What female author would Veeky Forums get a 12 yo boy to read?
My little brother reads a lot, but I noticed that he hasn't yet read anything written by a female author.
Charlotte Bronte and Harper Lee come to mind, but I think he's a bit young for that.
Suggestions?
kys. Tell him to start with the Greeks first though.
get him to read books of good quality, rather than reading books of every demographic.
If he only reads male authors, why MUST he read a female author? and why stop at female? why not mtf transexual, my not ftm transexual, why not asexual, why not homosexual men, homosexual women, why not communists, why not fascists, why not extreme religious fanatics, why not get him to read obscure chinese medical journals, or popular russian military textbooks?
Why are you shilling your agenda, OP?
Ayn Rand.
Get him to read "Glass castle" by Some Bitch
To Kill a Mockingbird is a good choice. Anthem as well for Ayn Rand. The Giver by Lois Lowry.
My agenda is to expose him to many different perspectives so he may make his own mind up about them as he grows up.
He mostly reads what I recommend, and I noticed so far I've only recommended male authors.
Having a vagina doesn't account for a different perspective, Jesus Christ.
Rimbaud.
Plus this talk about 'perspective' is extremely shallow, why not expose him to what is right and wrong? Or the search for beauty in literature? Truth in philosophy? Some clear and fixed goal he will aim at, not this Protagorean bullshit.
it's too late. He's already jacking off to porno on his phone and objectifying women. No amount of female authors will make him respect women after the visceral rimjobs he's seen.
You're an idiot. Having a vagina exposes you to a totally different set of social conditioning.
Women actually do have different perspectives than men. Often they overlap but you are ignorant if you think women and men are exactly the same.
The Bell Jar, Their Eyes Were Watching God, Gilead, Any Louise Erdrich
The differences of 'perspective' are completely spurious between two persons living under the same ideological and social environment. If you understand this, the overarching principles of a given time, you won't need to read particular perspectives anymore.
e.g. the different social conditioning of women is entirely dependent of the social conditioning of men, and vice-versa, together they form a whole, they don't exist apart from one another. Makes no sense to go piece-meal on this.
>If you understand this, the overarching principles of a given time
And how would one fully understand those principles if said ideology treated women fundamentally different from men?
Sure the perspective is going to be similar compared to someone from a different ideological/social background, but that doesn't discount the fact there is a non-negligible difference in perspective.
>if said ideology treated women fundamentally different from men?
Superficially only, the mechanisms of ego-formation and struggle are the same and should be treated as such.
Plus most of women's 'inferior' position in society is less the fault of some God-like patriarchy than the fact the women are more happy with trappings of power rather than actual power. There is nothing impeding them.
I never understood how the patriarchy could survive if universal suffrage was in effect, unless women themselves let it have power.
>but that doesn't discount the fact there is a non-negligible difference in perspective.
My point is that between individuals themselves there is a difference perspective but that shouldn't be the end-goal, or are you implying all women are the same? What if women X's perspective is exactly what would you expect from a man's? Or vice-versa?
What ideological, philosophical system are you using to qualificate and comprehend all those perspectives? Surely you're not just reading them thinking you going to stumble upon some timeless truth all of a sudden?
Dam ur rite. I'm only reading white men 2 understnad western culture now.
As long you are trapped in petty, nonexistent gender issue, you will never see the whole, or try to comprehend reality in term of principles, or what Plato called, the timeless, universal forms that are the truth of appearances.
>There is nothing impeding them
Except their biology
Duly noted and added to the list. I thought To Kill a Mocking Bird was an obvious choice, but I'm not sure if the topic of rape is suitable for a child.
He started getting into murder mysteries, so I'm thinking Agatha Christie as well.
>>everyone else
The experience of a female journalist in the 50's and a male journalist in the 50's covering the same story would have been completely different. The further you go back in time, the further apart a man's and a woman's perspective become.
This doesn't quite apply to works of fiction, but I still think it's important for someone taking an interest in literature (or any artform really) to be aware of the different groups of people who contribute to it, the same way that I think it's important to explore a great variety of genres instead of settling for one and never branching out.
Don't get /pol/ on me.
>This doesn't quite apply to works of fiction, but I still think it's important for someone taking an interest in literature (or any artform really) to be aware of the different groups of people who contribute to it, the same way that I think it's important to explore a great variety of genres instead of settling for one and never branching out.
This is all fucking accidental, you shouldn't be PURPOSELY branching out like it's a Kantian Imperative, it happens along the way. The important thing is to know WHY you're reading in the first place, which I hope is not just 'for fun'. If you understand the principles of you're functioning under, you can read a single book your whole life, but it will be better than someone jumping from 'perspective' to 'perspective' hoping to find answers the least he expect.
Plus, you can't expect to truly know and understand an author without expending lots of time with him, which precludes your little joy ride.
Harper Lee is appropriate and he might be ready for works like Jane Eyre.
Madeleine L'engle
Louisa May Alcott
Frankenstein
Anne Frank
Frances H Burnett
>which I hope is not just "FOR FUN"
God this is the most pretentious shit I've read in a while.
There are multiple studies that point out the benefits of reading "for fun", and even if there were none many of the things people bother to do on their sad excuse for an existence happens to be "for fun". Nobel winning research and groundbreaking developments in human history included. It's important for someone who's developing an interest in literature to find it fun, or they may lose interest.
You sound like a teenager. Is it 'pretentious' to not be a mindless retard drifting through life without ever working towards a goal?
>multiple studies that point out the benefits of reading "for fun"
Meaningless if you don't agree with the principle of empirical benefit, I'm not an animal.
> even if there were none many of the things people bother to do on their sad excuse for an existence happens to be "for fun"
How many hours a day you do things 'for fun'? Time is running out, everyone dies and I don't want to left after I die a piece of corpse that did things for fun and very little else.
>interest
They should learn that there must be something bigger than immediate interests.
JK Rowling desu
Frankenstein, daddy issues: the book
>I'm not sure if the topic of rape is suitable for a child
Everything is presented in that book as taught to Scout by her father. The rape is expressed through this filter. It's the safest account of rape in literature and is the ideal way to approach difficult topics with young adults A 12 year old shouldn't start watching slasher porn but there are adult ideas that they should be inoculated with so they don't become extreme when they are a juvenile.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Mary de Morgan
Christina Rossetti
E. Nesbit
Edith Wharton
Margaret Craven
Rosemary Sutcliff
Yes it does. Im sorry it bothers you.
>muh special snowflake
this, unironically
Little House on the Prairie or anything by Beverly Cleary
St. Faustina Kowalska
St. Edith Stein
St. Teresa of Avila
But this isn't about exposing to views different to the progressive dogma.
Ursula le Guin
Margaritavilla Yourcenar
Mary Shelley
FlannelwearingcohostofToolTime O'Connor
Definitely wouldn't recommend the Bell Jar to a 12 year old. Way too dark.
Flannery O'Conner
Also, why does he need to read a woman writer? to bait us?
>Harper Lee
She's literally written two books though, one of them recently after a several decade hiatus.
Stop memeing
This unironically x2. I always had trouble finishing books in my childhood before I read this one because of how intrigued I was by the plot. And of course my reading ability improved as the books went on
But now I would say a better suggestion if the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis. The prose is slightly more challenging, and for all intents it is an adventure series, but the first and last books always struck me as very divisive from the rest with their imagery
M. Shelley's Frankenstein, of course.
Helen Keller
Joyce Carol Oates
Anna Kavan
Ayn Rand
Wanda Tinasky
You get banned for posting 'woman hate'-threads here, so this was the best alternative
>the bell jar
yeah let's get a 12 year old to read a story about trying to kill yourself because of how bleak and depressing the world is.
>Suggestions?
No, women can't write.
>51% of the world share portions of this perspective
>snowflake
pick one
Are you implying all women are the same
>share portions of this perspective
>portions
I'm glad to know reading comprehension is alive and well on Veeky Forums
>but we all share portions
no, there are entire sectors of modern experience men do not come across for social and/or psychological reasons. There are places men will not venture, there are things they will not know about or experience. Just as there are for women.
Men can write about childbirth from either secondhand experience or from the observer perspective. Written however you like, they're still working off a less than complete picture, hindered by the reality of their biology or their treatment of it in the world.
The only thing they don't share is the lowness of biology, we should care about bigger things
Have you socially never talked to girls?
I only speak to white men, i.e. actual people, and not higher consciousness cows
I live in a house with 3 women.
So that's a no.
what 'talking' to girls would make any difference? Do you think a biology major 'talks' to animals to know their behavior?
>I live with my mom and two sisters
>we're not different
>my analogy is a human studying an alien form of life it doesn't yet understand
I love this board.
And you bet your ass that scientists would talk to salamanders if they had the chance, are you retarded?
Go talk to girls user, read some books by girls, it might be the difference between your ability to procreate and not.
Ignore the fucking suggestions in this thread, first. Anyone who would recommend Plath or Rand to a 12 year old needs to try going outside sometime.
I do not believe anyone sincerely said Rand. It was 100% shitposting.
Frankenstein is a real option. Also Atwood, Kincaid or Porter.
Depends what level he reads at.
Kid's books: Lucy M. Boston, Susan Cooper, Elizabeth Enright, Tove Jansson, L.M. Montgomery, J.K. Rowling, Catherynne Valente, Judy Blume, Rosemary Sutcliff...
Touché, that was a pointless statement of me anyway.
>And you bet your ass that scientists would talk to salamanders if they had the chance
And they'd learn a lot of drivel, that the salamanders want to be seen in a certain way, the fantasies of salamanders and so on, but the OBSERVABLE behavior and the adequate assessment of the same would be just as it is now.
>it might be the difference between your ability to procreate and not.
That's an ad hominem, I'm irrelevant to this argument.
Regardless of the usual anti-rand shitposting that goes on around here, Anthem is one of the most dull and boring books I've ever read. Would not reccomend. TKAM is quality, 12 might be too old for the Giver, even if he hasn't read it yet, still pretty good book.
OP, the best book I'd rec is A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle. One of my favorites.
just give him SE Hinton's The Outsiders.
Don't force it. My mother is who got me into literature and she never enforced women authors onto me.
If it's forced you ruin something that could have been enjoyable had they discovered it themself.
You should get your /r9k/ thread banned for posting it outside of /r9k/.
This board used to actually talk about books, but any thread that comes a hair close to talking about a woman writer, even old board favorites like O'Conner, will get showered by triggered beta males and chucklefucks, neither of which read anything. These same people then post on other threads pushing the "no one here reads" meme.
your threads should get banned.
I'm not forcing. I'm giving him the book, he may or may not choose to read it. I'd hate for him to not have the option/not know it's out there.
Did you notice all the serious suggestions and polite discussion before you shitposted? The thread is fine.
Tove Jansson's moomin books
That wasn't me, man.
I was talking about the ye olde woman hate threads, senpai. I know this thread's fine.
Woman here. Women literally are the inferior gender, by every metric available, and we all know it on at least some level. Stop whiteknighting if you ever want to get laid. Your post made my pussy literally say out loud to me "don't fuck him, he's a little bitch who thinks he can win your favor by singing your praises randomly to strangers."
You shouldn't. If you attempt to force your ideological narrative in someone, especially a child or sibling (and especially one at that age), they will reject it and go further down their own path. If female authors are truly worth reading then someone who enjoys reading will come across them naturally and enjoy them as they would any other.
This was addressed to anyone in this thread with the conundrum presented in the OP. The OP itself is just bait.
>Woman here.
Uh-huh, sure.
Harry Potter, obviously
I wish I was beta enough to role play as a fucking woman.
>My little brother reads a lot, but I noticed that he hasn't yet read anything written by a female author.
My bait tingling sensors are tingling.
Harry potter. Tried and true and twelve-year-old certified.
thanks for the smile and exhale through my nose
misogyny isn't allowed outside of /b/
fpbp
are you really being a cringy feminist old sister right now?
>Hasn't read Woolf
>Hasn't read Austen
Go figure
>responds with memes
Go back to /b/ kid. I'm not even kidding, your kind isn't welcome here
>"women are dumb"
>"women are incomprehensible"
>Posts link from conservative tabloid as "proof"
The standards don't really go lower than that.
>good books
>written by women
Pick one
Neck urself u pleb
Name five (5) good books written by women, mr patrician
>protip you can't
Al Capone Does My Shirts, Choldenko
A little older, Hunger Games Trilogy
Older still, Octavia Butler
Kid reads at a college level and doesn't have any fucking time for scrubs, Sappho
You made your goal something that you don't find fun (something that you're not even interested in) and you think that makes you the gold standard for humanity.
kek try again
As I'm pretty much his sole source of literature I just don't want to deprive him of variety senpai
Make him read "Little Women."
beatrix potter
Immanuel Kant
Dante Alighieri
Epicurus
emily bronte