DS despises Catcher In The Rye. So proud of him.

[ReanimatedSGB]

I'm also rather surprised that this tedious wank is still being pushed on schoolkids as Great Literature. I hated it when I read it in my teens and am very glad to find that DS is as unimpressesd as I was - it's just one long white-boy whine, isn't it?

Of course people should form their own opinions. I didn't particularly enjoy Elinor Oliphant but I wouldn't have said that was because first world white women issues

White men get most of the credit in these fields but they didn’t invent them, and their voices should be prioritised to the exclusion of everyone else

Actually, in Japan, Tales of Genji is given its due (very hard read as the Japanese is not modern and needs translated, think something pre-Chaucer) and in China, the Western canon is really not studied or understood at all.

If you want to say that British schoolchildren should be exposed to world literature, you’ll get no argument from me.

But that English literature has been historically a white male endeavour shouldn’t be a surprise, although there are truly some great female British writers, more than you’d expect given the low status of women throughout much of history.

But the development of English literature has nothing to do with Tales of the Genji, which is why it’s not widely studied in British schools. It is essential study in Japan, as are Chinese classics.

Perhaps, however, it surprises you that Shakespeare is not important nor relevant in other cultural contexts.

We don't actually know OP's son disliked the misogyny, all we know is he thinks it's white boy whine. Literature is of its time, you can criticise the standards of the past by all means, while still understanding their context.

When my daughter complained about set texts, I'd normally try to discuss the book in a way that might help her to see if she was missing something.

So a book with an apparently unlikeable central character and some dated attitudes might make skilful use of a first person narrator and/or be ironic in a way that wasn't immediately apparent.

It's about nuance. Shades of grey, even - if the term isn't wholly discredited.

Few novels are flawless. And equally relatively few books that have lasted fifty years are without some redeeming features.

YABU, my favourite book as a teenager.

Perhaps, however, it surprises you that Shakespeare is not important nor relevant in other cultural contexts.

Shockingly I am not surprised by this, but thank you for speaking so condescendingly.

I was specifically countering a PP’s suggestion that the field of novel writing was developed by white men. Tales of the Genji was one example I used to challenge that suggestion, along side Frankenstein (which you would be hard pressed to argue is not an important part of English literary canon) and some types of music.

I’m not actually suggesting Tales of the Genji should be essential reading for schoolchildren. I think you’ve missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it’s easy to give credit for the development of artistic fields to men because their voices are prioritised, but that it’s simply a historical inaccuracy to say they ‘developed’ these fields.

There's an interesting pattern on this thread, I think, and one which reflects my own personal experience too, which is that people have a greater tendency to dislike books that were set texts in school. I read a lot as a teenager, but the books I most enjoyed were definitely the ones I read independently, even if they were traditional 'set texts'. I'm sure there are people are really gifted at teaching children to enjoy their set texts, but I suspect it's a difficult thing to do!

I’m not sure that ‘boring’ and ‘white-boy whine’ are things I’d be proud of as a critique.

I’d be hoping for a better understanding of the context in which it was written before condemning it.

Have just come across this on Twitter - which seems relevant.

I do think it's worth questioning the literary canon. But I'm not in favour of ditching works because they're 'difficult' or from an earlier time.

allinbritain.org/in-defence-of-dead-white-males/

Dahlietta I agree .
Being forced to read a book is totally different to reading one of your own free will.
Also I think when you have to analyse them and pick apart the meaning can ruin the overall enjoyment of the story and make it seem boring and drawn out

I read it a long time ago but think it’s quite the opposite to a “white boy whine” in its core.
It’s very much about not fitting in the privileged white society as he’s expected and being failed by it

It’s the Kite Runner I dislike, a predictable and mawkish book I thought.

I have said it already but will say it again : CITR is not a set text and never has been at GCSE

I don't think any exam board thinks it is an essential part of the literary canon.

OK, quick google tells me it might have been set by an exam board maybe 10 years ago, when we were allowed to do US Lit. But I have never encountered it as a taught text, so maybe it was a choice in a few schools.

Definitely not a set text now!

*It’s simply a historical inaccuracy to say they ‘developed’ these fields”

Yes, but you can’t turn around and say that a Japanese woman invented the novel, when it had nothing to do with the development of English literature. Mary Shelley, I’ll give you that. She is a literary giant. In fact, British literature in particular is full of great women writers, as a non-Brit I’m pretty jealous!

Yes finally.. I read it as an adult then my son read it as 19 year old.on the same holiday. we both thought it was dire.
Grapes of Wrath on the other hand ! Wow

At school I was the only one in the class who thought it was utter bollox. I'm afraid I did not have the courage of my convictions at the age of 15 to argue my case and I just kept quiet.

I re-read it a couple of years ago for a book club. I still think it's shite, but now have the total disregard for other people's condemnation of my opinion, and said so (though I think I may have used the term "over-rated" - )

Grapes of Wrath is fantastic!

Yes, but you can’t turn around and say that a Japanese woman invented the novel

But this is a literal fact, so I will say it.

hackmum - yes, of course, but a 13 year old girl will feel victimised by that. You really cannot expect her to empathise with a boy in that situation - that would be grossly sexist.

I find this view quite odd. You don't have to empathise with the central character in a book to enjoy the book. Literature is about opening our minds to other people's experiences, other people's points of view. It's about understanding that the world isn't black-and-white. You don't have to empathise with Holden or even to like him very much to understand that he's a vulnerable teenage boy suffering the consequences of being forced to cover up his feelings.

hackmum - gosh, what siding with the patriarchy.

I’m not going to explain to my 13 year old why she should empathise with HC’s attitude to girls and sex.

But here's the important thing. Yes, everyone has different opinions. But I find if there's a widely-regarded novel I don't like, I try to find out why other people admire it. I wonder if maybe I've got it wrong. I don't just dismissively say, "It's shite". Where do people find this unshakeable confidence in their own opinions? Don't they have any kind of self-doubt?

I read it as a 13 year old girl and loved it.

I’m not going to explain to my 13 year old why she should empathise with HC’s attitude to girls and sex.

I am not siding with the patriarchy. I am not saying your 13 year old should "empathise" with HC's attitude to girls and sex. What didn't you understand about the sentence "You don't have to empathise with the central character in a book to enjoy the book"? What is so difficult about the concept of the unreliable narrator? Do you imagine that a central character in a novel has to be likeable?

@LilaJude thank you for your emotional labour, you've said what I wanted to say so articulately.

You do realise that Catcher in the Rye is pretty much the first novel written from the POV of a teenager suffering from depression don't you? a child who has been abandoned by his own parents and is so crushingly lonely that he pays money to people to spend time with him? This. I agree that that makes it a hard read, but I think that it is also why it continues to be relevant - possibly never more so than at the moment. I think to dismiss it as one long white-boy whine is to miss the point. It's not my favourite book or one I'd choose to re-read, but I can see why it's worth reading and how it might be worth discussing - in fact one look at the input on this thread tells you that.