THE AGE-BANDING ROW rumbles on. In the past couple of months, publishers had the clever idea that if, on children's books, they stamped the age of children that the book was suitable for on the cover, everyone's lives would be easier, and everyone would be delighted. The problem? It wasn't a clever idea. No one was delighted and no one's life will be easier. Reading just doesn't work that way.

As Alan Garner has said: “Age banding is a practice that insults both book and reader, and attacks the root of literature.” It's pretty much as simple as that. You can see that quote on the website notoagebanding.org, set up by Philip Pullman and a group of similarly outraged writers - of books read by both children and adults - to take on this latest wizard wheeze of the publishing industry.

Why is age banding a bad idea? Say a book comes stamped “9+”. If your child is a more advanced reader, he might be put off, thinking: “Oh, that's not for me, yet.” And yet: it might well be. If your child is less advanced for her age, she might not want to be “seen” reading books apparently for younger readers - it's a no-win situation. Books, in any case, already come covered in clues (cover design, typeface) that indicate whether its audience is considered primarily to be children or adults.

At a recent meeting between the Publishers' Association, the Society of Authors and Pullman (appearing on behalf of the website's signatories) some confusing statistics were waved about. The SoA said that 77 per cent of authors were against age guidance, while publishers insisted that 75 per cent of authors have agreed to it. Eh? Anecdotally, I have yet to meet an author in favour of the scheme. In their defence, publishers have confirmed “that there has been, and remains, no question of age guidance being added to a book without full consultation with the author”.

Pullman, forthright as ever, is not convinced. In an e-mail to supporters he remarked: “We pointed out that every author in the world knows what ‘consultation' means: it means the publishers saying: ‘This is the cover of your new book', and our saying: ‘Well, it's horrible', and their replying: ‘Well, tough.' ‘Full' consultation, I suppose, would mean that plus lunch.” The website already has more than 3,000 signatories: I wonder, can Times readers bring that to 4,000 and beyond? Sign up.

notoagebanding.org

Explore Books

• Book Extracts

• Book Reviews

• Books Group

• Audio Books

Times Recommends

• The 100 Best Books of the Decade
• The Times picks the 50 best paperbacks of 2009
• The conversation: James Ellroy