I recently finished reading the second Percy Jackson book and the first Artemis Fowl, two young adult novels (well, more like young young novels), and although they share some elements, Artemis Fowl was pretty good, while Percy Jackson is stupidly dumb and I hate it so much that I feel like kicking it until my feel fall off.
You see, a few years ago I still felt I was too good for young adult books. I mean, I read Shakespeare and Poe for fun when I was 14! (Mostly because my parents couldn't afford kids books for me and all they had were old copies of those books that they inherited from their parents.) I never even wanted to see the cover of a young adult book, until Meg and I listened to Because of Win Dixie on a trip to Washington, and I was sold. Of course, there are amazing YA books, and there is absolute crap, like everything else. Harry Potter is no Nobel Prize in literature, but it's decent. The writing is ok and sometimes actually kind of exciting. Percy Jackson, on the other hand, is a badly written, boring, unfunny rip off of Harry Potter. And if you don't believe me, check this out:
1. A young orphan (semi-orphan in PJ's case) boy who has special powers and doesn't know about them until he goes to this school where he's taught how to use his powers. By the way, he's also the chosen one, and even though he's not super smart, he's the cat's pajamas! (Harry/Percy)
2. A girl who also has powers and who is very, very smart becomes friends with the main guy and saves his butt a million times. Even though she's very smart, she's not as special as the guy, but she's ok with that (Hermione/Annabeth)
3. A friend guy who is not as bright as the main guy or his girl friend, but he is very noble and trustworthy (Ron/Grover)
4. There's even a super evil character who the main guy has to fight (and he's the only one who can fight him!). He beats him in every book, but never badly enough to get rid of him until, I assume, the last book (Voldemort/Chronos)
There's even an invisibility cape and half bloods on both books.
But that's not my main problem with the book, it's just that it's badly written. There are so many parts that are supposed to be funny, and they are NOT; so many parts are supposed to be sad and melancholic, but they are just cheesy and ineffective. There's a part, for example, where the author might have thought "Oh yeah, I'm writing about the gods of nature, so maybe I should throw in some environmentally conscious remarks," so he did, really quick (like one sentence), and went on. It was a pathetic attempt.
You might wonder why then did I read TWO of these crappy books. Well, so many people said that the second one was much better than the first one that I gave it a try (some of those people were my 6th grade students, so that should've told me something...). Also, I just heard it on audiobook, so it wasn't so painful or such a waste of time, but I wonder what did the people who saw me yell at my iPod think.
Artemis Fowl, on the other hand, is kind of similar. A 12 year old criminal mastermind decided to steal gold from fairies in order to restore his family's fortune (he's not an orphan, but his parents are out of the picture. He also goes on the archetypal quest when he steals from the fairies, like Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and every fantasy protagonist does). Sounds lame, huh? Definitely not as cool as reading about the adventures of Poseidon's son among Greek gods and demigods. But the author worked it out in such a way that the book is interesting, exciting, funny, and just plain good.
After HP, PJ, the Twilight series, and a bunch of other crappy YA fantasy books I've read, I was ready to give up on them, but AF was so good that I might at least give some of them a try in the future.
39 comments:
Manuel, you should read "The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie: A Flavia de Luce Mystery" This is my new favorite "young adult" series...
I will, thanks!
Well, I think you are a bit too proud of yourself. You think that those books aren't good? Well, write better ones! You think that reading shakespeare at 14 is a big accomplishment? I read it when I was 8! Honestly.
I hate PBJ too! You would like Lord of The Rings though, that book isn't crap, and it has an interesting choice of writing! I'm sure you would like it.
Screw you and your opinions. You are very uneducated about the series to truly understand the humongous significance between the two novels. Both are equally great and individually great. I felt as though the book was well written and modern at the time and also very funny. Half the points you state can be counter argued so bye Felicia.
You’re argument isn’t so good either. All of the Percy Jackson characters are spoiled and Rick is uneducated by the Greek gods, did you know Percy’s papa was a rapist while little girls are online saying Poseidon is better than zues? Educate yourselves. I read up until the third book but slammed it closed because I couldn’t put up with Percy’s shit. Oh and Annabeth (with her retarded name) is wayy more pathetic than Bella Swan, plus why would Athena want children? It already stated she didn’t in mythology! And to not raise either? How intelligent rick! I’ve read better fanfiction concepts! I could go on and on but to break it down to you; screw you, screw your type of books and screw the Percy Jackson series.
Screw the Percy Jackson series? Are you f******g kidding me?
Annabeth is not pathetic at all, her name doesn´t matter,and Z-E-U-S (That´s how you spell it, dearie. And you said Rick "was uneducated by the Greek gods". But NOOO, you´re to cool for grammar) was even more of a rapist than Poseidon.
Sofi, even if Zeus is more of a rapist than Poseidon, he is still a bad person. BTW any evidence of why anabeth is not pathetic
It's not a school. It's a camp
A young orphan (semi-orphan in PJ's case) boy who has special powers and doesn't know about them until he goes to this school where he's taught how to use his powers. By the way, he's also the chosen one
A young powerful chosen one? Gee, haven't seen that before Harry Potter. And it's a camp, you fool. Not a school.
A girl who also has powers and who is very, very smart becomes friends with the main guy and saves his butt a million times. Even though she's very smart, she's not as special as the guy, but she's ok with that
Oh yeah. Definitely something that only Rowling used.
A friend guy who is not as bright as the main guy or his girl friend, but he is very noble and trustworthy
Again. Gee, haven't seen that before Harry Potter.
There's even a super evil character who the main guy has to fight (and he's the only one who can fight him!). He beats him in every book, but never badly enough to get rid of him until, I assume, the last book
I can't help but laugh at this one. There's even a super evil character who the main guy has to fight (and he's the only one who can fight him!). Dude, this could describe so many stories. It sounds like Aang and the Fire Lord from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Plus, Percy is not the one who ends up defeating Kronos in the end. It's actually Luke. He was possessed by him and ultimately had to sacrifice his life to kill him. Percy had nothing to do with it! So quit acting like you know your shit. And when do you think Harry Potter was written? The 1st century? I acknowledge the similarities between these series, but it's dumb to think that Rowling invented these types of characters and this story structure. She certainly didn't. I don't think it was Riordan's intention to rip it off. Percy Jackson actually started off as a bedtime story for his son. Not everything is what it seems.
There's even an invisibility cape and half bloods on both books.
In Percy Jackson, it was an invisibility cap, not a cape. It belonged to Annabeth, not Percy. Also, half-bloods exist in Greek mythology. It's not something that Riordan came up with. So it's not copying Rowling. In Harry Potter, it refers to half human, half wizard. In Percy Jackson, it's half human, half god. Jesus man!
In fact, when asked about the similarities between Percy Jackson and Harry Potter, he had this to say:
First, recognize that Percy Jackson and Harry Potter are similar because they draw on the same sources in folklore and mythology. The idea of a young boy finding out he is special, training to use his abilities, and defeating an evil villain to take his rightful place in the world — this is the story of both Harry and Percy. It's also the story of Perseus, Theseus and Hercules — narratives that are over three thousand years old. Most of the elements people point out as similarities between the two series come straight from mythology. The Harry Potter series uses folklore and mythology to beautiful effect, but J.K. Rowling did not invent these elements.
Secondly, Percy and Harry are very different kids, who live in very different worlds. Camp Half-Blood is full of magic and mystery, yes, but it has a unique flavor that is totally unlike Hogwart’s. Percy and Harry come from different backgrounds. They don’t have the same issues with parents. Percy’s a bit more of a troublemaker than Harry, I think. He’s used to being labeled the "bad boy" and has gotten kicked out of numerous schools (though this is never entirely his fault). Harry is likely to restrain his friends if they get in a fight. Percy is more likely to punch a bully in the nose. They do share common ground — both have enormous power and responsibility thrust upon them before they are ready. Both are brave. Both have to face their worst fears and rely on a small group of loyal friends. But their stories are quite different. I think readers will see that when they read The Lightning Thief.
Well, so many people said that the second one was much better than the first one that I gave it a try (some of those people were my 6th grade students, so that should've told me something...)
That seems pretty rude to say. Told you what? What does that mean? You think 6th graders have bad taste in literature? Is it surprising that they recommend or enjoy a book that was specifically written for their age range? Middle schoolers are who the books are aimed at. Of course they'd say that.
semi-orphan in PJ's case
Um...he's not even a semi-orphan. He has both parents! Semi-orphan implies that one of them is dead! But he has his father Poseidon and mother Sally! Jesus Christ man! I don't mean to be nasty, but you just make yourself look dumber and dumber! Literally every comparison you make is either something you can find in a multitude of stories or is completely false because you never bothered to stop and freakin' think!
PBJ? So you hate peanut butter and jelly?
I agree with some things you have been said. I do not like Percy Jackson series that much too. Riordan, i think, didn't and don't handle things well in the books he writes. This guy, in the first series, is literally based his series on Greek Myths, but he is still a lackluster, so does his books and characters. HoO is even worse. It seems Riordan went the SJW way right away. His tokenism is so obvious, even if he tries so hard to hide it. His writing style suck, his portrayals are suck. This is funny, but his later books are much more worse. Magnus Chase series is a total crap. His portraying the Norse Gods are terrible just like the Greek and Roman Gods, his characters are didn't handle well (again), and his tokenism is x10 this time. This guy just writes his books for hitting the diversity train. There were none LGBTQ characters in the Pjo books, the first series he wrote. But, when diversity becomes a thing (Yes, it was a thing, but I'm talking about the writing diversity. So before you go and be a know-it-all, Let me say that I'm part of the Lgbtq community, and i can say that Riordan, in my opinion, writes his later books just hitting on the diversity train.), Riordan suddenly starting to write diversity too. Like, you care? There were bunch of white, straight guys and girls in your first series, did you ever bother to write diversity before? He is a literal SJW and in a bad way, his writing style seems like literally came from Tumblr shitty posts, his characters lack of subtlety and creativity. How much he adds the diversity, it doesn't matter. Because he is suck at handle it.
I must say that for someone who worked in schools, your vocabulary is pretty sophomoric. Instead of saying "main guy", why don't you say "protagonist" or "main character"? Instead of saying "friend guy", say "supportive friend". Instead of saying "super evil character", say "villain" or "antagonist". You criticize Riordan's style of writing for being "bad" and "pathetic" yet you can't even use the proper words to refer to the characters. How hypocritical.
And when you say "his girl friend"- and it's one word. It's "girlfiend"- who exactly are you referring to? Harry gets together with Ron's sister Ginny, not Hermione. Percy hooks up with Annabeth. So your sentence doesn't make sense in identifying who gets together with who. Since you didn't even read the rest of the books, you assuming that Grover gets together with Annabeth is completely wrong and a bit strange since he is a satyr. Plus, none of the couples in both of these series get together until the end so you're jumping ahead. Just like you wrongfully assumed that Percy defeats Kronos in the end when it's actually Like. How about you quit acting pretentious and actually read the rest of the series before jumping to false conclusions.
And when you say "his girl friend"- and it's one word. It's "girlfiend"- who exactly are you referring to? Harry gets together with Ron's sister Ginny, not Hermione. Percy hooks up with Annabeth. So your sentence doesn't make sense in identifying who gets together with who. Since you didn't even read the rest of the books, you assuming that Grover gets together with Annabeth is completely wrong and a bit strange since he is a satyr. Plus, none of the couples in both of these series get together until the end so you're jumping ahead. Just like you wrongfully assumed that Percy defeats Kronos in the end when it's actually Luke. How about you quit acting pretentious and actually read the rest of the series before jumping to false conclusions.
You criticize Rick's style of writing yet your comment is a clusterfuck of grammatical errors. How hypocritical.
And when you say "his girl friend"- and it's one word. It's "girlfiend"- who exactly are you referring to? Harry gets together with Ron's sister Ginny, not Hermione. Percy hooks up with Annabeth. So your sentence doesn't make sense in identifying who gets together with whom. Since you didn't even read the rest of the books, you assuming that Grover gets together with Annabeth is completely wrong and a bit strange since he is a satyr. Plus, none of the couples in both of these series get together until the end so you're jumping ahead. Just like you wrongfully assumed that Percy defeats Kronos in the end when it's actually Luke. How about you quit acting pretentious and actually read the rest of the series before jumping to false conclusions.
And when you say "his girl friend"- and it's one word. It's "girlfriend"- who exactly are you referring to? Harry gets together with Ron's sister Ginny, not Hermione. Percy hooks up with Annabeth. So your sentence doesn't make sense in identifying who gets together with who. Since you didn't even read the rest of the books, you assuming that Grover gets together with Annabeth is completely wrong and a bit strange since he is a satyr. Plus, none of the couples in both of these series get together until the end so you're jumping ahead. Just like you wrongfully assumed that Percy defeats Kronos in the end when it's actually Luke. How about you quit acting pretentious and actually read the rest of the series before jumping to false conclusions?
And when you say "his girl friend"- and it's one word. It's "girlfriend"- who exactly are you referring to? Harry gets together with Ron's sister Ginny, not Hermione. Percy hooks up with Annabeth. So your sentence doesn't make sense in terms of identifying who gets together with whom. Since you didn't even read the rest of the books, you assuming that Grover gets together with Annabeth is completely wrong and a bit strange since he is a satyr. Plus, none of the couples in both of these series get together until the end so you're jumping ahead. Just like you wrongfully assumed that Percy defeats Kronos in the end when it's actually Luke. How about you quit acting pretentious and actually read the rest of the series before jumping to false conclusions? BTW, sorry I keep commenting the same thing. I just want the grammar to be correct.
And when I said "none of the couples", I mean the main ones. Percy and Annabeth. Harry and Ginny. Grover gets a girlfriend before the end. A dryad named Juniper.
Oh wait never mind. I understand what you meant. You meant "girl friend" as in "female friend". In that case I apologize. But you still shouldn't jump to conclusions because you still incorrectly assumed that Percy kills Kronos at the end. And perhaps you should've said "female friend" or "the girl" instead of "girl friend" because that can cause confusion.
Oh wait never mind. I understand what you meant. You meant "girl friend" as in "female friend". In that case, I apologize. But you still shouldn't jump to conclusions because you still incorrectly assumed that Percy kills Kronos at the end. And perhaps you should've said "female friend" or "the girl" instead of "girl friend" because that can cause confusion.
Reply
Oh wait never mind. I understand what you meant. You meant "girl friend" as in "female friend". In that case, I apologize. But you still shouldn't jump to conclusions because you still incorrectly assumed that Percy kills Kronos at the end. And perhaps you should've said "female friend" or "the girl" instead of "girl friend" because that can cause confusion.
I must say that for someone who worked as an English teacher, your vocabulary is pretty sophomoric. Instead of saying "main guy", why don't you say "protagonist" or "main character"? Instead of saying "friend guy", say "supportive friend". Instead of saying "super evil character", say "villain" or "antagonist". You criticize Riordan's style of writing for being "bad" and "pathetic" yet you can't even use the proper words to refer to the characters. How hypocritical.
I must say that for someone who worked as an English teacher, your vocabulary is pretty sophomoric. Instead of saying "main guy", why don't you say "protagonist" or "main character"? Instead of saying "friend guy", say "supportive friend". Instead of saying "super evil character", say "villain" or "antagonist". You criticize Riordan's style of writing for being "bad" and "pathetic" yet you don't even use the proper words to refer to the characters. How hypocritical.
Oh wait. Never mind. I understand what you meant. You meant "girl friend" as in "female friend". In that case, I apologize. But you still shouldn't jump to conclusions because you still incorrectly assumed that Percy kills Kronos at the end. And perhaps you should've said "female friend" or "the girl" instead of "girl friend" because that can cause confusion.
He beats him in every book
He doesn't defeat him in every book. Kronos doesn't encounter Percy directly until the fourth book. And again, it's LUKE who ultimately defeats him in the end.
Dude, you really need to chill. I understand if the book simply wasn't your cup of tea, but saying that you "feel like kicking it until my feel (I'm sure you meant "feet") fall off" is taking it a bit too far.
Honestly, based on your arguments, I think you might be a tad bit too old for Percy Jackson. If you don’t like the writing, that’s probably because it was written for 12 year olds, so it has to be simplistic otherwise the readers would get lost.
I don't always tolerate stupid people. But when I do I am probably at work. Don't cross me in a dark alley
HP rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both are great books, but PJ eventually becomes a bore to the point you're just blindly skipping through tiresome dialogue and deadening descriptions. I'm no hater, but in my most honest opinion, Son of Neptune was the better book. It had less of the one dimensional characters, and introduced us the others with more depth.
OP, I whole-heartedly agree that Percy Jackson is so overrated.
It is astonishing that the series have acquired such a loyal fanbase, but some of these comments sound like they were written by people with the mental age of 5 years old. All of the toxic comments are along the lines of "OMG go and write an award-winning book before you criticise one!", or "your grammar is so bad that you have no right to say that PJ is bad!", and some are "Riordan included LGBTQ people and Rowling didn't! Boo on her!".
Well, in regards to that last one, don't get me wrong - I support LGBTQ+ and am part of the community myself (genderfluid panromantic asexual). PJ is just unspectacular as a piece literature (that has nothing to do with whether it contains LGBTQ+ people or not), which is about the plot, writing style, character development and impression on the reader.
I am not saying that Harry Potter is a perfect series.
It is just better than PJ as a piece of literature.
The main thing that bothered me in PJ was the writing style. I understand that it is targeted at a rather young audience and maybe reading it when I was 13 caused it to not leave a good impression.
Anyway, although PJ was written in first person, I was unable to connect to the characters and could not laugh at the funny scenes, nor cry at the sad scenes. The attempts to make Percy Jackson seem witty are weak and dialogue is awkwardly written. Furthermore, many readers claim PJ to be educational, since it incorporates Greek mythology, but it is in no way an accurate depiction of Greek mythology. It was absolutely frustrating to read such a disgrace to Greek mythology.
Medusa should be long-dead and so should the Minotaur. There are only 3 original Hesperides, not 5. Even though some versions say that there are 4 or 7, there is no version with 5 Hesperides. The overall depiction of demigods are inaccurate even though I understand that it is necessary for the concept of the story, but Hades does NOT have demigod children, nor does Athena.
Worst of all, everything was Americanised. What are the gods all doing in America??? Why does Camp Half Blood have to be in America??? Why is "western civilisation" the most important thing in the entire world??? What does America have to do with anything???
(Also, Riordan, it would have been nice if you didn't make Percy look just like Harry. Messy jet-black hair and green eyes, huh.)
There is probably more I could say but my fingers are tired from typing, so I will just end it here. :/
I can understand that you liked the Artemis Fowl books, but your way of writing your hatred for PJO is ridiculous. First of all, Percy isn't that special. You stopped at the second book, by the end of which we are introduced to Thalia, daughter of Zeus, Nico and Bianca, children of Hades in the third book, Jason Grace, son of Jupiter in the next series along with Hazel, daughter of Pluto. As you can see, Percy is nowhere near exclusive. In fact, many readers think that Thalia and Nico are actually more powerful than Percy. Also, spoilers, but Percy never defeated the bad guy Kronos at the end. That was Luke. Yep, Luke. Not Percy.
Going on to the remaining points. It's a CAMP. A C-A-M-P. Not a school.
Annabeth saves Percy's life, but he also saves her, a lot of times. That was basically what he was trying to do during the third book. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do on a quest.
Grover is NOT Ron. Grover is much, much, more timid than Ron is, but he's also more loyal than Ron ever was in the books.
The one evil character? Name one YA series that doesn't have it. Artemis Fowl is a special case because Artemis is the one doing the dumb shit, but even then there has to be a bad guy he's going up against. The Mortal Instruments has Valentine Morgenstern. The Infernal Devices has Alexander Mortmain. The Last Hours has Belial. Harry Potter has Voldemort. Divergent has Jeanine Matthews. Hunger Games has the Capitol. Even Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation (though that's not YA) has the First Foundation. Every YA series needs a villain. What did you think the book was about? Toasting marshmallows? Percy NEVER beats Kronos. NEVER. He doesn't even beat Luke. Read the series before making assumptions.
Invisibility CAP, not CAPE. Honestly, the mistakes here, school instead of camp, cap instead of cape, makes me doubt whether you've really read the likes of Shakespeare or Poe. It takes a slightly widened vocabulary to make it through As You Like It, you know? And the meaning of half-bloods is completely different in both series. Read HP again, maybe?
If you had read the fifth book in the series.... guess what? It's just as much about Grover's quest to find Pan as it is about Percy! But you just made assumptions, so...
I can understand not finding the books funny, or thinking that they are too cheesy. I mean, yeah, you can get that feeling because you read them when you were fourteen. You're supposed to read them when you're NINE. It's not a YA book at all, it's a CHILDREN'S book, but you missed that, I guess.
You read Shakespeare and Poe for fun when you were 14? That's not special. A lot of readers do. I was done with Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist and had finished two plays of Shakespeare when I was 11. Not kidding. But I suppose my mom being an English teacher had something to do with that. The point is, just because you've read the classics doesn't mean the YA books are bad.
You are allowed to dislike books. I hate Twilight with a passion. But your points are illogical, almost childish, and sound rather snobbish. Whatever, I guess.
Post a Comment