Spoiler Alert! The Magicians

Quentin's aptitude discipline test is inconclusive. At first I thought that Grossman would later uncover his secret ability but it never happens. We later find out that it's Penny who had the secret genius aptitude who starts his own private research. Even until the end of the book Quentin never "finds" his aptitude. This seems to be commentary on "specialization." Not everyone has extreme talent in one single field. Many people are well-rounded and more or less average in everything. I think this is the case for Quentin; he's good at magic - passable at it - but he doesn't excel into it. To apply this to a real life scenario, I myself perform relatively good in all my classes but there is no one subject that I flourish in. Like Quentin, I think it can be difficult when your skills and abilities aren't the dominate factors influencing your choice in career. Even after he practices in the solitude of fillory and becomes an expert he never discovers any aptitude. Another curious event - he becomes an expert after he experiences the pain of losing his lover, Alice. Is this to go along with the them that becoming an adept stems from how much you suffer? Was Alice really any more talented than him or did she just suffer from the death of her brother sooner allowing her to draw on more pain to fuel her magic?

Quentin never tries to experiment in the creation of new spells - he doesn't even express the desire to do so. I believe this stems from his lack of ability, or his traumatization of the accidental first encounter with the beast. It came to be b/c Foggs mispoke the spell - creating a new spell - which allowed for the beast to come. His not taking part in the creation of spells such as magic missile is even more evidence that he is smart, but not the smartest. However, his self-other-loathing clashes with the more universal traits of being average. If he hadn't been such a wallower, I might have actually identified with him.

The Magicians

At this point in the novel, it's unclear whether Lev Grossman will choose to explore the personal growth of her characters. At page 47, this book just seems like Harry Potter with expletives. It's also interesting how Quentin periodically refers to Fillory. This sets up a timeline in the book where there are already childhood novels about Fillory, and then Q goes to magic school. Similarly, the Narnia books were written first in which a group of young children happen to go to a foreign magical place where they assist the good in claiming control from the White Witch just as the Chatwin kids go to fight the Watcher Woman and claim control of the lands. Harry Potter was written well after C. Lewis' novels... but this novel even references Harry Potter. How curious, why reference Harry Potter but not Narnia when the Fillory novels seem to practically be the Narnia trilogy. Anyone else think of Harry Potter 5th novel when he's all angsty when reading The Magicians? Litterally, these kids are depressed, self-loathing, blaming, competitive dolts. Why does Grossman choose to make Quentin so miserable? The back insinuates this is a "coming-of age" novel so how will Q change? Also, could he have shown a strong character growth with the character being happy? This novel makes me think of the Alchemist in which the character greatly differs from Q, but similarly grows into an adult. The difference is that the other boy is relatively happy his entire life. I found that that book was written to be read by younger as well, but that it wrestled with particularly hard concepts and came to resolutions chapter by chapter. Very useful if you read for introspection and inspiration. The Magicians however, takes the entire novel to really learn anything - but I guess that's how it actually happens. It takes a lot of time, a lot of mistakes and the looking back on everything to come to conclusions to face the future.

Hungry Hungry Games

A very quick, engaging read. Unfortunately, it wasn't a very substantial piece of work. I flew through the novel in one day - a page turner. I'm starting to see what's wrong with page turners - it's not that the author posits interesting ideas and you want to keep hearing more, but that the author won't give you really anything but well placed plot hooks, so you have to keep reading to find that resolution. Once you know the ending, there's no point in reading it again b/c you can never "unsee" it. It's no more satisfying than a mindless soap opera full of "twists" and "turns" to "wow" the audience. My housemate Sarah noticed how in Hunger Games, an entirely new world is created, but each innovation serves a direct purpose making everything. There isn't any exploration of the world for the sake of exploration. Furthermore, there aren't inventions whose purpose is unknown. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, but I did find it somewhat a contradiction. How can there be tons of cameras in this fighting dome yet there be so many impoverished that support the rich? The one taciturn idea this book touches on is how love is portrayed by the media. The audience is attached to Peeta and Katniss so they want them to be together. No one ever thinks that there might be another guy back home for Katniss. My final thoughts are on what someone said in class: unnatractive girl becomes hot b/c she has some kind of relationship with a dark, emotionally distant man. She becomes even more hot because now she has a big, muscly puppy dog guy after her... Twilight anyone? I read The Alchemist and was very moved by the book. It wrestled with very complex ideas, but expressed them in a simple way much like a fable or parable would. After reading this book, I've come to realize that it doesn't matter what age group the book is intended. Just b/c Hunger Games is for teenagers isn't an excuse for it not to wrestle with difficult deeper ideas.