The latter, according to http://www.notoagebanding.org .
I'm not sure where I stand - TBH when I first read about this issue I thought "Don't children's books have age banding already?" - albeit underneath the blurb on the front page, not on the cover. Or was that only in Puffin editions published before c.1990?

I cannot believe all the fuss that authors are making about this! Having looked at the "No to age banding" website (thanks, Aeolienne ) I am astounded by some of Philip Pullman's remarks. Does he really think that if his books are banded for age 11+ it means no-one will buy them for children below that age? Has he no knowledge at all of the playground competition whereby Mum A is going to proudly announce to Mum B that she always "has" to buy band 11+ for her 8 year old because his reading is so much better than average?

Personally, I think age banding is a sensible idea and will encourage grannies to choose new unknown books instead of looking for some of their own, outdated, old favourites to foist on their grandchildren.

The vast majority of parents will continue to make their own choices whatever the banding. When my son was into Nintendo games he continued to ask for and I continued to buy games marked suitable for age 3+ until he lost interest in gaming. Similarly, just because a film is marked U doesn't mean adults won't watch it.

I remember as a child finding suggested age groups on the cover very helpful - although of course I read books either side of the age I actually was, it was a good guide from the point of view of content (rather than 'reading age').

There is the reverse, that Mum C may not allow her 11 year old to continue reading a beloved book because it is banded for an 8 year old. Especially not where anyone can see the child reading a book below their age. There is the risk that those who are slightly behind won't get the chance to read the easier books that they can cope with (this is what happened to a relation of mine; he didn't learn to read at the 'right' age at primary school, and later on nobody knew what to do with him, because secondary school wasn't set up to deal with someone who couldn't read, so he was left to carry on not being able to read!)

But on the whole, books have had ages on them before, and it's not caused the end of the world, so why is it so different this time?!

It's like, I don't see why it is such a bad thing, but then I don't see it as being so good a thing that it is an absolute necessity.

Does anyone actually pay any attention to any age bandings on anything?

In particular the ones on toys, where by the time you get to the age on the box, you're likely to have grown out of it. Or there's the (perfectly normal) soft toys that shouldn't be given to anyone under 3

Also with cinema ratings, obviously you can't go to see a film at the cinema if you're younger than 12/15/18, but at home, whether or not a child is allowed to watch a film will depend more or its actual content than its rating. Likewise, there are lots of 15-rated films I really wouldn't want to watch, although I am technically meant to be old enough not to be disturbed by them.

Where books are concerned I think it is impossible to make good age bands. In year 9, I admitted to my english teacher that i didn't read a huge amount (they took this to mean i didn't read at all) and was given a list of books that were 'suitable for my age' that i might consider reading. There wasn't a single book on the list that interested me.

If they put age bands on books, it may be useful to a few people, but I expect that, given that a normal person probably does not fit the average, they will be mainly ignored, especially when people realise that their favourite books are too old or young for them.

Not only do my old Puffins (which my daughters are now reading) have an age suggestion they also say "suitable for girls" "suitable for boys" or "suitable for girls and boys." I have a fair number which say "suitable for boys" so I can't say this put me off and the age certainly never did.

Also most bookshops seem to group the books by age anyway (or at least they do in the parts of the country I frequent) with shelves for "5-8", "9-12" and "teenage."

My local library rebanded all the books according to "key stage" when i was in year 6. I remember being really annoyed going in one morning and finding out that I couldn't read some of the books I had enjoyed because they were in key stage 3 and I was in key stage 2... especially when the librarian went on about inappropriate content and I knew that I had read lots of the books and they really were NOT inappropriate! the key stage 2 books were much too easy at that stage bearing in mind that key stage 2 books catered for children from 7 upwards, and I learnt to read really early (I was reading Enid Blyton in reception but I didn't tell my teacher I could read .)
At school there are a few books in the library( hardly any really) which have special stickers on and only 6th form and staff are allowed to read... although one of them I read in Year 6 and our class teacher at the time recommended it (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time.)

Total nonsense IMHO. Yet another example of the 'nanny' mentality. As if the Great British Public can't make up their own minds about which books to buy / read. Guaranteed to annoy or alienate many people. Seethe seethe...

*Takes deep breath and steps down from soapbox*

I think it's ridiculous. I still love reading my old books, Anne of Green Gables, and so on - and they'd probably be labeled for 9-10 year olds! There's absolutely no need for it, and it's just going to put yet more children off reading.

Gosh, I'm swimming against the tide here!

I'd welcome it, particularly for non-fiction books...IF it were based on sensible and clearly-understood criteria. However, why use age as the main criteria? Issues like unsuitable content shouldn't be lumped in with the level of reading skills needed.

Why would I find it useful? I don't live near any English-language bookshops, and any English books I see are pulp fiction. So all my shopping is done online, usually without seeing so much as a page of the book I'm buying, and I hate to think of the money I have wasted on non-fiction books that turned out to be too simple or too complex for our needs - fiction is actually much easier to predict, maybe because more people write reviews!

English is not a local language, and without the huge international market, the publishing industry would be much smaller -- fewer books would be published. Since banding does no more than make a recommendation to prospective readers, I'm all for it.

I have to say, speaking as an auntie to five children aged from 2 to 9, sometimes a little bit of help would be good! I love to buy books for the kids and for the ones I see regularly that is no problem...I know what they like to read and can make an informed decision. But for the ones I don't see, it can sometimes be difficult to find something I can be sure isn't too hard or easy for them. I find buying books for my nephew, an 8-year-old reluctant reader very difficult. Most of the more contemporary kids books I find seem to be for girls! (Mermaids etc)

Slightly off topic here, but as a librarian it really annoys me when a parent complains about the content of a book their teenager has chosen from the teenage section of the library. "Teenager" is a wide age group, and if they think, for example, Melvin Burgess is unsuitable for many 13 year olds (as I do), then they should take the trouble to read through the book first, and not complain to the librarian about it! It is not a librarian's job to censor books...

Perhaps putting a recommended age range on books would help such parents.

I think they're generally a good idea, just so you have an idea of who they're suitable for.
Great when you're buying books as gifts.

But it's only a guide.

I'm in my 30s and actually love reading kids books, I tend to prefer the 9-12 age range personally.
That doesn't mean I can't read adult books though does it?!!

Really it doesn't, I can read

I think I understand why age-banding would be so offensive to some people. Sometimes, children can be cruel to other children who are slightly behind in academic aspects. "Eww.. so-and-so is reading books for 5-year-olds! How dumb!", they would gossip. It is true. I even had a youngster on YouTube asking me why I want to play a Grade 2 piece when I am already in Grade 6. As if it were anything shameful

I learnt German for a couple of years. In the language school library, there were readers banded with the levels e.g. A1 - A3, B1 to B4, C1-C2 . The bands where actually attached by the librarians and teachers as a guide to the standard required to read the vocabulary, and has nothing to do with content, since everything was meant for teenage to mature foreign language learners. What I found very useful was the reference statement at the back of the book (printed by publisher), which wrote something like "For learners who have picked up between 200 and 500 German words", and so on. The covers did not say "ELEMENTARY" or "PRE-SCHOOL". I think that was a very positive way of expressing the difficulty levels.

The number of words learnt was a good reference for me. At the beginning, I was reading books below the level of my classes, but nobody could tell, unless they looked very closely. Then I progressed a little within the band, i.e. from the category of below 500 words to below 800 words, and so on. Soon I caught up with my recommended band of books i.e. more than 1000 words. I still went back to read books from lower levels, and the teachers were encouraging... They always said (in German of course), "Anything, as long as you read something!"

I remember King Solomon's Mines was dedicated to "all the big and little boys who may read it" and that didn't put me off, while my brother refused to read The Secret Garden because the blurb said "Girls enjoy it especially". Kids eh?!