The House of Hades
discussion
Serious overuse of romance in this series?
Brown wrote: "Aryan wrote: "Brown wrote: "Ever since this series started, it's been mandatory for every character to have a love interest. The amount of times that the words "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" get us..."
Oh no, romance is overused in the majority of YA books.
Aryan wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Aryan wrote: "Brown wrote: "Ever since this series started, it's been mandatory for every character to have a love interest. The amount of times that the words "girlf..."
This one hardly has any. I get annoyed actually, sometimes, at how little there is...lol
Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me...
Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I have with Caleo. It could have been done platonically, but Rick seems to think that romance solves all Leo's problems.
And Percy and Annabeth are talki..."
Okay, how about this:
How about instead of pairing up every single character in sight, and setting up half-baked soap opera story arcs, he just picked one couple he really focused on and made less crappy.
How about Percy and Annabeth, then? He could work on making them actually get to know each other better (not by acting mushy).
Remember, in the Mark of Athena, Percy admits he still feels like he doesn't really know Annabeth yet.
We barely get to see them interacting as human beings, not "boyfriend and girlfriend" which here only means cuddling and holding hands and making corny remarks about "you do have a planning face." (gag)
You don't have to act different toward each other when you're a couple. At least not ALL the time.
He's making them act like those annoying people at high school who turn relationships into a type of game or something. I just want them to be themselves and if they sincerely want to get married later, whatever.
The bottom line is, why can't they just be kids on an adventure? If getting in a relationship only means acting like corny, mushy idiots, then I don't want to read about it, no!
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I have with Caleo. It could have been done platonically, but Rick seems to think that romance solves all Leo's problems.
And Percy and Annabeth are talki..."
Okay, how about this:
How about instead of pairing up every single character in sight, and setting up half-baked soap opera story arcs, he just picked one couple he really focused on and made less crappy.
How about Percy and Annabeth, then? He could work on making them actually get to know each other better (not by acting mushy).
Remember, in the Mark of Athena, Percy admits he still feels like he doesn't really know Annabeth yet.
We barely get to see them interacting as human beings, not "boyfriend and girlfriend" which here only means cuddling and holding hands and making corny remarks about "you do have a planning face." (gag)
You don't have to act different toward each other when you're a couple. At least not ALL the time.
He's making them act like those annoying people at high school who turn relationships into a type of game or something. I just want them to be themselves and if they sincerely want to get married later, whatever.
The bottom line is, why can't they just be kids on an adventure? If getting in a relationship only means acting like corny, mushy idiots, then I don't want to read about it, no!
Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."I don't know, I wouldn't really mix up the pairings with actual romance. I have mentioned countless times that I don't feel it was necessary for so many characters to be paired up, but if it's not taking away from the actual adventure, than it doesn't matter. You want kids on an adventure? Well, they are on an adventure, and they aren't kids. They're almost adults. Almost. They're teenagers who've had to deal with more pressure and responsibilities than most of us can imagine.
And Rick himself has said that they're just 17 and in a new relationship. He isn't getting them married at the end.
You're taking a small aspect of the story that bugs you, and you're elephantizing it. Making it a big deal by exaggerating. Over 90% of the books are focused on the individual adventures and epic scenes between hero and villain. The romance might be 5%. I don't even know.
Are we seriously fighting about this again? XD
So in general, yes, the pairings are unnecessary, but there isn't actual romance. Like you said, just some remarks here and there. Holding hands. If you want full fledged, go read a book that isn't for kids.
Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."
I don't know, I wouldn't really mix up the pairings with actual romance. I ha..."
I don't think it's a matter of what they have to do to prove they are finally worthy of being in a relationship. The romance is always going to be horrible. Period.
They cannot do anything with it, so it's a waste of time. It shouldn't be there.
(At least not portrayed as something we're expected to take seriously).
It wasn't just a few remarks you could ignore either. Character interaction on a whole is completely structured on these soap operas. It's really imposing.
Sorry, but every chapter about Percy and Annabeth in House of Hades was a complete sap-fest too.
Someone once said:
"At the end of the day, I’m pretty sure a good relationship is just two people who know how to hang out and talk to each other- not whether or not they can right all your wrongs or paint a picture of a thousand suns with the breath from your lungs.."
...or how they have to obsess over how "cute" every little corny quirk of each other's is.
And yes, that's all they can do since they're not adults that can get married. I'm saying they shouldn't have to do ANYTHING because they're just stuck with the annoying, mushy, fake parts.
Obviously good romance can't work in this series.
The way I see it the author could either:
a: leave it out.
b: make fun of it.
instead he tries to portray it as important and serious. That is where he goes completely wrong.
I don't know, I wouldn't really mix up the pairings with actual romance. I ha..."
I don't think it's a matter of what they have to do to prove they are finally worthy of being in a relationship. The romance is always going to be horrible. Period.
They cannot do anything with it, so it's a waste of time. It shouldn't be there.
(At least not portrayed as something we're expected to take seriously).
It wasn't just a few remarks you could ignore either. Character interaction on a whole is completely structured on these soap operas. It's really imposing.
Sorry, but every chapter about Percy and Annabeth in House of Hades was a complete sap-fest too.
Someone once said:
"At the end of the day, I’m pretty sure a good relationship is just two people who know how to hang out and talk to each other- not whether or not they can right all your wrongs or paint a picture of a thousand suns with the breath from your lungs.."
...or how they have to obsess over how "cute" every little corny quirk of each other's is.
And yes, that's all they can do since they're not adults that can get married. I'm saying they shouldn't have to do ANYTHING because they're just stuck with the annoying, mushy, fake parts.
Obviously good romance can't work in this series.
The way I see it the author could either:
a: leave it out.
b: make fun of it.
instead he tries to portray it as important and serious. That is where he goes completely wrong.
He doesn't try to portray it as serious. That's where you're wrong.You- "They shouldn't have to do ANYTHING because they're just stuck with the annoying, mushy, fake parts.
Obviously good romance can't work in this series."
For a kids book it's fine. And the fact that Rick is probably aware that most of his PJO fans have grown up, it's fine. I think it's cute. So it really comes down to perspective.
You- "Someone once said:
"At the end of the day, I’m pretty sure a good relationship is just two people who know how to hang out and talk to each other- not whether or not they can right all your wrongs or paint a picture of a thousand suns with the breath from your lungs.."
"
Right, the words of "someone" are just that person's own opinions. Should I even bother with this point? I think I'll retaliate with a quote by "someone":
“A guy and a girl can be just friends, but at one point or another, they will fall for each other...Maybe temporarily, maybe at the wrong time, maybe too late, or maybe forever”
That's what happened with Percabeth, and where it'll go, we don't know.
On a related but side-note: You complain about these books but you've read em all. If they're so lame, why read all the books?? That's what I don't get.
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I really want to see some platonic relationships in the PJO books. I was kind of expecting the Seven to become friends and win with teamwork or whatever. But most of their relationships are romantic."Well, there is some friendship development between Hazel and Annabeth, and Jason and Nico. And also Leo with everyone else. But I see what you mean. Friendship can lead to some very intense characterization, but either way, PJO had a lot of that. The HoO obvs isn't as good as the originals, but I take what it gives because the prophesy and plot keep me interested. A story cannot be strong in all aspects, but this one certainly is good at getting me to ask questions such as "what'll happen" "what does storm or fire mean?" "IS PERCY THE STORM HALF??"
This story is good at building suspense that way. Which is why I don't care about individual relationships. Those would be useless to the overall plot, so they are not important.
Zanib wrote: "He doesn't try to portray it as serious. That's where you're wrong.
You- "They shouldn't have to do ANYTHING because they're just stuck with the annoying, mushy, fake parts.
Obviously good romance..."
Actually, I think it's bad for kids to be constantly told that's normal, and that life is a big soap opera about getting together with your crush.
Whether they were attracted to each other or not.
It's a complete over-value of a small part of what love even is.
They didn't do anything hugely wrong, but the whole mindset is off. The whole idea of a game called "being in love" that means acting different (mushy) toward someone just because you think they're hot, or have a cute "planning face."
It's just unnecessary, especially when portrayed as a priority.
If they weren't kids maybe there would be a point because they could get married if they wanted. At this point, it's just a selfish game.
The reason I don't think that's "just an opinion" is because it really hurts people and messes them up when they're told it's important.
It's not harmless.
It's a really selfish, unnecessary way of using other people for pleasure. Some cases more or less extreme, but the mindset starts here.
Well, I practically read a book a day, so why not?
You- "They shouldn't have to do ANYTHING because they're just stuck with the annoying, mushy, fake parts.
Obviously good romance..."
Actually, I think it's bad for kids to be constantly told that's normal, and that life is a big soap opera about getting together with your crush.
Whether they were attracted to each other or not.
It's a complete over-value of a small part of what love even is.
They didn't do anything hugely wrong, but the whole mindset is off. The whole idea of a game called "being in love" that means acting different (mushy) toward someone just because you think they're hot, or have a cute "planning face."
It's just unnecessary, especially when portrayed as a priority.
If they weren't kids maybe there would be a point because they could get married if they wanted. At this point, it's just a selfish game.
The reason I don't think that's "just an opinion" is because it really hurts people and messes them up when they're told it's important.
It's not harmless.
It's a really selfish, unnecessary way of using other people for pleasure. Some cases more or less extreme, but the mindset starts here.
Well, I practically read a book a day, so why not?
Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "He doesn't try to portray it as serious. That's where you're wrong.You- "They shouldn't have to do ANYTHING because they're just stuck with the annoying, mushy, fake parts.
Obvious..."
Ah man, we're heading in the same direction as our previous "argument" from page one.
I have a term for your kind of mindset. I call it the Eccentric Twilight Hating. But not with Twilight this time.
What I mean by that is that you're going all wacko and telling me how bad of an influence all this is on the mind of the reader. Give me a freaking break. I was pretty young when I started the series first, four years ago. It didn't do nothing to my mind.
And in fact, when I was new to this reading business, I was so deep into the YA romance, but it hasn't deteriorated my mind, or even messed up my priorities. Even as a child, I knew fiction vs. reality. And if that's something some people can't distinguish between, then perhaps they oughtn't be reading.
Zanib wrote: "And in fact, when I was new to this reading business, I was so deep into the YA romance, but it hasn't deteriorated my mind, or even messed up my priorities. Even as a child, I knew fiction vs. rea..."
No, no. You're turning it personal and that's not my point at all. It might not affect you, but it's still stupid in itself. I'm just calling stupidity what it is.
No, no. You're turning it personal and that's not my point at all. It might not affect you, but it's still stupid in itself. I'm just calling stupidity what it is.
Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I have with Caleo. ..."
I agree, I read lots of things I think are stupid. It doesn't mean it necessarily influences me, but I can still think and say that they're stupid or shallow. It is what it is.
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I have with Caleo. ..."
I agree, I read lots of things I think are stupid. It doesn't mean it necessarily influences me, but I can still think and say that they're stupid or shallow. It is what it is.
Brown wrote: "Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I h..."
I'm not saying you can't call something stupid if you feel it is such. I can totally agree with you on the front that Twilight is rather immature and "stupid".
I'm not turning things personal, I'm giving you another take on the way things really are.
Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I have with Caleo. ..."
Yes, I liked Twilight too, and I also loved all those Disney Princess movies, and gosh, even Barbie *hides behind hands*. But the thing is, people will find faults in everything. But a thing is only that which you make it. So for example, to some what may seem as a laughable relationship is cute for others.
But that's taking things into the philosophy line, and in all honesty, nobody wants to take me there. For all of our sakes (the conversation will go astray and we'll never reach an agreement)
Zanib wrote: "Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I h..."
I know what you're saying. I actually get really annoyed at people who pick on Barbie or Disney Princesses. They're SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. That's the whole fun of it. So what if Barbie "has it all," etc?
I guess with this series I had higher hopes. I feel like the only person who wrote a series that really tried to have credibility was J.K Rowling.
I know there will never be another Harry Potter, it's only so frustrating when a series wastes its potential for seemingly no reason.
I don't understand. Is Rick Riordan incapable of writing realistically if he wanted to?
The romance is undeniably shallow. He doesn't portray it that way. That and many other reasons, is why his series always feels less credible.
So in a way it goes deeper than just his way of writing romance. I question his whole method of portrayal in general. Including the way he milks all his good ideas with so much overkill sarcasm and (in my opinion) ruins them that way. (It feels like he's always patting himself on the back).
I feel like the series could be more timeless and truly brilliant if he only handled it a little better.
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of the problems I h..."
I know what you're saying. I actually get really annoyed at people who pick on Barbie or Disney Princesses. They're SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. That's the whole fun of it. So what if Barbie "has it all," etc?
I guess with this series I had higher hopes. I feel like the only person who wrote a series that really tried to have credibility was J.K Rowling.
I know there will never be another Harry Potter, it's only so frustrating when a series wastes its potential for seemingly no reason.
I don't understand. Is Rick Riordan incapable of writing realistically if he wanted to?
The romance is undeniably shallow. He doesn't portray it that way. That and many other reasons, is why his series always feels less credible.
So in a way it goes deeper than just his way of writing romance. I question his whole method of portrayal in general. Including the way he milks all his good ideas with so much overkill sarcasm and (in my opinion) ruins them that way. (It feels like he's always patting himself on the back).
I feel like the series could be more timeless and truly brilliant if he only handled it a little better.
Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
It's one of t..."
There is always a better way to do things. Maybe if Rick wanted he could spend more time on trying to make things more realistic and "credible" as you like to say, but there's a particular air about his whole series that screams: CHILDREN'S GREEK MYTH WITH LOTS OF ADVENTURE.
So basically, the way he portrays things actually fits with his genre and target audience. Harry Potter is a bit different in that it's targeted for an older audience and though there may be magic and what not, the way Rowling paints it is different than the way Rick does. I find both styles fit their area. Rowling obviously was thinking of a much more intricate plot, with loads of characters and a whole lot of intricate depth (dealing with the ministry and all), but with Rick, he seems to put his weight on other aspects. Like the actual adventure, the encounter, and the prophesy's.
On a side note, I will admit that part of the reason I stand up for The Heroes of Olympus so much is not because I think it's all that. I don't, and if I was being honest, the only reason I'm even into it is because of the original Percy Jackson series. It's like this: If you were given ten squares of chocolate, you might love the chocolate, but after five pieces, some responsible adult pulls the other five pieces away. You'd obviously want to finish the next five pieces once you finally have them back, even if you've matured since the last time you've eaten them.
But in any case, you may go ahead and call the romance what you want. It's nothing to lose sleep over in my eyes, because at the end of the day, I've come to terms that nothing serious Is ever going to happen in that respect. Nonetheless, the mystery of what the prophecy means keeps me interested. And individual characters also keep me interested enough to complete the adventure. If this is the case, I can argue that the romance is either so minimal, or so insignificant that it doesn't hinder any other aspects of the story, in which case it obviously isn't a problem. Whether or not it is stupid, does not affect the story for me. And the fact that you've been able to slug through these books. All of them, proves to me that there is something that has you hooked, and if so, obviously the Romance isn't bothering you so much.
I'm only making such interpretations because I've read The Mortal Instruments. All five books. And I plan to read The Infernal Devices. I think the romance is gag worthy. So not even close to realistic, but the reason I'm reading the books still is that I enjoy the mystery aspect. The: what now? Where are the character's going to go from here? The romance had it been bad enough, would have had me pulling away, but no, it hasn't hindered anything.
In general, I would only argue against the romance in these novels if it was significant or distracting enough to mess everything up.
And also, Rick isn't a writer who could rank amongst the great, but he sure knows how to write an interesting story for children.
Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
..."
People tell me it's just a children's series... Does that really mean anything though? It's whatever he makes it.
Why should a "children's" story have to be any less credible? Isn't that just lack of talent, or laziness on the author's part? What kid really wants someone to try less hard?
I have to disagree that the adventures are any stronger than the ones in HP. Again, not to keep comparing everything to Harry Potter, it's just a very good example of a series that really pushes the limits. The less we talk down to people, the more people will be drawn in. That doesn't mean it's for older people, it's a sign that the writing is inviting to more people.
I understand about wanting to finish the adventure because it's what we started and it has its good points. That doesn't mean there can't be a lot of things about it that are real let downs.
It seems like more than anything, there's just the fact that it's there. It's more about what it is (a fantasy series for kids that someone keeps bothering to write) more than how it's executed, or that it's particularly good or well done.
I feel kind of like a jerk saying that, because I know how many people like it. That's just how I feel about it though. It's just a phase because it's not built on the same kind of timeless foundations. And it baffles me why that's all anyone ever WANTS to write these days.
Is it all they're capable of? Why do they keep hiding behind "it's just a kid's series?" CAN'T they do anything better? Won't they ever try?
This is why Harry Potter is seen for the masterpiece it is, and other series never quite reach its level. They simply don't want to for some reason.
Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I agree, Brown.
..."
People tell me it's just a children's series... Does that really mean anything though? It's whatever he makes it.
Why should a "children's" story have to be any less credible? Isn't that just lack of talent, or laziness on the author's part? What kid really wants someone to try less hard?
I have to disagree that the adventures are any stronger than the ones in HP. Again, not to keep comparing everything to Harry Potter, it's just a very good example of a series that really pushes the limits. The less we talk down to people, the more people will be drawn in. That doesn't mean it's for older people, it's a sign that the writing is inviting to more people.
I understand about wanting to finish the adventure because it's what we started and it has its good points. That doesn't mean there can't be a lot of things about it that are real let downs.
It seems like more than anything, there's just the fact that it's there. It's more about what it is (a fantasy series for kids that someone keeps bothering to write) more than how it's executed, or that it's particularly good or well done.
I feel kind of like a jerk saying that, because I know how many people like it. That's just how I feel about it though. It's just a phase because it's not built on the same kind of timeless foundations. And it baffles me why that's all anyone ever WANTS to write these days.
Is it all they're capable of? Why do they keep hiding behind "it's just a kid's series?" CAN'T they do anything better? Won't they ever try?
This is why Harry Potter is seen for the masterpiece it is, and other series never quite reach its level. They simply don't want to for some reason.
Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Carthya wrote: "Brown wrote: "Brown wrote: "Well, if this series is an example of minimum romance, that doesn't exactly comfort me..."Sнαн∂ια wrote: "I..."
I could argue Harry Potter was a lucky score. J.K hasn't been able to produce anything nearly as good. And mind you, I am a fan of Harry Potter, but you're seriously calling it a masterpiece? Funny that my English professor argues otherwise. And his opinion is greatly backed up, so more credible, eh?
You-Why should a "children's" story have to be any less credible
Maybe it's not credible. But maybe it's not meant to be either. There's food for thought. Barbie isn't credible, but I still watch the freaking thing for all I'm worth. It's because I can pick up meaningful things amongst what is clearly portrayed as unrealistic fiction.
I'd also like to mention that one of the reasons Harry Potter is where it is, is because of the success it was with the films. I won't elaborate since this has nothing to do with the topic, but more so with our current convo.
PJO and HoO on the other hand was written originally for Rick's son, who also happens to be ADHD. Maybe that has something to do with the complexity of the novel.
But also, the reason you call HP more credible is because it's got a more serious or natural tone while Rick's books are meant to be conveyed in a humorous tone. If Rick wanted, he probably could have changed the tone and made it seem more 'credible', but I doubt that was in his mind in the first place. But for all that he's written and the way that he's, he's pretty much set himself up for long term success. Unlike Rowling, who after HP hasn't produced extremely large results, Rick continuous steady in his business. If his works were truly god awful, he wouldn't be where he is.
Clearly there are many people out there who love his books, and I don't suppose your opinion is above all their? Kid, this book obviously isn't your style, but that doesn't mean it sucks "and that's that". It's not perfect, I know. It has many faults. But they do not hinder the overall story for me. Or for many, many people.
PS/ I love HP as much as the next gal. If not more.
I know a few stuck up old people who say Harry Potter is terribly written, but I'm talking about it as a story. These are the same people who praise absolutely BORING classics just because they're "well written." (but let's not get into that argument...)
I'm not talking about Rowling herself or about being successful either. I'm just using a more well-done, intricate story as a comparison.
Look at it this way. Are there ever going to be books about Percy Jackson that discuss its themes and ideas?
No, it's too shallow.
Is that a bad thing? THAT'S the opinion. You don't think so; you like it anyway. I'm only saying what it is.
For me, yes, it's an okay series to listen to on tape while you're working on 1000 piece puzzles with your friends (the only reason I finished most of them).
But it doesn't try as hard as it could.
I think that's the main problem. The author sets a certain limit to how complex or believable it could be. That's not a matter of opinion: it's someone deliberately falling short.
The opinion is whether or not you care about that.
And no, lots of people don't. Right now anyway.
But right now I'm looking beyond popular opinion and hype (and even personal opinion) and pointing out that it could be better.
Okay, so he doesn't want it to be. I just find that a little disappointing and...kind of annoying since every author seems to act like this now.
Oh, it's just another old "Young Adult Fantasy series." Why set high standards? It has an exciting plot, that's good enough.
Huh? Shouldn't we be trying to write every aspect to the best of our ability no matter who it's for?
I never said he was god awful, I'm just saying he puts some unnecessary limits on himself that I suspect are just excuses because he doesn't care enough about his story (or simply lacks the talent to overcome them).
Also I find the fact that fans don't just dismiss these problems, but defend their existence incredibly biased. That alone shows the series doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the reality.
"I could always tell Nico was gay now that I think about it." Right. These books really aren't as deep as a lot of people want to believe. If anything, it's really the fans who make the series. And that's not a bad thing; it's kind of cool. But the series itself is undeniably lacking.
Idk why I even care so much. Maybe just because I've been searching so hard for something better and I can never find it. I really don't know anymore.
I'm not talking about Rowling herself or about being successful either. I'm just using a more well-done, intricate story as a comparison.
Look at it this way. Are there ever going to be books about Percy Jackson that discuss its themes and ideas?
No, it's too shallow.
Is that a bad thing? THAT'S the opinion. You don't think so; you like it anyway. I'm only saying what it is.
For me, yes, it's an okay series to listen to on tape while you're working on 1000 piece puzzles with your friends (the only reason I finished most of them).
But it doesn't try as hard as it could.
I think that's the main problem. The author sets a certain limit to how complex or believable it could be. That's not a matter of opinion: it's someone deliberately falling short.
The opinion is whether or not you care about that.
And no, lots of people don't. Right now anyway.
But right now I'm looking beyond popular opinion and hype (and even personal opinion) and pointing out that it could be better.
Okay, so he doesn't want it to be. I just find that a little disappointing and...kind of annoying since every author seems to act like this now.
Oh, it's just another old "Young Adult Fantasy series." Why set high standards? It has an exciting plot, that's good enough.
Huh? Shouldn't we be trying to write every aspect to the best of our ability no matter who it's for?
I never said he was god awful, I'm just saying he puts some unnecessary limits on himself that I suspect are just excuses because he doesn't care enough about his story (or simply lacks the talent to overcome them).
Also I find the fact that fans don't just dismiss these problems, but defend their existence incredibly biased. That alone shows the series doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the reality.
"I could always tell Nico was gay now that I think about it." Right. These books really aren't as deep as a lot of people want to believe. If anything, it's really the fans who make the series. And that's not a bad thing; it's kind of cool. But the series itself is undeniably lacking.
Idk why I even care so much. Maybe just because I've been searching so hard for something better and I can never find it. I really don't know anymore.
Brown wrote: "I know a few stuck up old people who say Harry Potter is terribly written, but I'm talking about it as a story. These are the same people who praise absolutely BORING classics just because they're ..."Lucky for you, my throat feels pretty crappy at the moment, which is seriously lagging me down, so I won't keep this up for long.
You don't like this type of writing. Go ahead call it shallow, but I don't think it is. It's not as deep and intricate, OK? It's not really that the author has 'set' these limits on himself, but more that he knows what he wants from his series, and he knows it's good enough to attract loads of attention. He's a smart guy. Making lots of money too. I would know about this because I'm an author to be myself, and sometimes you've got to think about profit. And not to mention he's working on another series as well, so where J.K was concentration ALL her efforts on HP, Rick has it divided between The Kane Chronicles, HoO, and this new Norse series which will be coming out soon. He'll be around the market for a long time to come, whereas J.K's done for now.
You're pointing out that it could be better? The last HP book could be better. Every book could be better for goodness sake.
I'm not defending the fact that his books are not perfect. No book is. I know his plot at times can be lame, and his scenes a drag. There is not much to love about the majority of the characters, they're just there, but unlike you, I seek depth and intricate excellence in greater novels. Novels that YOU call "boring". I call them great classics that even HP couldn't try to climb over. The only reason you call them boring is because you don't understand the depth they carry that needs effort on the reader's part to uncover.
So if you're arguing that HoO isn't great. It's not. It's just a fun read with a fun plot. How awful would it be if all books were the same: heavy, deep, thought provoking. It's better that there are books that one can just soar right through just for the pleasure of it.
You've been searching so hard for something better, eh? And you can't find anything? Well if you're searching in Children's adventure and YA, then you probably never will find anything better (than what?).
Actually, there are some pretty sweet books in the genres, but after looking at all your books (on your account), I can see why you haven't found anything good.
I don't dare compare PJO to anything great out there. But as a child, I loved it. And the books are for children. Looks like Rick has succeeded in his target audience.
As a final point, you say that I love it's shallowness. It's not shallow in the adventure, and that's fine. Maybe for you, a book that is shallow is not fun to read, but unlike you, I know where to look when I want deep, thought provoking books, vs when I want something easy, yet still hooking, to read.
Some books are just intended to please, that's their purpose. And if they accomplish that, then they are successful, whether or not they are heavy enough for people like you. I can tell if that book is too good and deep, you'd just call it boring..
Whoops, I said I wouldn't overdo it. Sorry kidums :P
Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "I know a few stuck up old people who say Harry Potter is terribly written, but I'm talking about it as a story. These are the same people who praise absolutely BORING classics just be..."
How do you know what books I think are boring? Sounds like you're just on your high horse and purposely missing the point.
(I'm pretty sure most of the teenagers who bother to come on this site are more or less, authors-to-be). Let's just quit being personal and stick the subject.
Let's talk about say, Lord of the Rings. I'd never compare the writing in Harry Potter to that.
It's still a fact that the LOTR characters barely have personalities (as far as the author shows us rather than tells), and that it doesn't feel as down to earth or personal.
You're dead wrong if you think I'm saying that means it's boring. I was just making a point about how story and execution are two different things.
You're also wrong when you say I'm "looking in the wrong places." YA fantasy is where I found HP (which you're correct in saying isn't perfect, but is the best example yet to be found).
"Adult" is just a rating.
Classics (for the most part) are a whole different type of reading, (which we seem to agree about). (...Also I really don't believe there are these magical classic books out there that are going to fulfill every kid's hopes and dreams).
I'm just looking for a story to connect with that falls in the right place between "heavy, philosophical" and just plain doesn't talk down to you.
There are even some modern YA fantasy series that are too "heavy" and not fleshed-out/down-to-earth enough (like Eragon, for example).
It's a balancing act, and it just seems like authors are lazy about finding better ground for their writing style (or yes, not talented enough).
And what does success have to do with it? That's appeal to popular opinion. It's not an opinion that standards are low right now.
I just want to know if Rick Riordan is REALLY doing his best here. That doesn't mean going all out to be "philosophical" , it means knowing what his audience really deserves and knowing when to give it to them. This author doesn't deliver when it comes to that.
It's going to hurt somebody to make his characters slightly more believable? Is it? Even Jason?
I'm just saying it could be better, and yes, we can argue about there being no point in saying that. But is it true or not?
For whatever reason it's important to me to discuss how certain books could be better. It's a good way to learn what you want to avoid writing like and why, I guess.
I don't like arguing about why we're having an argument though. Now that's a waste of time.
How do you know what books I think are boring? Sounds like you're just on your high horse and purposely missing the point.
(I'm pretty sure most of the teenagers who bother to come on this site are more or less, authors-to-be). Let's just quit being personal and stick the subject.
Let's talk about say, Lord of the Rings. I'd never compare the writing in Harry Potter to that.
It's still a fact that the LOTR characters barely have personalities (as far as the author shows us rather than tells), and that it doesn't feel as down to earth or personal.
You're dead wrong if you think I'm saying that means it's boring. I was just making a point about how story and execution are two different things.
You're also wrong when you say I'm "looking in the wrong places." YA fantasy is where I found HP (which you're correct in saying isn't perfect, but is the best example yet to be found).
"Adult" is just a rating.
Classics (for the most part) are a whole different type of reading, (which we seem to agree about). (...Also I really don't believe there are these magical classic books out there that are going to fulfill every kid's hopes and dreams).
I'm just looking for a story to connect with that falls in the right place between "heavy, philosophical" and just plain doesn't talk down to you.
There are even some modern YA fantasy series that are too "heavy" and not fleshed-out/down-to-earth enough (like Eragon, for example).
It's a balancing act, and it just seems like authors are lazy about finding better ground for their writing style (or yes, not talented enough).
And what does success have to do with it? That's appeal to popular opinion. It's not an opinion that standards are low right now.
I just want to know if Rick Riordan is REALLY doing his best here. That doesn't mean going all out to be "philosophical" , it means knowing what his audience really deserves and knowing when to give it to them. This author doesn't deliver when it comes to that.
It's going to hurt somebody to make his characters slightly more believable? Is it? Even Jason?
I'm just saying it could be better, and yes, we can argue about there being no point in saying that. But is it true or not?
For whatever reason it's important to me to discuss how certain books could be better. It's a good way to learn what you want to avoid writing like and why, I guess.
I don't like arguing about why we're having an argument though. Now that's a waste of time.
Also, I DO believe there is great advantage to be taken of simplicity in stories. There is a place for it, but sometimes it can be unnecessary simplicity.
When we always make excuses for it, we can forget that we can indeed be more creative.
Disney movies are a good example of people being corny and having fun. Shallowness is not always a bad thing. Sometimes there is one character who is completely one-dimensional, but when used strategically can be used as a great tool in story-telling. (Like the villagers in Beauty and the Beast who are used to compliment Belle and make her stand out). It should be done artfully and with taste, because it can either hinder or help.
The key is determining what the audience needs and deserves and when. I think Rick Riordan's audience is better than this, I really do. I think they could love the story more. I don't think he does his best. He DOES have it in him to do better for his audience specifically, and he will not.
You said it yourself. It's "good enough." What an attitude to have!
When we always make excuses for it, we can forget that we can indeed be more creative.
Disney movies are a good example of people being corny and having fun. Shallowness is not always a bad thing. Sometimes there is one character who is completely one-dimensional, but when used strategically can be used as a great tool in story-telling. (Like the villagers in Beauty and the Beast who are used to compliment Belle and make her stand out). It should be done artfully and with taste, because it can either hinder or help.
The key is determining what the audience needs and deserves and when. I think Rick Riordan's audience is better than this, I really do. I think they could love the story more. I don't think he does his best. He DOES have it in him to do better for his audience specifically, and he will not.
You said it yourself. It's "good enough." What an attitude to have!
I just wish that some of the characters could still be single, like, oh let's just say...LEO.
Sometimes the romance is cute and welcome, but I seriously wish that Riordan would tone it down sometimes. Yes, Piper, I know that Jason has a scar on his lip. Why are you looking at his lips all the time?!
I like how it's staying fairly innocent (the whole Nico thing seemed to stab the innocence) but seriously. I don't even have that much and I'm writing a ROMANCE.
I personally think Riordan is better at writing humor and action than he is at writing romance....
Allison wrote: "I just wish that some of the characters could still be single, like, oh let's just say...
LEO.
Sometimes the romance is cute and welcome, but I seriously wish that Riordan would tone it down some..."
Agreed. It seems like the things with Leo (and even Nico) were just there for cheap story arcs. This author doesn't know what to do without romance. His characters wouldn't have a way to interact, and that's a real shame because they wouldn't necessarily be half bad if he stopped harping on how cute every little thing he makes up about them is.
He was always too impressed with himself, and the romance makes it worse.
LEO.
Sometimes the romance is cute and welcome, but I seriously wish that Riordan would tone it down some..."
Agreed. It seems like the things with Leo (and even Nico) were just there for cheap story arcs. This author doesn't know what to do without romance. His characters wouldn't have a way to interact, and that's a real shame because they wouldn't necessarily be half bad if he stopped harping on how cute every little thing he makes up about them is.
He was always too impressed with himself, and the romance makes it worse.
Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "I know a few stuck up old people who say Harry Potter is terribly written, but I'm "*Takes deep breath*
[You-How do you know what books I think are boring? Sounds like you're just on your high horse and purposely missing the point. ]
I haven't guessed which books you fancy boring. You told me yourself: Classics. Want me to quote you?: "These are the same people who praise absolutely BORING classics just because they're "well written." And oh, I'm not talking books like LOTR. I'm talking Shakespeare. I'm talking Dickens and Austen and Steinbeck. Books like Pride and Prejudice which you've given a one star, although ironically it is the sort of thing you are describing when you want more from HoO...
[You-Let's talk about say, Lord of the Rings. I'd never compare the writing in Harry Potter to that. ...and that it doesn't feel as down to earth or personal. You're dead wrong if you think I'm saying that means it's boring.]
If you think the classics are praised oh so well because of the writing, than by god, you are lost. If you want to continue on this line, let me know. I'm not wasting my time otherwise. Oh, and LOTR is not really a great classic.
[You-I'm pretty sure most of the teenagers who bother to come on this site are more or less, authors-to-be). Let's just quit being personal and stick the subject.]
I'm not being personal without purpose. I'm giving you a different take on the success of Rick, and how stagnant Rowling has become. Which provides a reason for his style of writing.
[You-(...Also I really don't believe there are these magical classic books out there that are going to fulfill every kid's hopes and dreams).]
No one is claiming the fulfilment of dreams. But there are some pretty cool books for children (Stuff by Roald Dahl, The Unfortunate events series, And The Secret of Grim Hill, which I enjoyed immensely. )
[You-I'm just looking for a story to connect with that falls in the right place between "heavy, philosophical" and just plain doesn't talk down to you.]
There, you said it yourself "I'm just looking for". You have your own tastes in other words. If by talk down you're talking about classics, again, you only think the hard to read books are talking down because you can't understand em...
[You-I just want to know if Rick Riordan is REALLY doing his best here. That doesn't mean going all out to be "philosophical" , it means knowing what his audience really deserves and knowing when to give it to them. This author doesn't deliver when it comes to that]
Stop wording your words to manipulate for an answer suited to your opinions. What the audience deserves? You mean to say what the audience wants. He doesn't deliver? He can't do so for everyone's needs. Obviously he doesn't deliver to you, but that doesn't make it a fact that he writes shallow stories. You asked what success had to do with it. Success shows that he's delivering pretty well to the majority of his TARGETED AUDIENCE.
[You- I think they could love the story more. I don't think he does his best. He DOES have it in him to do better for his audience specifically, and he will not.]
I've seen you point this out a lot. Maybe this is his best according to how many projects he's juggling in accordance to time limit. You say he could do better for his audience, but that's where your thinking is restricted. For children, too much depth in character or setting or even plot can add complication which thereby adds more length to the story, making it no longer suitable for a child's taste and attention.
[You-You said it yourself. It's "good enough." What an attitude to have!]
It's the perfect attitude to have when you're like me: Reading a broad range of books. Going from preschool books to adult books to classics to contemporary to fantasy and YA and Romance and Thriller and Mystery. I don't harbour attitudes where I'm thinking "could be better" because that is a subjective way of thinking. Some people will love certain books more than other. No opinion is superior to another.
Also, I know where to look when I want to read books that are more than "good enough". Maybe this is because of the experience I've had with books. Also, sometimes, I'm not looking for a book to fulfil in aspects of character and setting. When a book does such a thing, I find it a bonus, but when it doesn't, I don't mind unless I thought it was awful in any case.
And honestly, sometimes I just want to read because it's fun. Chick Lit for example. Most of them have low descriptive settings and shallow characters, but they're fun to read. I don't judge them harshly because I read them with a passive attitude.
I know when books to turn to when I want to read with an active attitude. If I were to read all books with a judgemental and critical eye, then reading would become such a bore.
Furthermore, some books, such as PJO or HoO are fun to read also because there are so many things to discuss with the rest of the fandom. The prophecy and the characters and just predictions. All the readers can connect in this way, which also elevates the fun in the read.
I'll just end off with the fact that you think I'm sitting on a high horse or something. You're the one who's too stubborn to differentiate between personal taste and fact. For Example: "It's not an opinion that standards are low right now."
Yeah, no. It is an opinion.
Allison wrote: "I just wish that some of the characters could still be single, like, oh let's just say...LEO.
Sometimes the romance is cute and welcome, but I seriously wish that Riordan would tone it down some..."
There isn't really much romance to tone down, really. I agree though that pairing all the characters up is rather lame. But the thing with Piper and the way she behaves, I like to believe that it's just her personality. I hate her for it XD If Rick took that away, then it would take away some of her personality and make her the same as other characters.
Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "I know a few stuck up old people who say Harry Potter is terribly written, but I'm "
*Takes deep breath*
[You-How do you know what books I think are bor..."
No, I think you're really misunderstanding my point about classic books. I said books like PERCY JACKSON talk down to you, not classics. That point was misread.
(For the record, I rated Pride and Prejudice one star mostly for a joke with my sister. My point was never that classic books are boring or bad. Just that they're different).
I didn't say ALL CLASSICS ARE BORING.
I was picturing things like Alice in Wonderland where the characters have no personality, but people like it mostly for the poetic/whimsical writing style. It's not boring if you read it for that.
Bottom line: it's a different kind of reading. That's all I'm saying.
It's not the type of thing people read modern fantasy for, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
People who want to read mainly to get into a fantasy world aren't up for Shakespeare, but they don't need to be talked down to either. That was all I was trying to say.
Yes, there are different kinds of books meant to be read with different attitudes. We agree there.
I'm just saying HoO doesn't meet the standards that it set up for its own self. It's a fantasy series that asks to be taken somewhat seriously, yet aspects of it simply refuse to be complex enough, or at least called out for want of credibility.
I'd take them with a grain of salt if there were only so many. But it's too much.
I understand that you don't mind. It doesn't stop me from reading it either. I'm looking at the bigger picture here. Would you actually DISLIKE it if Jason had a personality, etc.?
Any argument about it being too "complicated" can be countered with one word: Harry Potter. Yes, Young Adult books can have higher stakes, and it doesn't subdue the audience.
In short, the other fans wouldn't be traumatized if say, Jason had a personality.
Yes, the author could do a lot better, and make the reading experience more fun for everyone. I think we really agree on that. What's so wrong with saying that? I commend him for the good points of his writing, I just don't feel like he deserves as much credit as he gets. To me it seems like he's LUCKY to have an audience that puts up with his flaws, but it's not so much thanks to any talent of his own as much as their loyalty (not without a bit of hype-fueled bias).
(Um. I guess that part is my opinion, not that I see why mine is so much more worthless and I'm not allowed to say it just because it doesn't coincide with the majority).
*Takes deep breath*
[You-How do you know what books I think are bor..."
No, I think you're really misunderstanding my point about classic books. I said books like PERCY JACKSON talk down to you, not classics. That point was misread.
(For the record, I rated Pride and Prejudice one star mostly for a joke with my sister. My point was never that classic books are boring or bad. Just that they're different).
I didn't say ALL CLASSICS ARE BORING.
I was picturing things like Alice in Wonderland where the characters have no personality, but people like it mostly for the poetic/whimsical writing style. It's not boring if you read it for that.
Bottom line: it's a different kind of reading. That's all I'm saying.
It's not the type of thing people read modern fantasy for, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
People who want to read mainly to get into a fantasy world aren't up for Shakespeare, but they don't need to be talked down to either. That was all I was trying to say.
Yes, there are different kinds of books meant to be read with different attitudes. We agree there.
I'm just saying HoO doesn't meet the standards that it set up for its own self. It's a fantasy series that asks to be taken somewhat seriously, yet aspects of it simply refuse to be complex enough, or at least called out for want of credibility.
I'd take them with a grain of salt if there were only so many. But it's too much.
I understand that you don't mind. It doesn't stop me from reading it either. I'm looking at the bigger picture here. Would you actually DISLIKE it if Jason had a personality, etc.?
Any argument about it being too "complicated" can be countered with one word: Harry Potter. Yes, Young Adult books can have higher stakes, and it doesn't subdue the audience.
In short, the other fans wouldn't be traumatized if say, Jason had a personality.
Yes, the author could do a lot better, and make the reading experience more fun for everyone. I think we really agree on that. What's so wrong with saying that? I commend him for the good points of his writing, I just don't feel like he deserves as much credit as he gets. To me it seems like he's LUCKY to have an audience that puts up with his flaws, but it's not so much thanks to any talent of his own as much as their loyalty (not without a bit of hype-fueled bias).
(Um. I guess that part is my opinion, not that I see why mine is so much more worthless and I'm not allowed to say it just because it doesn't coincide with the majority).
For the record, can we not have one of those arguments that's really about why we're having an argument, instead of arguing about the real thing the argument is about?
Why are negative opinions taboo? Flaws are interesting to talk about. You learn stuff from them.
Why are negative opinions taboo? Flaws are interesting to talk about. You learn stuff from them.
Technically, you didn't specify which books 'talk down'. As for stories such as Alice in wonderland, well, it may not delve in character personality in the way a larger story would, but for its size and purpose, it's perfect. It gives subtle hints about character. Like when she drinks things that seem weird. It shows us she's a curious girl.I actually would dislike it if Jason had a personality :p Mostly because I don't even really care about him as a character, and if Rick were to put more effort on him, it would just be a distraction from the story.
Luck has nothing to do with his audience. PJO was pretty well executed, in story and in writing. With HoO it's the same, except this time it might not feel that way because the scope of setting and characters has grown significantly.
And also, why don't you indicate where I said negative opinions are taboo?
And since when are we having an argument about the argument? Point that out for me too, ok? Unless you want to have an argument about the negative aspects of the story...which in a way is what we're doing.
But the thing about negative aspects is that they're only really worth arguing if they lag the whole story, you know? They're not even really negative aspects if they don't lag the whole story. If they don't make it suck.
Oh, and for the record, I never said you're not allowed to speak your opinions. It's just that at one point you started spouting about how those opinions were "fact". That's what ticked me off.
Zanib wrote: "Technically, you didn't specify which books 'talk down'. As for stories such as Alice in wonderland, well, it may not delve in character personality in the way a larger story would, but for its siz..."
Then I would question Jason's existence in the story at all. I'm not saying it has to focus on him MORE, but why write ANY parts about him then?
At least for the bit he's necessary for, what would be wrong with making him a little less dull?
OR maybe he could actually admit Jason doesn't have a personality, and have fun with the concept.
Too many things like that did lag the story for people like me (I know a lot of people who agree) and I just wanted to point that out. Not EVERYONE in the "targeted audience" adores these books. A lot of people just settle for it anyway.
Rick Riordan is persistent in carrying on with this series, but like I said, its existence seems to be the bulk of it. The idea is a good one, but it's not especially well done for what it is.
People turn to books like this because they're the best they can get, not because they're the best they can be.
I never denied that he was successful, or that at the moment people tend to favor these books.
Once the last one comes out, I suspect the same thing will happen that happened to Pendragon: people won't care about it anymore. (Ensured by the very exclusive-to the-times "hip" tone it's written in, if nothing else).
For as much as everyone is having fun now, these books are far from timeless. They're no better than the average book you pull out in the YA section. I could name three that are exactly the same off the bat.
The only thing really different about it is that there are so many books in the franchise now. Unlike some bestsellers, there is nothing extremely new or special otherwise. Not that it doesn't have its good points.
Go ahead and read them and have a good time. I'm doing that too. There's nothing wrong with that.
I think we agree more than we realize.
Quality isn't an opinion though. This series isn't really excellent quality, even if it's enjoyable.
We can say it does what it's supposed to for its targeted audience all we want. I guess the targeted audience prefers something of lower quality.
Just because I LIKE Mcdonalds better than more expensive burgers doesn't mean it's better quality. Just that I prefer it.
I think we have a communication gap when we talk about things like this, so I hope you know what I mean.
The books could be richer and more meaningful. Yes, without sacrificing its appeal toward Young Adults.
Then I would question Jason's existence in the story at all. I'm not saying it has to focus on him MORE, but why write ANY parts about him then?
At least for the bit he's necessary for, what would be wrong with making him a little less dull?
OR maybe he could actually admit Jason doesn't have a personality, and have fun with the concept.
Too many things like that did lag the story for people like me (I know a lot of people who agree) and I just wanted to point that out. Not EVERYONE in the "targeted audience" adores these books. A lot of people just settle for it anyway.
Rick Riordan is persistent in carrying on with this series, but like I said, its existence seems to be the bulk of it. The idea is a good one, but it's not especially well done for what it is.
People turn to books like this because they're the best they can get, not because they're the best they can be.
I never denied that he was successful, or that at the moment people tend to favor these books.
Once the last one comes out, I suspect the same thing will happen that happened to Pendragon: people won't care about it anymore. (Ensured by the very exclusive-to the-times "hip" tone it's written in, if nothing else).
For as much as everyone is having fun now, these books are far from timeless. They're no better than the average book you pull out in the YA section. I could name three that are exactly the same off the bat.
The only thing really different about it is that there are so many books in the franchise now. Unlike some bestsellers, there is nothing extremely new or special otherwise. Not that it doesn't have its good points.
Go ahead and read them and have a good time. I'm doing that too. There's nothing wrong with that.
I think we agree more than we realize.
Quality isn't an opinion though. This series isn't really excellent quality, even if it's enjoyable.
We can say it does what it's supposed to for its targeted audience all we want. I guess the targeted audience prefers something of lower quality.
Just because I LIKE Mcdonalds better than more expensive burgers doesn't mean it's better quality. Just that I prefer it.
I think we have a communication gap when we talk about things like this, so I hope you know what I mean.
The books could be richer and more meaningful. Yes, without sacrificing its appeal toward Young Adults.
Another thing I have to add about these "just being opinions."
Objects do not merely receive, but merit our approval or disproval, our reverence or our contempt, etc.
C.S Lewis says something funny. He said: "I myself do not enjoy the society of small children. I recognize this as a defect in myself."
There is a difference between our preferences and recognizing the quality of something.
Our opinions are only recognition (or lack thereof) of something's objective value.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.
(If I ever come off as insulting, I'm not trying to be. Sorry if I come across that way at all. I'm just here to discuss this stuff).
Objects do not merely receive, but merit our approval or disproval, our reverence or our contempt, etc.
C.S Lewis says something funny. He said: "I myself do not enjoy the society of small children. I recognize this as a defect in myself."
There is a difference between our preferences and recognizing the quality of something.
Our opinions are only recognition (or lack thereof) of something's objective value.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.
(If I ever come off as insulting, I'm not trying to be. Sorry if I come across that way at all. I'm just here to discuss this stuff).
Llyr wrote: "I'm amazed. Percy Jackson fans who aren't obsessed with relationships. Thank you. In the original Percy Jackson series romance wasn't a problem. few hints with Percy and Annabeth, but not much more..."I have to admit I seriously don't like the turn HoO took after PJO, but then again, there is no way HoO is better than PJO anyway. I guess the majority of us have figured out that we won't be getting what we got in the original, but the original Percy and Annabeth (et al) were good enough to pull us wherever they go. At this point, the fans just want to see where Percy will be at the end. And the romance, yeah, it's pretty lame, but as at least it's not messing with the rest of the plot.
Brown wrote: "Another thing I have to add about these "just being opinions."Objects do not merely receive, but merit our approval or disproval, our reverence or our contempt, etc.
C.S Lewis says something fun..."
Dang it. I wrote something and then accidentally closed the darn internet. Ugh.
So in short, yes, I agree that HoO is not the best quality, nonetheless it is enjoyable.
But at the same time, you basically put words into my mouth.
Objects merit whatever it is that we feel towards them. Right? But who decides what the object deserves. And when you make the comparison of quality in items that we use or eat, it is not the same as what we read. People decide for themselves that a book deserves. That is opinion.
I hate to break it to you, but unless it's 100% fact and all of nature proves it, then it's just opinion/preference. That is a fact.
They're teenagers now... they all need to have a love interest. :D
Zanib wrote: "Llyr wrote: "I'm amazed. Percy Jackson fans who aren't obsessed with relationships. Thank you. In the original Percy Jackson series romance wasn't a problem. few hints with Percy and Annabeth, but ..."
See, you lowered your standards.
Something that causes us to lower our standards is what you would call something of less quality.
See, you lowered your standards.
Something that causes us to lower our standards is what you would call something of less quality.
Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Llyr wrote: "I'm amazed. Percy Jackson fans who aren't obsessed with relationships. Thank you. In the original Percy Jackson series romance wasn't a problem. few hints with Percy and..."HoO is of low quality *cough* as I said previously *cough*
It doesn't lower my standards of reading though. And it's quality is still an opinion.
I think it was Riordan's attempt at appeasing the fangirls a little bit.Like... I personally kind of liked it. It kind of added more personality and urgency and just more color to the story. At some points I kind of thought he was overdoing it, but after waiting for Annabeth and Percy to get together for so long, it was kind of a relief.
Jiper, the love triangle between Hazel, Frank, and Leo, and the whole Nico thing though.... I thought it was a total joke. It was really frustrating and just didn't need to be there.
Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Llyr wrote: "I'm amazed. Percy Jackson fans who aren't obsessed with relationships. Thank you. In the original Percy Jackson series romance wasn't a problem. few hints ..."
By saying you lower your standards for HoO I mean that you accept it the way it is by having to make exceptions for it. (If I understand correctly, you admit to feeling it falls short of the original PJ books, but your point is that it doesn't matter?)
A book of good quality will exceed, or at least meet our standards (different from expectations).
If we're talking purely about the degree of enjoyment a person gets out of the series, that's what is subjective here.
I'm talking about a degree of excellence that may or may not deserve recognition. In a matter of skill, does the author really do what others cannot?
It's debatable, but not unworthy of thought or discussion. (I might add that an answer does exist, whether we perfectly find it or not).
By saying you lower your standards for HoO I mean that you accept it the way it is by having to make exceptions for it. (If I understand correctly, you admit to feeling it falls short of the original PJ books, but your point is that it doesn't matter?)
A book of good quality will exceed, or at least meet our standards (different from expectations).
If we're talking purely about the degree of enjoyment a person gets out of the series, that's what is subjective here.
I'm talking about a degree of excellence that may or may not deserve recognition. In a matter of skill, does the author really do what others cannot?
It's debatable, but not unworthy of thought or discussion. (I might add that an answer does exist, whether we perfectly find it or not).
Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Llyr wrote: "I'm amazed. Percy Jackson fans who aren't obsessed with relationships. Thank you. In the original Percy Jackson series romance wasn't a prob..."Look, you seem to think that because I make exceptions for HoO, I have suddenly lowered my expectations or whatever. The truth is, my expectations change according to what genre I'm reading and for who the books are for.
It's rare to find YA fantasy's to excel above their normal expectations. Some characters may even fall short from the mark, but mostly the purpose of these novels is just to entertain. But with Contemporary (either literary or YA), if a character falls short, it's over for me. A single miss in the rhythm of the story and you may expect me to chuck it out my window.
It would be almost insulting to ask me to raise my expectations for a kids fantasy book. Like, I'm only here for the journey, and yes, it could be more, but then why the heck would I not be reading say Anna Karenina??
The degree of enjoyment is subjective. But so is the criteria of good writing. This is coming from a girl who has dedicated herself to the study of the English language and Literature. But I am also a girl who has studied a science of Antro, Socio, and Phycology. In these realms, you don't mistaken Fact and Opinion. No matter how much one believes something to be so.
But don't mistaken my comments to mean that I don't want to discuss opinions.
And also, I'm taking a break. Our discussions have been rather long and annular.
Kaylasong1 wrote: "I think it was Riordan's attempt at appeasing the fangirls a little bit.Like... I personally kind of liked it. It kind of added more personality and urgency and just more color to the story. At s..."
Yes, I liked it too. Throughout PJO I have waited for so long for them to confess. But even at the end, we barely got a kiss. So it was a relief when we got a bit more in HoO.
I don't care for the relationship between Jason and Piper, and the triangle between Leo, Frank and Hazel was never really a triangle to begin with.. Even the calypso thing, I think it's alright.
And as for Nico, well, what can you say? For a guy with so much power and talent and broodiness, it was a surprise. But hey? Who wouldn't love Percy XD
Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Brown wrote: "Zanib wrote: "Llyr wrote: "I'm amazed. Percy Jackson fans who aren't obsessed with relationships. Thank you. In the original Percy Jackson series romance..."
Maybe because people who read YA fantasy aren't looking for something about love affairs and "unbridled womanizing" yet still want something deeper than "the Leo-Mcshizzle, man"? Where is the middle ground? I know it exists, I've seen it before.
I don't know how other people judge quality, but I suspect that in the not-so-far-off future, this series is going to quickly lose its appeal to the general public. Call it a degree of quality or not, I don't believe it has any real foundation when it comes to general human (or even teen) preference. Not in the same way it might have, at least.
I think this would be due to its artificial and skin-deep themes and ideals. If it was a little more centered on real truths and ideals, it would probably have more going for it.
Lord of the Rings is an example of a series that is based on enduring wisdom and themes that have been recognized as such for a long time. I also strongly believe the same goes for Harry Potter, and though it might be taken for granted, it has a lot to do with the success and great loyalty of fans to the series.
Call it quality or not, this series is going to be forgotten fast, and for a reason. There is no meat to it.
When the minority it was aimed at is gone, nobody is going to bother to take their place.
The humor will be old fashioned and the action will be easily replaced with the next new thing. There is little to save it. Even most of the characters' personalities have been done before and will be again, perhaps better. The series doesn't have an anchor to hold it down.
"No man who values originality will ever be original. But try to tell the truth as you see it, try to do any bit of work as well as it can be done for the work's sake, and what men call originality will come unsought." -C.S Lewis
That is how there are books near *exactly* like Percy Jackson that nobody cares about anymore. And yes, the fans used to act the same way about them. Pendragon is a great example, right down to the girlfriend with a blond ponytail and sarcastic narrator.
"Forget wands and rings, Pendragon all the way!" is what the fans said. But nope. Nobody cares now.
Maybe because people who read YA fantasy aren't looking for something about love affairs and "unbridled womanizing" yet still want something deeper than "the Leo-Mcshizzle, man"? Where is the middle ground? I know it exists, I've seen it before.
I don't know how other people judge quality, but I suspect that in the not-so-far-off future, this series is going to quickly lose its appeal to the general public. Call it a degree of quality or not, I don't believe it has any real foundation when it comes to general human (or even teen) preference. Not in the same way it might have, at least.
I think this would be due to its artificial and skin-deep themes and ideals. If it was a little more centered on real truths and ideals, it would probably have more going for it.
Lord of the Rings is an example of a series that is based on enduring wisdom and themes that have been recognized as such for a long time. I also strongly believe the same goes for Harry Potter, and though it might be taken for granted, it has a lot to do with the success and great loyalty of fans to the series.
Call it quality or not, this series is going to be forgotten fast, and for a reason. There is no meat to it.
When the minority it was aimed at is gone, nobody is going to bother to take their place.
The humor will be old fashioned and the action will be easily replaced with the next new thing. There is little to save it. Even most of the characters' personalities have been done before and will be again, perhaps better. The series doesn't have an anchor to hold it down.
"No man who values originality will ever be original. But try to tell the truth as you see it, try to do any bit of work as well as it can be done for the work's sake, and what men call originality will come unsought." -C.S Lewis
That is how there are books near *exactly* like Percy Jackson that nobody cares about anymore. And yes, the fans used to act the same way about them. Pendragon is a great example, right down to the girlfriend with a blond ponytail and sarcastic narrator.
"Forget wands and rings, Pendragon all the way!" is what the fans said. But nope. Nobody cares now.
"Maybe because people who read YA fantasy aren't looking for something about love affairs and "unbridled womanizing" yet still want something deeper than "the Leo-Mcshizzle, man"? Where is the middle ground? I know it exists, I've seen it before."Well, good luck searching. Let me know when you find something, ok?
"Call it quality or not, this series is going to be forgotten fast, and for a reason"This is where you're acting like a seer. I'm done. And before I go, even really well written books will be left in the dust as people move on.
Zanib wrote: ""Call it quality or not, this series is going to be forgotten fast, and for a reason"
This is where you're acting like a seer. I'm done. And before I go, even really well written books will be lef..."
This whole time I've been trying to avoid being personal, and you've been taking every negative comment about this series as a personal insult. Now you've finally had enough, and I can see why.
The whole fact vs. opinion thing is exactly what I meant about an argument turning into an argument about the argument. And I think that whole thing is more miscommunication than anything anyway.
But thank you for talking to me. For what we did get to discuss about the books, it was interesting.
It can't continue if you stop offering your own explanations or counter ideas. Instead we're just saying "oh yes, there are lots of different ideas."
Alright already. But... Why aren't we discussing them then? Do you know what I mean?
What makes you think the books are timeless? What do you think quality means? I'm interested to know. That's what discussions are about. Let's stop taking offense at challenging ideas and just bounce them off each other.
I've noticed this happens a lot whenever there's someone with a negative idea. It's just the same old "no hating" attitude in one of its many guises and people don't even realize it. I don't believe that you'd make such a point of saying "that's your personal belief" about positive ones.
This is where you're acting like a seer. I'm done. And before I go, even really well written books will be lef..."
This whole time I've been trying to avoid being personal, and you've been taking every negative comment about this series as a personal insult. Now you've finally had enough, and I can see why.
The whole fact vs. opinion thing is exactly what I meant about an argument turning into an argument about the argument. And I think that whole thing is more miscommunication than anything anyway.
But thank you for talking to me. For what we did get to discuss about the books, it was interesting.
It can't continue if you stop offering your own explanations or counter ideas. Instead we're just saying "oh yes, there are lots of different ideas."
Alright already. But... Why aren't we discussing them then? Do you know what I mean?
What makes you think the books are timeless? What do you think quality means? I'm interested to know. That's what discussions are about. Let's stop taking offense at challenging ideas and just bounce them off each other.
I've noticed this happens a lot whenever there's someone with a negative idea. It's just the same old "no hating" attitude in one of its many guises and people don't even realize it. I don't believe that you'd make such a point of saying "that's your personal belief" about positive ones.
Zanib wrote: "Allison wrote: "I just wish that some of the characters could still be single, like, oh let's just say...LEO.
Sometimes the romance is cute and welcome, but I seriously wish that Riordan would t..."
Haha, yes I know. I don't like her either;) What I meant by "toning down" was not pairing so many people up like he's doing. Sorry for my really weird wording; I was tired.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The amount of times that the words "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" get used is utterly ..."
If you like soap operas, I guess...