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.

The City, The City

Exaggerating the real world is a useful way to point out political issues such as immigration. This book is in the "science fiction" section at bookstores yet seems to close to reality to ignore. It reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut short story in which he creates a world of perfect equality. The dancers wear ankle weights and the intelligent are shocked every time a thought is forming. The price of equality is to weigh down any strength until everyone is on the same level. In this novel, so far it seems to be a point on immigration. Furthermore, it seems to be commentary on how Israel and Palestine were divided with undertones of the Great Schism in relation to religion. The derogatory word painted above one murdered man read "ebru" which I believe when spoken resembles "Hebrew". The idea of countries and borders is a construction of government, but more integrally man. It's fascinating how these two, potentially three, countries can all exist within the same geographical location. This story also reminds me of the divided Cypress. The people agree on an imaginary border and its taboo to cross or acknowledge anyone on the other side. It's a shared living rights on the same island divided by, from my understanding, Greeks and Turks. My mom said that there was a restaurant situated right on the border in Cypress and patrons were limited to sit in seats according to where the border fell. She never did go into how the waiting staff got around this obstacle, but it still echoes concepts seen in The City, The City shows.

Looking forward to seeing where this novel goes, but I anticipate its main points will be the role of the government, immigration, but most importantly a complex representation of "the will of the people" - why is it that people go along with "unseeing"? Out of Fear? I think this country will show a society that does not function democratically.

House Rules Part Deux

I'm going to have to agree with Gahagen on this one. It seems to be a book written for 40 year old mothers who can snag a minute to read in between doing laundry and vaccuuming (I'm not stereotyping anymore than Picoult). Sappy, predictable, "heartfelt", unsatisfying. A quick read, despite it's length, but leaves no lasting impression.

Three Points of Critique:

1) Why did no one ask the simple question: "Did you kill her?"
They talked about how this syndrome leads the a person to be painfully honest. Asking the simple question "did you kill her" would have resolved a lot of problems. Yes, the mom feared what her son might've done, and Theo was afraid of his involvement and ... the lawyer didn't want to put himself into a bind? I suppose the prosecution was afraid he would say no... Litterally, no one asked for his side of the story and I find this unrealistic.

2)The lawyer didn't ask Jacob for his story
Why not? Is this really how the legal system works? I figured lawyers knew the truth about their defendent and just kept a poker face during trial if they should be guilty. I was so confused as to this point. How can one make a sound case without as full a picture as one can get?

3)Ending
If I were sitting in on this case and then, out of the blue, the accused's brother comes forth with his involvement on the case, I would be completely skeptical. Jason is a crime genius - of course he could have planned all of this. What jury would believe this "stroke of luck"? It would seem as if the mother had a hand in all of this too. Picoult should've had Jason go to jail w/out the truth ever being uncovered. The exploration of Theo wrestling with guilt would have been a great read. It would have been a striking tragedy as opposed to a cheap, happy ending.

House Rules

The first time I tried to write on House Rules nothing came to mind. My solution? Put off my homework and take to the kitchen and prepare more food for the week. I already had sweet potatoes boiling in the kitchen and they starting to get too soft. Flipping through some recipes, I decided on "Tropical Sweet Potato Fries" (http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Tropical-Sweet-Potato-Fries/Detail.aspx). After letting them steam dry, I removed the skins, chopped, and tossed them onto an oiled baking sheet. It was when I was coating them with olive oil that I thought to myself, "Jacob would go ballistic if he were here right now." For those of you who don't know, sweet potatoes are about as orange as you can get, and to top it off, I was using a rubber, orange brush to coat the potatoes with oil. Here I am, preparing food for the week and would never have known that Asperger's syndrome might make sweet potatoes inedible. From this book I am enlightened on the every day challenges of someone on this spectrum of Autism.

I believe this book isn't so much about who killed Olgivery, but instead about the difficulties faced by the "extraordinary". My housemate walked into the living room, and after seeing that House Rules was written by Jessica Picoult said "Oh, she wrote My Sister's Keeper. That author always writes about those challenged with health issues". Granted, that was a generalization, I flipped to the last few pages by accident and saw the last chapter labeled "My Brother's Keeper". With this commonality, I'm guessing there are other reoccurring themes such as sibling relationships in the face of disease, syndromes, etc. Her writing is valuable, I think, because it educates the masses on Asperger's syndrome which would otherwise only be in textbooks.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Demonizing S&M

Two oppositions presented in the book are normal vs deviation. Through the character of Lisbeth, we can a clear message of deviation both socially as well as cognitively. However, this opposition is presented not to establish that one is right, or one is wrong but to instead show the spectrum of personalities. Furthermore, this book advocates the breaking of stereotypes. Martin, a seemingly responsible and kind character turns out to be the serial rapist and murderer. Lisbeth, is initially perceived as a social deviant that is daft and contumacious. Although she is by know means a conformist, her appearance repeatedly misleads assumptions made by outsiders. Banal, but, "don't judge a book by it's cover." It acts to strip away the negative connotation of deviant, or different from what is normal.

However, this book solidifies a stereotype. Sexual deviation has often been used to demonize individuals as seen with the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill. This is in part due to the fact that the most "deviant" behaviors are often shared by the fewest people. The fewer the people, the less likely the majority comes into contact with them. Therefore it can establish an "us" and "them" mentality leading to hostility and lack of empathy. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo demonizes those who practice S&M. Not does Lisbeth's guardian a practices of S&M who rapes her, but also Martin who is the serial rapist and victim. Through the presentation of S&M, it would seem that Larsson betrays his own true feelings. In the later books, (not that I've read them), Larson couples S&M with satanism completely demonizing the act. As seen in Laura Kipnis' Bound and Gagged, practicers of S&M are demonized. After googling "Stieg Larsson, S&M" I didn't find any group in retaliation of the books. I'm curious as to why this is. No formal S&M group? I'm misinterpreting this book's effects on stereotyping S&M?