Places to Chat
Attack on the
Chatterbox: Blab About Books
Riordan's Universe
Attack on the...
Attack on the Percy Jackson world.
Yes, I am about to cricize one of the most popular series of books ever. Let's keep this reasonable, peeps.
So, in the original Percy Jackson series, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, there is almost no original material besides adaption of myths. It was, however, a very interesting book.
But they still lacked some of the originality that went into the Kane Chronicles. I thought the Kane Chronicles were by far better. Not only was Chronicles shorter, but had much more belivable characters. They had more depth.
I find the characters in Olympians much more flat, and they develop their own cliche. Percy is the "hero", Anabeth is the "smart person" and Grover is the "weird person".
Though flawed, Olympians was a good five book series. But there are now two more series. But he had to write Heros of Olympus. Heros had the same action and flaws, but on a larger scale. It was too long, and really pushed the boundaries of the world: how do we not remember this? We forget it. That is his explanation of how his world fits inside ours. It is unrealistic, and should be updated.
With Magnus Chase, he explores another world, but in the first few chapters connects it to Jackson's world. An admiriable failure.
With the new series Trials of Apollo, he makes another installation for Jackson's world that wasn't needed.
In conclusion, I think the series is longer than necessary, the characters are weak, and the plot predictable. So far, no major characters have 'died" and stayed dead. Magnus Chase couldn't stay dead, and he was killed. I wish some better characters were made, some more exciting plots, and old characters taken out.
submitted by Gared, My Demiplane
(August 17, 2016 - 7:44 pm)
(August 17, 2016 - 7:44 pm)
(August 17, 2016 - 9:14 pm)
(August 17, 2016 - 10:33 pm)
Definitely with you on the length. I quit after the first series, thinking something along the lines of "Well that was nice, but more of the same? This is going to be like [sorry, guys] Warriors all over again." And I'm about to write something long, so here's a picture of Luke holding Backbiter: \.¨,
I haven't read the Kane Chronicles, so can't compare.
The universe was pretty cool, from what I read in the first book - the superposition of the ancient world on the modern was a pretty good synthesis, the march Westward of the centers of culture was intriguing and realistic... the gods were true to their ancient personas and to some extent their powers. One forgives a certain amount of deviation (after all, it's been some two+ millennia). And, I'm still a little ashamed to admit how much about ancient mythology I learned from that series. (Riordan did his research well. Though the role of "mist" is a little incredible.)
Some elements got an eye-roll... how unusual is it that the kids everyone overlooks because they're "deficient" turn out to be the heroes?!?! I mean, no one could have seen that twist coming. The forest itself rises up against the bad armies!! The rivers of NYC get mad at each other!! The plot can be predictable and when it isn't predictable it can leave the reader incredulous. Evil is well-defined to be "attractive but ruthless underneath, will destroy everything before it makes things right," good is defined as something like "just", which may or may not line up with the gods, but either way there's obviously a good side and a bad side to be on. If the laws of physics can be bent in this one way, why can't they be bent in another? Riordan can get away with a lot of arbitrarily imposed rules because Greek myths imply a lot of arbitrary rules, but whether he's justified or not, the world-mechanics remain unsatisfying.
The characters serve their purposes well, for their part - Percy is irascible, loyal, sometimes a little clueless, well-intentioned and fair-minded; Annabeth is clever and courageous and ambitious and forgiving of others, sometimes too much so; Grover is, well, half goat. Percy is designed to be relatable and likeable - to a certain extent the reader is supposed to project himself onto him. Annabeth is the crush that's human and loves you back for good reasons. Grover is... comic relief? And some other qualities too.
The books' strength was (is) mainly the style of writing (energetic, a little sarcastic, irreverent) and the way it pulled you through the implausible adventures (Percy's attitude reflects the reader's own necessary suspension of disbelief: 'Well, that's weird. Are we doing this? OK, we're doing this.'). Secondary strength was the novelty of it all, which fades after you read five books of it (and participate in games like RPs based on it and watch the movies and...). Tertiary strength was probably the pacing - the books are really built like good movies, with the calmer scenes setting the combat in starker contrast, and the combats themselves building steadily to climax. There's no disappointment when the action lags, no boredom as the characters endure a long wait or while somebody gives a tedious monologue. Exposition is dramatically broken up with games of pinochle or the like. The monsters don't get tiresome (a fault that Tolkien suffers from IMO, where the succesive horrors are so horrible and ghastly and awful that by the time the worst ones of all come through, the reader is inured to his descriptions). In Percy Jackson's world and writing, the monsters actually get worse.
Does the series deserve the cult-status it's got? I dunno. :) It acquired it for reasons that can't be dismissed.
(August 18, 2016 - 11:43 am)
Interesting reviews Gared and Oregano. It's always nice to read other people's take on a book I've read simply because oftentimes they mention something that I never thought about while reading the book. Unfortunately, I have not read the books in question so cannot really contribute. Still enjoyed reading your reviews though. :)
@Oregano: Hmmm...interesting observation regarding the violence in LoTR(?) I have read the books several times and don't recall having the same impression. This is not to say that you are not right, just that I never
really noticed it. I may just pick it up again and re-read it. :)
(August 19, 2016 - 5:30 pm)
Any excuse to reread LotR is a good excuse! :P But it's also possible that my own recollections are colored by having watched the movies, so... maybe I should do some rereading too. XD
He hits the reader pretty hard with the black knights near the beginning of the journey, and the only way he can heighten the terror from those is to have his characters get closer to them in more dire situations (up to Éowyn and Merry on the Pelennor Fields); the Orcs can only be zoomed in on and made more numerous, and Sauron we never even see, like a Lovecraftian horror that's too intangible to be truly shocking...
...wait, I just realized whom I'm channeling - Edmund Wilson wrote a bitingly scornful review of Tolkien once, which I had to read and respond to for school. (I disagreed with Wilson at the time but apparently I became convinced of a few of his points :P) Wilson was an unforgiving reader, however; he had no interest in filling in what an author left blank.
I'd definitely recommend the review for the sake of taking in some verbal fireworks. YMMV for his conclusions! :D
(August 19, 2016 - 10:41 pm)
Thanks for the suggested reading. I will definitely check it out. I have seen Edmund Wilson's name in passing but have never read any of his critiques. I have to confess that I'm something of a newbie when it comes to reading literary criticism. I started dipping my toe in it this year but don't do it a lot, mostly because I hear my parents' collective voice inside my head telling me that it's more important to develop my own voice/thoughts first at this point in my life. I know where they are coming from but there are times when I find myself really wanting to hear other people's point of view, not so much to supplant my own but to enhance it.
(August 20, 2016 - 6:56 pm)
I believe you're right about that. :)
John Donne said that "no man is an island" (at least I assume he was the first one to say it with those words) - it's not possible nor really desirable to develop a point of view in isolation, and the more ideas one takes in, the less chance there is of accepting others' ideas without thinking... after seeing the "alternatives", it's up to us to judge for ourselves.
I haven't read as widely as I'd like to have, but Wilson is a fun guy for reading... so is H. L. Mencken, who was only part critic but whose language will turn your pupils to peppercorns :P Orwell is also great (and his writing is clean of pretense). Do you have any favorite critics from your toe-dipping? :)
(August 20, 2016 - 11:00 pm)
Just to clarify...My parents are not opposed to literary criticism in general nor are they opposed to my discussing books with my peers. Their concern has more to do with the notion that it may be harder for young minds to develop their own voice in the face of the stronger voices of pundits whose mantle of authority is harder to ignore and hence harder to challenge for the less experienced. It is a valid concern, I think, that applies not only to the reading of works of literature but also to the whole classification of those works into categories: those worthy of reading and those less worthy of reading. It is something I do think about....Part of me wishes that there were less classification, but I think on some level, it is hard to get around. As for my favorite critics...I may have exaggerated the toe-dipping. It was more like half a toe and it did not stay there for very long. (lol) I think I read altogether only a handful and two were on the same book, so not really enough to find a favorite. To be honest, I don't even remember the critics' names except for one and only because he was a writer whose work I have come across in anthologies. I will not mention his name because I am not particularly fond of his fiction and don't want to influence any CBer reading this who may come across his work in the future.
In any case, there is one thing that I did find out from reading the critiques, namely that I really enjoy all the biographical details on the
author. They sort of put little things in perspective for me. This is not to say that I necessarily think that fiction is strictly autobiographical, I don't. But I tend to think that the life of the author imbues the work in some way. So I think from now on, rather than read literary criticism on a particular work, I'm going to just research the author first (read essays, letters, interviews, etc.). --At least for now.
P.S. If I don't get another chance, good luck in your first year of college! I'm sure you'll do fine. Just don't forget to have some fun now and then! :)
(August 22, 2016 - 7:00 am)
*sings a paean to the gods*
(August 26, 2016 - 7:47 am)
Have you actually read Heroes of Olympus? I know you've read PJO, but have you read HoO? Have you actually read Trials of Apollo? You can't judge a book by its cover. Ricks world building, character building, and general writing gets SO GOOD.
Magnus Chase is...not very good, if you've read PJO and HoO. Magnus is like a really flat version of Percy. I really don't know how to give Magnus any personality traits. Rick tries to make him sarcastic and casual, like Percy, but doesn't do so well. The worldbuilding is messy, like quilt patches that don't quite fit together. It's really a bad imitation of Percy Jackson. ONCE AGAIN, this is if you read PJO and HoO first.
I think how much you like Rick's books depeands on which ones you've read first: Kane Chronicles, PJO, HoO, or Magnus Chase. It's nearly impossible to be nonbiased, when you've read one before the other. I read PJO first, which I may have enjoyed less if I'd read, say, Kane Chronicles first. Whatever books you read later feel a bit like a copy.
In my defense, Magnus Chase actually is a bit like a copy, and not just because I read it later. It came later. I'm too lazy to debate specific points right now.
So people, what Rick books did you read first?
(August 20, 2016 - 10:09 am)
I have read every book exept Magnus Chase, but I am 3/4 through it.
(August 20, 2016 - 10:46 am)
Ok. I'm going to argue a few of these points.
When you say Percy is the "hero", Annabeth is the "smart person", and Grover is the "weird person", you're only looking at them from one angle. Percy is the hero, but he has other traits too, like extreme loyalty and being sarcastic. He also has A.D.H.D. Annabeth can fight and handle situations well- so she's not your stereotypical, weak, "nerd" girl. Grover is weird, and that's okay, Rick Riordan can make him awkward if he wants to. I personally like Grover. So, I don't find these characters flat at all.
I don't think length is a problem for a lot of people- I loved how HOH had bigger books. I agree that he should've stopped after HOH- connecting it to Magnus Chase and the Trials of Apollo was a little much. Have you read the Heroes of Olympus, though? I don't think any of the characters are "weak". And predictability? Could you have predicted that Annabeth and Percy would fall into Tartarus? There was a lot of other events that I had no idea were coming. So I guess it doesn't matter if you like the books or not, but there are reasons why a lot of people like them.
(August 20, 2016 - 11:42 am)
I'm fine with Magnus Chase being in the same world as Percy Jackson, as long as he doesn't delve into it, because it's messed up. Really. Messed. Up. Although, the thing with gods being attracted to Annabeth's family was cool. Anyways, should I dive into how messed up the Magnus Chase & Percy Jackson same world is?
Okay. Cool. I will, because I can. Also, I think that Magnus dying was a pretty cool plot twist. Let's ask ourselves a few questions back on topic.
Wouldn't both gods Colide?
Yes. Unless they were all the same, just delving into three forms (Greek, Roman, Norse) which would probably divide them into insanity and madness. Can I elaborate? Okay, cool, I will. It might not be that impossible. I think that the Norse gods have less--but that makes sense because some gods are only Roman or only Greek. It's still messed up. Now onto the next topic.
Also, in the last book of Percy Jackson, The Last Olympian, had so many deaths I was upset over. The counselor of the Aphrodite Cabin? Also, Ethan Naknamura? Luke? I enjoyed it so thuroughly though! it didn't, like Redwall, make me upset. (FYI, the first book of Redwall has way more bad guy deaths and like... 1? 2? 3? good charecters dying, whilst The Outcast Of Redwall had so many good and bad deaths it was overwhelming. R.I.P Nightshade. Yes, I liked Nightshade, but I liked the Kestrel--THAT I FORGOT THE NAME OF!!! more.)
So, yeah. I'll post more later, but want to keep this in seperate posts, so that the Admins don't be like "WHY DO I HAVE TO READ THIS ALL? NOT AGAIN ICY!!!!!" But they would probably not say that, because they're extremely patient and would never yell or rage. Not to say they never get impatient--they are human--but they wouldn't get that impatient. Anyways.
To end: I love Percy Jackson! I've never read the Kane Chronicles, but I like (so far. I've only read the first book) Magnus Chase too! However, Magnus is sort of a different typed Percy, although Rick tries. He really tries. (To make them more different, such as making Magnus hate blue as opposed to Percy loving it.)
Anyways, Buh-bye! Post more later. Also, I disaprove of Trials of Apollo--slightly. Apollo is funny, but not funny enough for an entire series really. Also, I think that PJ and HoO is really all that we need in the PJ world--WHOOPS! I'M DOING IT AGAIN! Buh-bye!
(August 25, 2016 - 2:46 pm)
Part two of Icy ranting about stuff
So, I wanted to look at other people’s quotes--or snippets from their comments, and talk about them a bit. In parts. So that I don’t annoy the Admins. So, let’s just edit in something Oregano said, and I quote--
“Some elements got an eye-roll... how unusual is it that the kids everyone overlooks because they're "deficient" turn out to be the heroes?!?”
Woah, Oregano. Why would that get an eye-roll? I mean, it’s kinda rude to ADHD kids (what you said) because I’m sure we have ADHD kids who can dream of being a Hero of Olympus. Also, you may glance and think “Hold on, what?” About ADHD kids being hardwired for battle. I thought it when I first read that. But it kind of makes sense--ADHD kids are faster, more hyper, have faster reactions. I can’t explain. Also, by the way, Percy’s adventure slightly mirrors the real legend of Perceus. Just wanted to put that in there. And next I just wanted to talk to Owlgirl because I love her...uh, I guess they’re called reviews. Sorry, I’m a bit dumb when it comes to words sometimes. So, Owlgirl said--
“Magnus Chase is...not very good, if you've read PJO and HoO. Magnus is like a really flat version of Percy. I really don't know how to give Magnus any personality traits.”
Yes, Magnus is a flat version of Percy. Can I please elaborate?
Everyone: PLEASE NO!
Sure, I’ll elaborate! *people groan* Magnus and Percy share the same personality traits, so technically Magnus does have personality traits--but they’re the same as Percy’s, which I guess does make them flat. If you look closely at Rick’s writing, you will notice that he tries hard to make Magnus and Percy very different (I wrote about this in my last post), but it ends up being in small ways--Magnus is not ADHD or Dyslexic (I think?), Magnus hates blue, Percy likes Blue. Small things. Bluebird--
“When you say Percy is the "hero", Annabeth is the "smart person", and Grover is the "weird person", you're only looking at them from one angle. Percy is the hero, but he has other traits too, like extreme loyalty and being sarcastic. He also has A.D.H.D. Annabeth can fight and handle situations well- so she's not your stereotypical, weak, "nerd" girl. Grover is weird, and that's okay,”
I can’t tell you how much I agree with this. I cannot. It’s just...100% me agreeing. Annabeth can be smart if she wants to. Would you read about a main charecter that isn’t a hero? And yes, Grover is weird, and I appreciate his weirdness. Also, darn it, I was also looking at them through an angle earlier. I think Percy has one of the same flaws as Harry Potter *insert gasping, because Icy is a Potterhead and will never admit that Harry has flaws!* which is that he’s slightly--SLIGHTLY, Percy EVEN LESS than Harry, is OCASIONALLY the generic hero.
That’s all for now! I really want to talk about the died and stayed dead thing though...although everyone probably is yelling at me to be quiet from behind their screens.
(August 25, 2016 - 3:06 pm)
*does tap dance for the gods*
(August 26, 2016 - 8:05 am)