The Son of Neptune
discussion
WHY did Percy have to lose his invulnerability? WHY?!
message 1:
by
Sevania
(new)
-
added it
Nov 20, 2011 03:09PM
Title says it all. Tell me what you think.
reply
|
flag
It is explicitly stated in the book why. The curse of Achiles was a Greek blessing/curse. The Tiber is the magical barrier for the Roman camp and would not allow him to keep the curse and cross. Besides, we have already had an epic book with him having to worry about someone hitting the spot.
I didn't mean that kind of why. I know why it happens in the book. I just mean, I wish it hadn't.
I was wondering the same thing. I get it, he crossed into Roman territory. But still, Percy was extremely downplayed in this book. His powers were not mentioned as much as Frank's or Hazel's. I missed Percy in this one. Hazel and Frank were ok, but Percy was the one whose sarcasm I loved to listen to and whose abilities to just anger the gods in general were so entertaining. Maybe in Mark of Athena he'll go to the River Styx again? Just a hope, probably won't happen.
how else would he be totally EPIC!!!!!!!!!! now he can be defeated which sad, but such is life...
It doesnt even matter , hes so amazing he'll akways survive !!
I hate that the fact, that without his invulnerability, they are gonna play Jason and Percy off as equals, but Percy is way better!
imagine he did keep his invulnerability. Now, we'd have an entire book with him unable to get hurt. How boring would that be?
Well first Achilles was Greek and so it would be strange to have it in a Roman Camp. Second it gave him an upper hand in almost everything its not that big of a deal. So what? He lost it you think he needs it just to keep living?
He's done just fine without it... So why worry?????
Clara wrote: "He's done just fine without it... So why worry?????"Because it's only a matter of time before something happens!
Percy is so much better then Jason!- No offense Jason luvers. It sucks that he lost it.btw. vote son of neptune for good reads awards!!!! It was in like childrens fiction or sumthing
yeah but Percy has survived on his skills so far and now that stuff can actually die and he has really good friends..
Remember guys... Percy probably won't die because remember when he saw the Fates in The Last Olympian? And I am sure Riordan wnts Percy and annabeth to be together alive.
Tori, I totally agree with you! Frank and Hazel just weren't the same. It was awkward and clunky without Percy's full pov.
In way, I like that Percy lost in invulnerability. If you hadn't he would never be able to get hurt and no one (unless they hit his weak spot) would be able to hurt him. Having a hero in the story who can't get hurt, well, it would make things dull.
Stray wrote: "imagine he did keep his invulnerability. Now, we'd have an entire book with him unable to get hurt. How boring would that be?"Well we basically had all of The Last Olympian without Percy being injured.
Tori wrote: "You should have seen me when I read the part where he lost his invulnerability...I was FLIPPING OUT.Me: *reading my book like a mad woman* *whispering:* No! No! No!
I don't like the Roman st..."
agreed about the Romans.
maybe he will die now
Jamie wrote: "maybe he will die now"ik i was mad too and DO U WANT HIM TO DIE!!
I was upset about it, but like a lot of people said, he still had his invulnerability it wouldn't have been as interesting. Unfortunately, Percy was really downplayed in Son of Neptune (which disappointed me because he is my favorite character)and I missed the way he told the stories. Hazel and Frank are still good characters, but I prefer the characters from Camp Half-Blood like Annabeth and Grover.
I think its because Hera(my least favorite God)prefers Jason over Percy, and so she made sure that if they were to face off, her champion, Jason would come out on top. Not only that that but I would be very scared if Frank would come close to Percy with a bow and arrow. You know about the whole Paris ordeal.
For one thing, it certainly adds a more dangerous element to it than before. Also, keep in mind that there is very little about Rick Riordan's books that aren't important. Even though the answer wasn't revealed in this book, it will probably be important later. Another thing: didn't Percy get poisoned by something that made him really sick?
I think that it partially showed his character. I mean, Juno said that if he took her and crossed the river or whatever, then he would lose everything, life would be much more difficult and he would face many challenges. But he still took her anyway. So it showed his character, and put it in a positive light.
Also, I think it would be difficult to write a book where one of the main characters never gets hurt. He would never get injured, and the book would be way too easy.
From a less objective standpoint, I too was really disappointed that Percy lost his invulnerability. I found out from the same chapter (number one) released on the internet, and it basically stated he would lose the Curse of Achilles. Later, though, I accepted it because I realized that it would be important somehow.
It would be a tad bit boring if Percy kept his invulnerability, I mean come on the guy is practically one of the best warriors there is and add a little hint of invulnerability and poof. why would we need to read 3 whole books when it could be compiled into one boring and one sided battle. =3
I agree with Aurora, in Rick Riordan's books, everything happens for a purpose
yep and it would be REALLY boring if Percy could never get (physically) hurt... unless Annabeth threatened to kill him since she knows what his weak was. that would be scary and funny all at the same time.
Clara wrote: "yep and it would be REALLY boring if Percy could never get (physically) hurt... unless Annabeth threatened to kill him since she knows what his weak was. that would be scary and funny all at the sa..."Oh, Annabeth would never kill her boyfriend! :)
Aurora wrote: "For one thing, it certainly adds a more dangerous element to it than before. Also, keep in mind that there is very little about Rick Riordan's books that aren't important. Even though the answer wa..."
That's a really good point. I totally agree with you.
I do not get the Percy was downplayed idea. He used his powers in the book probably three times more than any of the others. Hazel's main power so far is so passive she can't even control it. The finding/making tunnels is ok, but hardly epic. Frank didn't even figure out his racial power until the very end.The reason Percy got sick was because the giant in question was the Anti-Poseidon. I doubt the curse would have made any difference with that. He could still get tired and be affected by magical attacks even with the curse active. Prometheus and Kronos both used magic against him with the curse still active.
Lacking the curse is probably going to make a big difference in saving his life somewhere along the way. Remember, it was considered a curse for a reason, and almost everyone that talked about it said it had other negative consequences.
Agreed, Neal. Chiron talked a little about some of the negative side effects of bearing the Curse of Achilles. I mainly remember him talking about Achilles needing sleep a lot because of it, and therefore Percy did too.In talking about everything having a purpose, I think that part of the reason that Percy lost the invulnerability in the Son of Neptune is because it served its purpose in the Last Olympian, and so it's not needed anymore. He only needed it to fight Luke/Kronos, and so there's (almost) no point in his having it now.
very true. it is hard to get into a story when you know the main character is well nigh invincible. it worked well for the one book, but it also made him extremely reckless. somehow, it would probably have interfered with him and Annabeth also.
truthfully, it probably just boiled down to Riordan not wanting to keep up the Percy kills all type battles with no suspense. More than one book with that would get rather boring.
Okay, you both have a very good point. I know it probably happened for a reason, but I don't see not having the 'curse' making Percy less reckless. It doesn't stop me from wishing he hadn't lost it still. :)
Throughout the whole book, I could see the focus shifting from Percy to Frank. For me, Percy was downplayed. Of course, it's not all from his POV so it's not surprising. But, Percy is still my favorite so I definitely want him to have a major role in the Prophecy of the Seven, however Frank seems to be the "secret weapon." Percy's invincibility was probably the one advantage he had, but now it's gone. I guess that's why I wanted him to be invincible. I do see your point, though. It would be repetitive if Percy was untouchable.
I agree its just that i feel lime percy disnt just loose his invulnerability, but also his humor...
Oh I'm not sure about that, Roma. The first chapter with the Gorgons was pretty funny.
Yeah i know i still feel like he wasnt as funny...
It's just so different not viewing him in first person, I guess.
sigh, another year of wait
I KNOW...but I s'pose I lived through this last one, so I'll wait a little longer...
I think, mabye, i'll camp out in front of barnes and noble when it comes out. Mabye
Im already doing that...
I got my tent ready yesterday, but im trying to figure out how to put stakes in cement..........
Haha im not starting untill a couple days before
If I was Leo, I would be on fire. I'm that excited
April wrote: "I got my tent ready yesterday, but im trying to figure out how to put stakes in cement.........."Lol. Maybe you need points on the end of them.
i was thinking more on the lines of a power drill, but that works too.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
