- they are necessary to emphasize the seamy underbelly of power politics and the mores of the people who occuply those positions. Plus, as our own little incident here in the U.S. demonstrated, sexual issues often can have a major impact on political issues.
LindaElane User ID: 7733333	Oct 1st 9:43 PM You know, I just sort of hope that younger kids don't read the books. However, Martin has never put a really graphic scene in the first few chapters, so if they can get deep into the book, perhaps they are mature enough in their understanding to hear of the borrors that Martin describes in detail. For me, it does not bug me, as I am an adult. I certainly like a sex scene described as if sex were the beautiful thing it is, btw. I admit I personally would appreciate all the rape and incest, particularly when it involves 13 and 14 year children, to be spoken of in less detail. (Note the word personal) I also feel that it happens more in the books that in the world (well, rape and incest toward children anyway...its so very common in the books). However, it certainly does happen in the world, far too frequently, and it would be silly for adults not to speak of it.
LindaElane User ID: 7733333	Oct 1st 9:50 PM PS I remember this discussion over a year ago on the original board. Some thought me hypocritical because I did not object to the violence in the books. (Note: its not that I really object to the sex in the books..see above) Its just that the violence did not strike me as over the top in these books. However, it is certainly possible for something to be too violent. I have seen films where I felt that they included the grossest things possible in order to sell tickets, and to me, that is obscene. Of course, I do not determine what is obscene for everyone, key words were "to me".
Omer User ID: 0485244	Oct 2nd 6:39 AM well, I'm 18( soon to be 19), and I must say that neither the sex nor the violence would have prevented me from reading this when I was 14 or 12 or 10. I'm a small believer in censurship - while SOME censorship might be justified, parental censorship is usually a tool to prevent your children from seeing or learning about things you're uncomfortable about, that's all. I defnetly don't believe that books should be restricted. I read Stephen King when I was around 12, and I don't think I've turned into a freak, violent adult( well, maybe a little :-)... young people should be encouraged to read, not discouraged( is that a word?)
Min User ID: 9433023	Oct 2nd 10:28 AM Well, Linda, what would you call "younger kids"? For violence, and definitely sex, are a part of our world. While I do not think it necessary to confront kids with porno-videos or some such, I see nothing wrong in letting them read a book of which sex is a part of the story. Kids of, let's say, ten or twelve (and younger kids would not read the books anyway), should not be cheated as to what sex is and can be about. And as soon as a kid is able to read and understand and appreciate a book like Martin's (which can be at very different ages, concerning his maturity and intelligence), I wouldn't have a problem in giving him the book to read. Would you?
LindaElane User ID: 7733333	Oct 3rd 0:24 AM Ten or twelve year olds reading graphic child rape scene? Yes, I would have a problem giving them the book to read. The world just seems sort of upside down to me. People accuse me of "censorhip" just because I say that kids should not be exposed to certain things. To that I say......well, I am going to censor what I way :-). At any rate, I think I mentioned that I came to peace within myself regarding Martin's style. He does bury very graphic things deep within the book, and anyone with the mind to get deep into the books is probably able to understand about the horrors of the rape of children and such. My only possible objection was that children might read it,and I have answered that for myself. I do not think it exactly qualifies as "hard core" porn (far from it) for adults. I believe "continental" standards are different, and that children in Europe are exposed to all kinds of things at young ages, but I just cannot adjust to that. It may be my own cultural assumptions speaking, but I am very big on "protecting children" no matter what it takes. Better to overprotect, in fact, than to expose kids under 13 to graphic material. Thats my humble opinion. So I favor what some would call "censorship" of children's materials. But after all, how many people object to the movie rating system and call it censorship? I am only saying that it may be impossible to have a rating system for books, but in an ideal world, such a thing would be attempted. Now I will sit back and wait for people to imply that I am a prude because I care about children. Thats what always seems to happen. (If you think I am hurt that it always seems to happen, you have read into what I am thinking.)
Omer User ID: 0485244	Oct 3rd 4:51 AM I object to movie censorship. The way I understand it, most studies discuss the effect of violence on children. But we don't stop violence from reaching kids - we just stop gorn and semi-porno stuff. That's being hypocritical, not protective.
Min User ID: 9433023	Oct 3rd 6:14 AM I do not object in general, Linda, and even agree in some parts. Concerning movies (and, for that matter, video and computer games) I back up censorship. I also agree concerning hard-core-pornography or violence. It is different with books (good books, and we all agree that ASOIAF is such). I read other than children's book quite early, and I can tell that I took out of the books only what concerned me, only what I was able to understand. I just did not grab the things that were too high for me to understand. Would I have read AGOT, for example, I would have understood that something horrible happened in the scene Chyswick told and Arya witnesses, but it would not have haunted my dreams. I would just have taken it as it was - as something bad Chyswick was punished for later. I would not have virtually _seen_ what happened. There is no such chance when a child watches a movie or is allowed to play games like Unreal or Duke Nukem or Doom or whatever on the computer. The child will be forced to _see_ the violence and brutality happening, no matter if it was ready for it or not. It would be different there. I, too, have the opinion that children should be protected of such stuff. I just think that is a kid is mature enough to read ASOIAF, it will be either mature enough to unerstand what happens there, or it will read just the story about heroes and villains, without "seeing" the actual rape of a girl happening before his eyes. And that is both ok. And btw: I don't think you prude now, Linda. I just think our opinions diverge. :-)
KAH User ID: 9209903	Oct 3rd 1:07 PM For what it's worth, I believe that if there's something children should be protected against, it is not the violence and the sex itself, but the instances where, for instance, violence and rape is _glorified_, or it may be construed in such a way by a child. I have no children of my own, but if I did, I'd never let them watch a movie like 'Clockwork Orange' alone. I would not initially let them see it in any circumstances, until I was sure they were mature enough to understand what it was really about. At the very least, I would see it together with them, and discuss it with them later. Young minds are impressionable, after all. Bottom line is; it all begins and ends with parents. The responsibility is and must always ultimately be theirs - a responsibility to learn their child about right and wrong, and ensure that they do not get the 'wrong ideas'. Which I presume must be the reasoning for demands of censorship in the first place? ('wrong ideas' I mean) Anyway, to take the discussion back to the series - I do not think that GRRM actually glorifies rape or violence. He is showing the horror of war bare naked, and doesn't want to sugarcoat it. Maybe - just maybe - this will not be obvious for a child. Maybe the child will read about Jaime and Cersei and think; "Cool. I must try that with my sister." I kinda doubt that, but you never know. But still, this all comes back to parents. It's their responsibility, and we do no one a favor by heaping resposibility on everyone else but them. If you don't want your child to read the series, make sure they don't get access to it. If you are afraid what they might get out of it, discuss it with the child beforehand. It is a much better way than censorship, IMHO.
Audrey User ID: 1439244	Oct 3rd 2:22 PM I somehow doubt that most children as young as ten to twelve would be interested in reading a book as large and complicated as 'A Game of Thrones' or 'A Clash of Kings'. If they were I would guess that they are more mature and intelligent then other children their age. The youngest age group I see reading this sort of novel is about fifteen. Anyways, I completely agree with the "glorification" of this sort of thing being bad. I don't think that anyone needs "protection" from a book or movie though. That's plain silly. I don't think that rape or killing should be made to seem good at any age or level. They're simply bad things that shouldn't happen. Martin does a very good job at not glorifying these things as well. This is a line that a lot of people have difficulty drawing due to their upbringings or religious beliefs. To some all sex must be kept hidden and away from people under the age of eighteen years old. That's terrible because for the most part, sex is a good thing. Children, especially teenagers, should learn about sex, most particularly how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. Let's face it, at 15 most girls are completely grown, are sexually mature, and are horny. Boys are the same, although they grow bigger until about 21 or so. I don't think it's right to tell teenagers that they aren't to have sex. I think that all the options should be presented to them, as well as abstinence. Let them decide. Anyways, I go off on a tangent. Even in his battle scenes, Martin doesn't glorify violence. He writes that it's awful and that it hurts and kills people. To clarify that point, look at the battle scenes Mat is involved with in 'The Wheel of Time'. They are glorified to a large extent. I believe that if children are exposed to violence and rape in such a way that they know it happens and they know the consquences of how awful it is then perhaps they would grow up "normal". That is why schools today show 'Schindler's List' and 'American History X' in classes. They are terribly violent and horrible movies but they show people that it is not good. I also don't agree that Americans are particulary more or less prudish then Europeans. Young children in Europe aren't exposed to sex and violence (unless they live in Eastern Europe) on a higher level then in America. It is just the sort of violence to which they are exposed. Europeans are taught that sex is good and violence is bad while in America they are taught that sex is bad and violence is good. This is done through movies and other media, not actual teaching. It is interesting to note, however, that Jordan is American while, I believe, Martin is English.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Oct 3rd 2:57 PM Martin is American. :) Born in New Jersey (which might be the reason for the confusion, if someone referred to him as being 'from Jersey.') He currently lives in New Mexico.
Jeff User ID: 1578334	Oct 3rd 3:56 PM I'm with LindaElane on this. Maybe its because we're parents, but I also would not let a kid of mine read this book until he or she was at least 13 or so. Minimum. I've got an 11 year old niece who's very intelligent, good kid, but I wouldn't let her near it. If that's "censorship", its fine by me. Suppose the book was far more graphic in terms of both violence and sex, less well written, shorter, and written far more simply to boot. And assume it gloried violent sex. Would you let a seven year old read it? It think most of us probably would not. Yet wouldn't that properly be considered censorhip as well, under that same definition? IMHO, there is only one kind of censorship. That's where the government bars the sale or production of a book, movie, or whatever to adults. Not funding something, not including it in a library, or limiting its purchase to adults only simply isn't censorship.
Omer User ID: 0485244	Oct 3rd 4:19 PM I agree that there's a difference between government censurship and parental censorship, btu nonetheless, I don't think either are justified. Not that parents shouldn't have consideration about what their children are doing or seeing - I, for one, don't think I'll have a TV set at my house when I'll have children - simply because I think TV viewing, generally, is a waste of time and a dumbing experience. that's why I do it so oftem :-) But I feel that when parents censor their children, especially from graphic sex or violence, they don't shield them for the children's sake, but for the parents sake. I heard about many studies regarding the effects of ciolence on children, but it has always been 'violent oriented tv shows' or things like that. Never have I heard about the gore effecting the children. And of course I haven't heard about children being effected from reading. It seems to me that tv shos like Power rangers glorify violence, and is much more harmful for children, then watching, for example,the Playboy channel. Oh, and btw, I think there are more then one kind of censurship, Jeff. If a pressure group prevents someone from being heard, or a great company silences unfriendly press, that's as much censorship as govermential one.
Min User ID: 9433023	Oct 3rd 4:53 PM I agree with Kay-Arne fully, and with Audrey in most of it. Jeff, it's us again. ;-) Audrey had the point. If a child is mature and intelligent enough to be interested in ASOIAF, it would be mature enough to read it without harm. As I said above, violent movies (movies that _glorify_ violence, thank you, Kay) are a different matter. And in the last instance, it all comes down to the parents. They are the ones to decide if something will harm their child or will not. Sadly, parents nowadays seem to be glad to be rid of the responsibility, and try to give it away to whomever they can find. But that, too, is a completely different matter. I disagree with Audrey in one point, though: Americans are definitely, absolutely MORE prudish than Europeans. I lived in Canada and the US for awhile, and nothing ever could change my mind that they aren't. There are exceptions, for sure, and I generally hate to generalize :-). But there it is. (Each American on the board may feel free to see himself as an exception - if you want to hear the truth, mail me ;-))
jane User ID: 0826264	Oct 3rd 7:28 PM 'If a child is mature and intelligent enough to be interested in ASOIAF, it would be mature enough to read it without harm.' I totally agree, Min. : ) I myself am 13 years old and am 3/4 through _A Clash of Kings_. I wouldn't recommend giving this book to any kid, really, but I've always been an advanced reader, I suppose. I read Frank Herbert & Marion Zimmer Bradley before I picked up a Martin book. What can I say? _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is remarkable and realistic series, without the over-done cliches that have become redundant in modern fantasy.
Audrey User ID: 1439244	Oct 3rd 9:59 PM Cheers, Jane! I am glad that you enjoyed the series as much as I did and do. I don't think it's realistic to suggest that someone wouldn't give the book to a seven year old to read. No seven year old COULD read this book. That's part of my point here. Children of that age are not capable nor interested in reading this sort of book. I do like the point about the Power Rangers though...no parent would want their child to read this novel but would allow them to watch that show? It seems rather hypocritical to me. Anyways, I don't think we have to worry about children being traumatised or turned violent by these books like we do about so many other types of media.
Min User ID: 1446254	Oct 4th 3:56 AM jane, welcome to the board! Moreta will be glad to hear that she's not the youngest anymore. :-)
Watcher	Oct 4th 11:29 AM Omer, I disagree with your premise that not allowing a child to read this book is censorship. I don't think it is age appropriated to someone younger then 15 or 16. I think it is a matter of them understanding it then protecting them from something you don't want them to know about. I would give a 15 year a general book on quantum mechanics but not an advance book on that subject. The math and theories would simply be beyond their level of comprehension. There are exceptions but still I wouldn't give them the book, sorry Jane. Omer has South Park been to Israel yet? It lampoons the hypercritical American movie rating system, where any amount of violence is fine but sex and nudity and "bad language" is taboo. It is also one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.