When I was a child, my father would occasionally suggest books for me to read. The works of Herbert Wells, Alexandre Dumas, Jules Verne, Arthur Conan-Doyle, as well as some books by russian authors, were all suggested by my father. I always took my father's advice and was never disappointed. He knew which books to pick for me, and I enjoyed every one of them.
Drawing from this experience, I often suggest books for my children to read. Only so far, they have been less than receptive to my advice. The works of Astrid Lindgren, "The Little Prince", and "Alice in Wonderland" were outright rejected by my first-born when he was younger, and now by my younger son as well. I don't know how they can not like these books. Only they don't. They don't even give them a chance, and if they agree to listen, it's only for a couple of pages, immediately declaring the book not worth their time.
I gave up for a while, and let my kids choose the books they want to read. But I still don't want them to miss the experience of reading the books I enjoyed as a child. I figured that my older son is now old enough to read Jules Verne, and given his love of science, I think he would enjoy the science fiction, so I suggested that he picked up a book by Jules Verne. That's when I became, again, a completely uncool, controlling, and pretty much the worst mother in the whole world. He doesn't want to read 200-year-old books, I don't understand what kids his age are reading, and he has a complete right to pick the books he wants to read without consulting me.
But does he? I am bigger and wiser, I've read the books I am recommending, I enjoyed them, and I know he would enjoy them too if he just gives them a chance. The only reason why he doesn't want to read Jules Verne is because nobody in his class has even probably heard of this author, and my son wants to read what his peers are reading. Rick Riordan has replaced Jules Verne.
That's not good enough for me. I KNOW what his peers are reading. I also know what they SHOULD BE reading. I am not banning Rick Riordan. There is enough time for both him and Jules Verne. But my son set his mind on not even trying. I think this is wrong. Is it worth the fight? There are not many russians who have not read "20 thousand leagues under the sea", or "War of the worlds", or "Three musketeers", or "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" in their teen years. But there is probably a majority of americans who did not, and they turned out just fine. If I give up the fight, my children will be a part of the majority. But is the fight worth the reward?
When kids grow older, there are so many things to fight about, and they are all serious. There is curfew. There are chores. There is homework. There are clothes they wear. There is language they use. The list is endless. At the end of the day, you feel like the relationship with your pre-teen has become a constant fight. There seems to be absolutely nothing you can agree on. Must books they read be another thing to fight about? How important is it, really, as long as they are reading?
I am torn. I don't want to seem mean and controlling any more than I already am. But I also don't want my children to miss the experience of reading wonderful books just because their peers are not reading them. I am not ready to give up the fight. But because I don't feel that it's right to impose punishment in this case, and my power of persuasion does not seem to be working, I think it's going to be a long fight without winners.