16 is not 12 - there are far more than four years difference in maturity at those ages than perhaps any other.
And “understanding.”
And effect.
I think it fair to say that a 12 year old may not have the mental framework to have much empathy for the portent of that novel. Even so, as she matures, those concepts from the novel will lead to an "understanding".
I read 1984. I know that I didn't understand it then, like I do now.
Truly, though, whether she did or didn't have the 'ability' or 'experience' to comprehend the political aspects of the novel is not really that critical to the premise of the article.
My point is that sure, a 16 year old can grasp more concepts than a 12 year old.
I read Catcher in the Rye when I was 13, because I saw it on an episode of "Lou Grant" and Rossi complained about censorship.
Talk about making me WANT to read a book.
Lots of things went over my head. In particular, just how kooky liberal that TV show was.
I read it in HS later and really "got" it.
I enjoyed it at 13 as a read. But with guidance from a relatively unbiased teacher, I picked up on the symbolism.
I read 1984 when I was 12. I got it’s intended message. I had the general feeling that “Social Studies” was flaky or fuzzy at best. When I read “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman at age 16 things really crystallized for me. For the first time I found something about human activity that really clicked and seemed reasonable. I also learned that to master some subjects you had to do so in spite of the wishes of my overlords at the State Indoctrination Camps. (Otherwise known as California Public Schools).