i really don't like how Riordan wrote Octavian in HOO. during SON, it really seemed like he had something planned for him, some backstory or reasoning for his actions, but when he saw the way fans hated on him he decided to just make him a laughingstock. he's supposed to be this powerful guy, Hazel even says so, and he's supposed to be able to talk the senate into almost anything, and yet we don't see any of this past SON. and the hypocrisy for him! with Luke, people forgave him even though he tried to literally destroy Camp Halfblood, gr00med children, and obviously did not care if his own allies got killed. his main reasoning was "I don't think my dad cares about me so I'm just gonna injure and/or off dozens of children!". Octavian does try to destroy Camp Halfblood (which I'm not gonna say is okay, bc it isn't) but he has an actual reasoning! his home had been attacked and the people who did it just ran away with no explanation. yes, Leo had been possessed, but nobody even told Octavian that! so his rage was absolutely reasonable. and he actually cares about his allies. he waits to attack several days to a week just so the onagers would arrive, that way there would be no casualties on his side. plus, it seems like people just ignore the fact that he was manipulated by Gaea and was obviously having a mental breakdown near the end. it's constantly brought up in arguments for Luke like "he was manipulated by Kronos!!" but when a similar thing happens to Octavian, nobody mentions it or seemingly cares.
Note: OP has a negative opinion of Luke and of some fans differing reactions to Luke and Octavian as antagonists. However this is not a fandom complaint or character complaint blog. It is a book complaint blog. This ask was sent before that point was clarified. Please try to limit complaints and discussions to what occurs in the source material only.
Yes, I agree. I tried to make a list of your points below for clarity.
during SON, it really seemed like he had something planned for him, some backstory or reasoning for his actions
It did seem that way. There are a lot of implications behind Octavian and not much fact.
It is implied he was raised in New Rome. This means he was raised in a culture that promoted suspicion of/aversion towards greek demigod culture. (You can see this aversion in the way people/the laeres react to Percy when he arrives at CJ.)
It is implied he has prophetic powers.
It is implied that he is unwell/unstable. It's implied he is being manipulated by Gaea.
It is implied that public opinion of him is favorable.
It is implied he wants to go to war, specifically against greek demigods should they exist, though he should have no proof of their existence.
It is implied that he killed Gwen.
It is implied (in TOA) that he has a connection to the triumverate.
None of this is ever explained/explored/given more detail. Why does he believe Apollo supports him? What is the extent of Gaea's influence on him? Why does he angle for war before the attack on Rome even happens? What does he know and how?
he's supposed to be this powerful guy, Hazel even says so, and he's supposed to be able to talk the senate into almost anything, and yet we don't see any of this past SON.
Given every implication above, he should be powerful, or competent, or at least have the backing of competent people. We never see that. We never know why he makes the decisions he does and how he accomplishes his goals is almost never shown or explored.
Octavian does try to destroy Camp Halfblood (which I'm not gonna say is okay, bc it isn't) but he has an actual reasoning! his home had been attacked and the people who did it just ran away with no explanation.
Octavian was pretty clearly angling for war even before the attack, but certainly that cemented the legitimacy of such an action in his mind. Yet from SoN onwards Rick treats Octavian as a complete joke. Which honestly, I do think Octavian is funny, but I also think the story would have been better if I believed Octavian was a legitimate threat. And I don't because he basically disappears from the narrative at this point except to exist as some sort of omnipresent boogieman. None of his actions, motivations, or reasoning is ever explored. Any shadow of substance he had in the previous books is flattened. He becomes completely two dimensional.
It's hard to even be mad at people for not seeing the legitimacy in his attack when it's the result of Rick completely ignoring his character. After SoN he basically only exists to create a sense of urgency in completing the quest.
and he actually cares about his allies. he waits to attack several days to a week just so the onagers would arrive, that way there would be no casualties on his side.
I mean, this is largely supposition. The narrative heavily implies the wait for the onagers is because he wants to win with overwhelming force. But you are right that his compatriots safety could be the reason he wants to win with overwhelming force! But we don't know, because again, he was never fleshed out!
plus, it seems like people just ignore the fact that he was manipulated by Gaea and was obviously having a mental breakdown near the end.
It's pretty clear he was being manipulated. I think one thing it's easy to forget is that all these characters are teenagers. Octavian is a child. He has been put in a position of responsibility that should be reserved for an adult. It's hard to think Octavian is 100% evil or that he 100% deserves to die. EXCEPT that Rick has prevented us from being allowed to see him as a real person. He has made him feel like a complete caricature of a human being. And even then, it still disgusts me that Rick made his death a complete joke, something to laugh at.
If Rick was trying to say that "people who think this way are a joke" he should have shown us more of Octavian's thoughts. He should have given us the oppurtunity to see the point he was making by laughing at him.
Instead we have the implication that there was more, and no answers. He never even gave Octavian a last name. I do not like Octavian as a character, but everything about how he was written is sort of fucked up.
I really dislike how Rick wrote Aphrodite and her cabin, they have so much potential in battle but Rick barely ever uses it. They’re usually just portrayed as shallow and vain unless the narrative calls for one of them not to be like Piper and Silena
The really big problem with the Aphrodite cabin, in my opinion, is that Rick is more a "tell" author than a "show" author.
He tells the reader what there opinion is supposed to be. He tells the reader who a character is instead of showing it through their actions. This isn't inherently bad, especially in a book written for a young audience. However, this becomes really problematic when the PoV character says something negative about someone or some group of people. Especially when that group or person is rarely featured in the actual narrative.
Percy and Annabeth frequently make disparaging remarks about the Aphrodite cabin and they never explain why. If you're inclined to think the best of people until given a reason not to this is going to be irritating. It irritated me. And it becomes more irritating when we are given reason to believe the things we are being told are untrue.
The only character we know anything about from the Aphrodite cabin is Silena (in the original series), so let's take a look at what we know about her.
Silena is beautiful.
Silena cares for the camp's Pegasii. (She is the one who teaches Percy how to ride them.)
Silena has some knowledge of magic. (Comes up when Morpheus puts New York to sleep.)
Silena does not hide her emotions. (Grief, anger, joy, she is shown to express all of them freely.)
Silena loves Charles Beckendorf. (She gives Kronos information about Camp after being told doing so would protect him among others.)
Silena gives relationship advice. (To Clarisse specifically, to Annabeth though it's only implied.)
Silena has pink armor.
Silena does not get along with the Hunter's of Artemis. (One of the few times she is eager to participate in capture the flag.)
Silena can charmspeak. (Stated in HoO. Never shown to use it.)
Silena does not like the tradition of breaking the heart of your first love. (Stated in TLH)
What conclusions can we draw about Silena from these details?
Silena cares about others, or at least about their relationships. Her reluctance to break hearts and her dislike of the Hunter's suggests she loves love. :) She cares for animals, or at least Pegasii. The pink armor suggests she has a very specific style and is likely interested in fashion. She cares most about people's survival and, unfortunately, this causes her to be easily mislead.
We are told multiple times in the first series that the Aphrodite cabin cares only about their looks, valuing them above their combat skills. The implication is that they care about their looks more than they do about protecting their camp or even their lives. But nothing about Silena's behavior suggests this is true.
She does care about her looks, but not above protecting others. Helping others in fact seems to be one of her primary motivations. She does not seem to typically enjoy capture the flag, but I don't think someone who doesn't value combat or understand it's necessity would go through the trouble of customizing their entire armor set. Her knowledge of magic suggests she has some experience fighting against magic users or has spent time studying or practicing magic as well.
We are told the Aphrodite cabin is weak, but never given cause to believe it. We are told they are vain, but never shown this to be true either. We could assume that Percy and Annabeth's negative opinions are just that, assumptions based on hersey and rumor. Except that we are almost never given any reason to doubt either Percy or Annabeth's opinions unless their beliefs are in direct opposition to each other. Instead we are left feeling frustrated and confused because the information we are given doesn't match up with what actually happens. It's really stupid.
There's so much more to say about this topic, but I'll leave it there (for now). Needless to say, I agree.
I hated everything Bob the Titan. Like I was a PJO super fan, so I read all the books (so I did know who Bob was BEFORE reading HoH), but that doesn't excuse having him be such a titular part of Percy and Annabeth's Tartarus experience while being introduced in a side book. In what world does that make sense?
This isn't even mentioning how strange it is to blame Percy for not wanting anything to do with Bob/manipulating him. Sure, perhaps Percy MAY have been a little out of line there (truly, I don't think so, though, it IS an argument), and it also didn't help that he was being blamed by the narrative for Bob and Calypso, as if either were ever really HIS fault.
(Finally, Percy has ALWAYS been like that. Bob wasn't needed to show him to be a slightly manipulative person. There were much more interesting ways to go about introducing Tartarus and exploring both Percy and Annabeth as characters. Percy especially).
Not much for me to add here. Bob being in the book never bothered me personally, but I can see how it would be annoying to have the focus taken away from Annabeth and Percy. Percy's POV is actually largely absent in Tartarus, and I think the reason for this (the only reason I can think of) is that Percy's PoV was probably quite dark during this part of the narrative, especially since it's the lead up to his break down when confronting Akhlys.
Percy has always been prone to blaming himself for others misfortune, so the fact that he blamed himself for what happened to Calypso, Bob, and Nico is not surprising to me, what did surprise me is that the narrative played it completely straight. Honestly the scene with Leo and Percy also really bugged me and I know I'm not alone in this. I honestly think Rick bit off more than he could chew with HoO trying to balance the arcs of about 10 different characters with conflicting viewpoints. (I'm counting Reyna, Nico, and Misc side characters here too.)
I think Leo suffers the most from this since his character arc required the most development imo, but so do Hazel, Frank, Piper, and Jason. These characters all have relatively "healthy" coping mechanisms so they didn't need as much focus and were pushed to the side as a result. Percy, whether because we know him better or because he's easier for Rick to write (experience will do that to you) didn't have as much of a problem, except again for those things which required a certain amount of nuance, which is a weak point in Rick's writing already!
I never considered the point of Bob's character was to show that Percy could and would mislead people in order to survive, but it's an interesting point and I like it. I slightly disagree, but only because I'm of the opinion that Percy was being honest with Bob when he said he would let Bob bring Hyperion back if he really wanted to. And we never find out if he is, because that scene is from Annabeth's point of view and she admits she isn't sure if he's lying or not. Another one of those things it would have been nice to come back to. ALAS!
But also we already knew Percy was willing to trick people to survive, didn't we? He tricks his opponents into doing stupid shit all the time in the first series. I guess this is just the first time we as the audience feel sympathy for the character he is potentially deceiving so it FEELS like a betrayal. Definitely something for me to think about. Thanks for your submission.
Caleo actually drives me crazy bc Calypso was so mean to Leo all the time for no reason and it drives me crazyyyyy
This isn’t even MENTIONING the age gap
Thank you for the ask anon. I hope it won't bother you, but I'm going to break up your complaint a bit in order to talk about the intent of this blog.
Caleo actually drives me crazy...
Your ask starts with an opinion. The opinion is about a canon ship. This is good because we are here to complain about canon.
bc Calypso was so mean to Leo all the time for no reason.
You then explain what about the canon ship bugs you. Also good! But it would have been better if you included examples from the text.
What did Calypso do that was mean?
Pulling from the text to support your statement will lead to a more meaningful discussion.
This isn't even MENTIONING the age gap.
You provide a secondary reason for your dislike, which is great. Furthermore this one requires no explanation. The reasons for a prominent age gap making you uncomfortable are obvious and don't need to be stated.
HOWEVER, you could have also used this as an opportunity to complain about how Rick wrote Calypso.
(I'm not suggesting you complain about something that doesn't bother you, rather giving an example of other things it would have been reasonable to include so people can see the types of complaints this blog is most looking for.)
Why did Rick feel the age gap was unimportant to address? Why is Calypso written as a teenager despite her age and experience?
Rick picks and chooses what he uses from greater Greek mythology, but here he doesn't even explain WHAT he is choosing to include about Calypso's past. We don't know anything about her, we practically have to rely on the mythology to get a sense of her character and yet the way she is written by Rick and by ancient sources doesn't line up.
She is most definitely written as an adult in the Odyssey. That's not the case here, so you could argue that Rick intends her to be functionally the same as a teenager, but why is that? Has she been trapped in her adolescence just as she was trapped on Ogygia? We don't know!
It's actually reasonable none of the other teenagers question her relationship with Leo as it's written, because they have no reason to assume she is any more mature than they are. She looks and acts their age and as far as we know she cannot transform or alter her appearance as the gods can. But it's weird and unrealistic that it's never addressed.
Furthermore in ToA she is excited to go to highschool and be a "normal teenager," but why? Is she really nothing more than a teenager frozen in time yearning for a typical adolescent experience? Or is she an old lady wanting to pretend at being a child? We're never really given an explanation and that's just dumb.
So yeah, I agree with you on their relationship being complaint worthy. It really doesn't make sense, but ideally you want to focus more on the reason the complaint exists and not just on the source of the complaint.
Idk if chalice of gods is considered the part of the original series or a separate trilogy but the shift in percy's personality is so noticeable. It didn't feel like the original percy pov or even HoO percy POV. Idk how to explain it but the vibes were major off (maybe because rick was subconsciously influenced by the fandom writing?) I still loved it though
Percy's personality is definitely different. Personally, I think the change makes sense given he's older and probably suffering from major depressive disorder, but I can see how that change would be irritating.
Is there something specific he does in the book that bugs you or seems out of character?
has anyone heard of whats happening with Halt and catch fire and or Initial Response. I was devouring those and waiting for each chapter like my life depended on it. It was so enthralling. I wish all is going well with the author. their work is so so so so so so so good. I miss itttttttttttt. but also i understand if we dont get the fics back but i still miss them. anway
Here's The Best Rule for Responding to a Heated Situation To Avoid Saying Something You Will Regret
Here’s The Best Rule for Responding to a Heated Situation To Avoid Saying Something You Will Regret
Source | LinkedIn | Robert Glazer
A few weeks ago, I was talking to a friend who coaches a youth soccer team and he shared a clever policy he has instituted with the parents of his players.
If parents have a complaint or issue they want to raise about the game, they need to wait 24 hours before emailing him about it.
It can feel cathartic to get something that is bothering us off our chest. But,…
