The Son of Neptune
discussion
WHY did Percy have to lose his invulnerability? WHY?!
date
newest »

message 51:
by
Sevania
(new)
-
added it
Nov 25, 2011 04:05PM

reply
|
flag

Patti wrote: "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 mis..."
We already know what Percy can do, Frank and Hazel are completely new characters. If Riodan had focused the story, We would be basically reading a recap of PJ&O. We needed to know about Hazel and Frank, not Percy, not in this one at least.
We already know what Percy can do, Frank and Hazel are completely new characters. If Riodan had focused the story, We would be basically reading a recap of PJ&O. We needed to know about Hazel and Frank, not Percy, not in this one at least.


Are you saying that the Last Olympian was boring? That was the best one.


Exactamaly



Yeah, you're probably right. but that never stopped him before, if he didn't know anyone I mean.




Think about it, the Roman leader, Lupa, said that death in combat was honorable so obviously she and the other Romans would see the Curse of Achilles as something anti-Roman because the curse, most of the time, makes one invincible in combat. Hence why the River Tiber doesn't accept the blessing.
And also because it's boring to see a nearly invincible hero win all his fights because he can't get hurt. It's not exactly a good story if Percy can win all his fights too easily.
And also because it's boring to see a nearly invincible hero win all his fights because he can't get hurt. It's not exactly a good story if Percy can win all his fights too easily.

Yeah, the author kinda made Percy look a bit weak... especially in the next book Mark of Athen. don't get me wrong, Percy kicked some butt in this book anyway.

and now in mark of athena he can barley make a storm without being about to pass out

all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic