[Split from The Book Club] Focus on the Family...too harsh?

[ric]

Here's a review by FotF: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenti ... games.aspx

[Buzz]

Wow... I don't think I'll be reading those books. FotF says some pretty harsh stuff about it.... I'm glad I read their review!

[Knight Fisher]

Well I am going to disagree with Focus on this one. The Hunger Games is definitely for a mature audience. I wouldn't recommend it for under a mature 14 year old. I have to go but i will try post the remainder of my thought later.

[Buzz]

I think FOFT was just saying what the supposed age limit for it is, not of their opinion. I'm probably wrong, of course.

[Musical Shutterbug]

Focus on the Family is harsh about almost everything

[Lee]

Yeah... That review was why I'm a bit hesitant about reading them.

I may just start one and see what I think.

[Knight Fisher]

Okay, thoughts. There is a lot of gore. But it is necessary. It makes you get into the characters. Understand why "The Games" are so wrong. The whole romance thing is to keep them alive. It really depends on the person. I definitely wouldn't suggest to anyone under 13. Fourteen depends on the person. 15 not a problem. But that's just me. And I was probably ready earlier than most.

[Anna><>]

From the review I read The Hunger Games remind me a lot of "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson.
FOTF is pretty harsh about most things (which is the reason I never watched any movies growing up) so when I take that into consideration I probably would read them. Everyone I know has really enjoyed them.

[Marvin D.]

Where did FOTF review the books, by the way?

Edit: I read one here (http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/b ... -they-read), and I think FOTF should not have put Hunger Games in the same category, as it is not "grotesque descriptions of gang rape, drug abuse, cutting and assault in profanity-laden prose." They are not that bad =P

[TigerintheShadows]

No, maybe not. But remember that once you read something, you can't "un-read" it. They want to caution parents about what could happen if they let a younger kid read the books, or if a particularly sensitive kid is interested. I've been there; I get what they're trying to say.

As for them being "harsh on everything", they don't seem to come across as so much "harsh" as "trying to cover all the bases". Take their "kissing/sex/homosexuality" section. At first, when I saw that it mentioned kissing specifically, I wondered what was wrong with that, but when you think about it, a lot of parents would balk at the thought of Little Susie ever figuring out that people might--gasp!--kiss. They're just trying to let parents know. It may come across as harsh or overly conservative, but I think they're trying to lay it all out there so that parents won't be surprised.

[Marvin D.]

I'm not saying they're always harsh, but sometimes, they tend to present things in a more. .negative? connotation. Yes, they should point out everything. IMBd does the same thing, but it's more neutral. Sometimes, though, FOTF takes it to an extreme.

[bookworm]

Good point Tiger, there’s a difference between making sure to cover everything and being too critical. There can easily be confusion about it. If they’re going through and pulling out every single little thing that may be objectionable then it may seem too harsh, but look at why they’re doing it. Are they saying ‘There’s kissing! Don’t let kids read it!’ or are they just mentioning it because that’s their job and then the parents can make the decision now that they know it’s in there?

[TigerintheShadows]

I'm not saying they're always harsh, but sometimes, they tend to present things in a more. .negative? connotation. Yes, they should point out everything. IMBd does the same thing, but it's more neutral. Sometimes, though, FOTF takes it to an extreme.

Should they be neutral, though? Given that they do take a more conservative stance, and this is a Christian website, it makes sense to be more definite on "should you or shouldn't you let the kids read it".

[Marvin D.]

I'm not saying they're always harsh, but sometimes, they tend to present things in a more. .negative? connotation. Yes, they should point out everything. IMBd does the same thing, but it's more neutral. Sometimes, though, FOTF takes it to an extreme.

Should they be neutral, though? Given that they do take a more conservative stance, and this is a Christian website, it makes sense to be more definite on "should you or shouldn't you let the kids read it".

They should not be neutral, and they should be conservative, but sometimes, I feel as if they nitpick and bring out things that. .I really don't pay attention to. Or they overemphasize a point. *shrugs*

[bookworm]

Again, is it really nitpicking, or are they just noting everything so you know what’s in it? Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish.

[Marvin D.]

Again, is it really nitpicking, or are they just noting everything so you know what’s in it? Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish.

I suppose, but to each his own =P I think sometimes they go overboard. .but you may think otherwise

[bookworm]

No, I don’t think either way. I was asking a real question, not a rhetorical one. I haven’t read enough of their reviews to judge.

[Steve]

You know, if this book is too violent and scary for anyone, I don't think anyone should read uh-the Bible, either.

[Knight Fisher]

You know, if this book is too violent and scary for anyone, I don't think anyone should read uh-the Bible, either.

You're right. It would probably be NC-17 if they did Judges.

[ric]

um...no...the Bible is very rarely graphic, and even then, it's not really that bad. Ya, there's plenty of violence and wars, but it's practically never vividly described.