How do you think Rick Riordan could be a better author?

[Frog]

I think he pats himself on the back too much.

He has some decent ideas, but it always feels as if he is apologizing for them by making them sarcastic or making his characters overly impressed by themselves or the things that happen. He milks things too much.

Also he doesn't "show" what his characters are like, but "tells" too much (by making the surrounding characters have biased opinions on each other. Ex. "Man, that guy gives me the creeps." etc).

The characters call each other things like, "the scary blond girl," and it gets a little overbearing.

[Mimi]

some specific parts are just too immature, i personally think he should relate a bit more to his older readers-but not take it too far sice its a middle grade series-and maybe give a little bit more detail on certain relationships i.e. nico and will's.

[Frog]

Agreed, but I think that to be more mature he needs to take a step away from the romance, not further in.

Most fans I've discussed this with usually respond to my saying the romance is immature by asking, "well, what more do you want them to do? It's a kid's book."

Not more. Less.

He needs to stop treating the romance as a serious and important issue here. It's cheesy.

[Ruby]

Better characters (there's character development, but it's like logic: if the logic is faulty at first, adding additional good logic on top of it won't make it logical) that are more deep to begin with. More variety in the mood of scenes and villains.

[Frog]

Agreed.

All the villains seemed similar: conveniently stupid, not *really* threatening. It was hard to be concerned about the characters, and got repetitive.

[Frog]

Good points.

In HoO, he tried to make too many characters, but was obviously more interested in writing about some than others, which is natural. He should've took his time with the best ones and not tried to have such a variety (I have a hunch he was mostly trying to be politically correct by doing this, as evidenced by a number of other choices he makes in the stories).

His villains never seem threatening, because he's too busy trying to retain his sarcasm making them imbeciles. The sense of danger suffered severely. Not to mention, any funny moments a real threat could actually present were thrown out, if being funny was his end goal. What he settled for was cheap. Being creative is about more than having ideas, it's about executing them, which Riordan is never very good at (though the ideas themselves are usually promising in the beginning).

[[deleted user]]

The only post here I agree with is the villains. You're right, he doesn't make them sound too threatening. Especially Gaea. But before you guys go too far on this post, put yourself in his shoes. What would it be like to have millions of people ready to judge every word you write? He has pressure. He tries his best, and if you guys don't like the way he writes, go write your own book. It's okay to say what he needs to work on, but saying you don't his sarcasm is going too far. His sarcasm is how he writes his books. If you don't like his writing style, TOO BAD.

[Roger]

Kylee wrote: "The only post here I agree with is the villains. You're right, he doesn't make them sound too threatening. Especially Gaea. But before you guys go too far on this post, put yourself in his shoes. W..."

Comments like this drive me nuts, noone is saying that Riordan sucks it's a polite discussion on things that people would like to see done better. If that offends you then go away.

[Frog]

I disagree that when we find something wrong with a story we shouldn't say anything about it, and it's just "too bad." Discussion is always good. Learning from mistakes is always good.

[[deleted user]]

I'm going to point out that I said NOTHING about anyone going too far. I know how people on Goodreads get sometimes, and so I simply reminded them not to go too far. Maybe if you actually read my post, you wouldn't find a reason to be mad. I said "BEFORE you guys go to far on this post..."
And I agree with Fish. Discussion always helps. So stop hating on me.

And thank you Fish for not hating on me, and expressing your thoughts nicely.

[Frog]

It's just a discussion, not a fight. No need for anybody to get mad or be rude.
Thanks for the thoughts, Kylee.

[Frog]

I think the sarcasm was a crutch.

Sometimes you get so sick of bland books filled with characters devoid of personality that in comparison, Percy Jackson can feel like a relief. But when it comes down to it, Rick is all flashy lights.

There's not enough to satisfy the moral sense or intellect. It's like a watered down church service that focuses on music and appeals to the senses and emotion. The Greek mythology and hype play a role in acquiring an audience too, but it will be interesting to see if that's going to be enough to keep bringing in new fans as more time passes.

[Frog]

Also, from what I'm seeing, a big part of why people like these books is due to a sort of cult of personality.

We love the characters, not for themselves as much as for their images.
"Wise Girl," "Seaweed Brain," "Leo McShizzle."
They're always patting each other on the back, excessively analyzing each other, and we eat this up. For example, look at the fan art. It's all about how funny and cool Percy is, how cute him and Annabeth are, how funny Leo is or how creepy and mysterious Nico is. It's all about glorifying.
It's all about glorifying and adoring.
It's not a story where characters learn to be better or are humble or develop ethically. Not beyond a couple token, back burner themes. (Percy's fatal flaw is that he cares too much about his friends?!)

Is this bad? That's not really my point. I just don't think it's very deep or meaningful. That's why I say it's all smoke and mirrors. I don't think Rick Riordan can write characters that stand by themselves without an overbearing tone to make them look funny and cool. They would fall apart because they were built on the sand. He makes it about their caricatures, not their characters.