Why do books have no rating system

I'm not advocating a rating system.  But all forms of popular media so far have had a parental advisory statement of some kind- music, movies, television, video games...

Novels have remained relatively untouched.  One can pick up something from an author and find dirty words, violence, and sex without anyone complaining, then pick up another book from the same author and find none of these descriptions.  Really, the only thing seperating mature content is the "young adult" bookshelf and "every other bookshelf" in the store or library.  But kids aren't prevented from reading an "adult" book, and in many cases these books aren't any more adult in content or even more mature.  They may be less unintelligent compared to young adult books, but not always.

So why have novels been unscathed from concerned parents that their favorite science fiction or fantasy novel contained descriptions of sex or the word "fuck"?  Is it the reliance on imagination that seperates words from movies and TV?  Is it the extra effort and will that makes reading more voluntary than an involuntary activity such as watching a film?  Or do people just read what they want, preventing social and religious activists from even coming across certain books unless unless by sheer accident?

Note there have been plenty of banned books, mostly when those books have been introduced in elementary school libraries.  But I'm asking why there is no rating system such as "mature" or "contains descriptions of" statements on the cover.  Even comics say "For mature readers" or "for adults only," but there is little to differentiate one novel's content from another.  I'm not advocating or suggesting this be done in any way, I'm just asking why it hasn't happened yet with our multitude of concerned parents.

I honestly think it has to do with two things.

1. Novels require slogging through, and the weird conservative types who would want controls on these things don't do much reading in exactly the areas they'd have problems with.  It's only when a particular book becomes extremely popular, or otherwise publicized as bad by social conservatives (Harry Potter, Ulysses, Catcher in the Rye etc.), that they all latch onto the notion of trying to suppress it.  There's so very much weird, wonderful stuff in literature, that if they were actually made aware of it, they WOULD try to suppress every particular book that they were made aware of.  Thankfully this doesn't happen, precisely because the books are read and enjoyed, in the main, only by another group of people.  It's just like what you supposed.

2.  Educators are so desperate to have young people read ANYTHING nowadays.  It sometimes happens that teachers will give individual students erotic books/stories just so they'll read SOMETHING.  This often happens in inner cities.  The ethics of that is another question altogether..

We need more copies of Fanny Hill in elementary school libraries. Har!

It all has to do with what you SEE.

Further proof that only the unread rabble believe in censorship.

It's easy to look at a few screenshots of Manhunt and stamp an M on it, but not as simple with a 700 page vaguely sexual novel about a disabled girl and her brush with love when she first meets her 58 year old math tutor.

The greatest weapon against the man is an intricate bedding of knowledge.

I guess it's ok if you have use your imagination to picture sex, with every detail described in lush detail as opposed to just watching porn.  lol.

Have you read Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 ?
Rating books is a kind of censorship.
China, Burma, Russia, Syria, dictatorships ... ban or rate books.
Democracies usually don't.
At least, until now.

>>7
Rating movies etc. is censorship too. Pretty much all countries have banned books. Librarians can pick and choose what books they will accept. There are books librarians won't let kids borrow. And there are books that are outright banned.

http://www.google.com/search?q=banned+books

>>8
Agreed. In my country, you can sell and buy Sade's books but they  are banned in the intranet of the education administration.
Stupidity ?

>>8
All of these lists comprise of books previously banned that are now beloved (something liberal librarians love to tout, like they're being anarchists.) Are there any lists with only books banned today?

http://ask.yahoo.com/20041108.html

This says the US mandates a ban on no books, and yet there are certain books which can get you questioned by the government if you read them. Is not banning books simply a cover for labeling books "suspicious" and then baiting people into purchasing or checking them out of libraries?

Isn't that a much more efficient way of banning books and pursuing readers- to make them available but still 'illegal'?

>>7
The government doesn't rate anything, at least in the U.S. The closest it comes is with the TV ratings system, which is organized by the FCC, but participation is voluntary, and the networks select the ratings themselves. The movie and video game rating systems are entirely run by the respective industries.

>>11
Capitalist states will have capitalist law.

You can deny censorship up and down, but I ask you: are you going to your television or newspaper for truth or for comfortable lies?

The industries are allowed to self-censure themselves until the public, the government, or a corporation disagrees. This effectively silences any form of dissent at all, while never directly censuring anything anyone wants to hear, but only things no one does.

The United States has reached a state of censorship and control of the media absolutely unheard of before, even in military states. Its greatest strength is that the public believes what it is getting is unfiltered, because the information comes from someone like them, not from the government. There really is no incentive as strong as money.

>>12
You're right. Self-censorship is the point.
All media in western democracies are under control of money.
And they only say what we're supposed to cope with, what they think what we're supposed to like.
Sad, it isn't ?

Quite simple.  The book industry doesn't make as much money as the video gaming or movie industry.  There isn't enough to make it worth time and energy filing bogus lawsuits to leech as much money as possible.  A rating system is only created to help defend against these petty lawsuits.  Since the book industry has not been assaulted yet, there is no need for the rating system yet.

When the average man begins writing porn...I mean, "erotic" novels, and then gets popular because of it, then books will be given ratings.

Hi, I'm from the future. There will be a series called "Fifty Shades of Grey" and it gets warnings all over it. Ever since, buying a book merely involves checking out which one has the largest collection of rating tags