banana-breaded

[banana-breaded]

Leo prioritized Calypso above all else

in "HoO", including himself, obviously.

When Leo decides to sacrifice himself for the sake of ending Gaea, he is portrayed to have a mentality of "well, you can't fight against a prophecy." I thought this was weird, considering that he was the mischievous, trouble-making rule-breaker of the Seven. It just didn't seem like him to accept defeat so easily, even if he did have a plan to resurrect himself. I thought that it would be more in character for him to put up a fight in order to ensure less pain for him and his friends.

And with the case of Calypso and Ogygia, he was willing to bend sea and sky in order to exploit a loophole that would let him find the island again. In all fairness, it can be argued that the Physician's Cure was a loophole in regards to the Prophecy of Seven, but it was so risky it nearly doesn't count.

When comparing these two situations, I had a thought. I bet Leo was so willing to accept martyrdom (albeit temporarily) because it would enable him to find Calypso more easily.

There would be less resistance to his journey from his fellow demigods as they wouldn't be aware of it, for one thing. But the major point would be that, as a corpse, Leo would have absolutely no part in navigating to the island. Festus alone would find Ogygia, and as he was both mechanical and a dragon, Calypso's curse would not apply to him at all (obviously). Previously I had thought that Festus finding the island, even with a conscious rider, would work nicely but now I don't think that would be the case.

This wasn't exactly an astounding revelation, I'm sure many people have thought of this, but to me it helps explain Leo's juxtaposing behaviors as well emphasizes that no matter what he was doing, he had Calypso in mind. He was shaping the fate of the world, but he did consider her and consciously factor her happiness into his plan, no matter how risky it was for him to do so.

What if the pain drove him insane? What if, by dying, his oath to her was broken and he'd be punished indescribably harshly? What if Zeus, Hades, or Thanatos came after him for cheating death? These risks were worth taking, because they gave him the greatest chance of finding Calypso.

[banana-breaded]

Bryce Lawrence was an excellent plot device

both in how he represented the failings of the Twelfth Legion and how he presented Nico with a clear enemy in "HoO".

Starting with the latter, Bryce pursued Nico and co. in order to find Reyna and bring her back to the Romans to be unjustly tried and convicted. For what? He didn't know. Not until he overheard her confiding her darkest secret into Nico. Upon hearing this information he scorns Reyna for her past, for something that wasn't her fault or even bad, and promises that she will feel pain and shame when he informs everyone of it.

Quoting directly, Bryce says, "I can't wait until your little secret comes out."

This sentiment is then repeated in italics, serving to represent Nico's thoughts (since it's in his point of view) and how he therefore zeroed in on this statement. He did so because of his outrage for how his friend (!) was being treated, yes, but also because of how the statement mirrored his greatest fear.

Nico was petrified of his own secret being revealed, and being presented with a callous, cruel person who would obviously not accept him and instead revel in his despair was, as seen in the book, a switch being flipped for him. It's mentioned that whenever Nico felt like someone was judging him, he'd usually push them away by yelling at them. This means his typical response was one of anger, and in this case the anger was entirely justified.

Nico was tired of lurking in shadows, tired of fading away. Symbolically, he felt as if he couldn't be himself, not in broad daylight, in the view of others. He was tired of hate and grief welling up inside of him and not having an outlet, having someone to talk to because of his inner turmoil (though he was getting there with Reyna).

In that way, I think him disposing of Bryce was a release. To do so, he revealed all of his secrets, all of his darker emotions (which was most of them) and completely eviscerated a target, a clear enemy, in the process. I think that how easily this was done also serves to show that Bryce is nowhere near strong enough to endure what Nico has.

He did this not only to protect his friends, but to stand up for himself. Murder is usually not a condone-able thing, but since Bryce was explicitly portrayed as an unrepentant killer who delighted in harming and slaying innocents even if it meant ending the world, we can give Nico a pass on this one.

On a side note, I actually think Nico's way of getting rid of him, albeit dark, was merciful. Bryce was transformed into a nameless, voiceless, presumably personality-less spirit. This indicates that he probably ended up in Asphodel rather than the Fields of Punishment, where he was undoubtedly going otherwise. Personally, I think an eternity of nothingness is preferable over an eternity of excruciating pain, so Bryce got off easy.

And to address that first initial point, I think it's incredible that for all of the rules and structure of Camp Jupiter, they still manage to fail on so many fronts. Like in the case of how easy it was for a corrupt Apollo legacy to seize power, for one, and how that same legacy would be able to impale a fellow camper and get away with it.

No wonder Octavian took such a liking to Bryce.

Another failure would be how they decided that, rather than trying to detain or reform a murderer, it would be better just to unleash him onto an unsuspecting world of mortals. "Not our problem now, even though this unstable and cruel person who is more powerful than the average citizen, and who has a history of killing things, is now allowed to rampage without being monitored." Wouldn't you know, he ended up being a problem for the good guys (and likely committed several atrocities in the period in which he was left unchecked). Who woulda thunk it?

Needless to say, Nico's story has always been the most emotionally charged, the most filled with symbolism and growth, and the least fun for a character to experience*. No wonder he's such a fan favorite.

*seriously, everyone else had several wacky, zany adventures along side a large group of close friends, and the silliest things that ever happened to him up to this point were being turned into corn (not pleasant) and wearing funky shirts, and in the first scenario the people with him didn't even really want to be near him. and of course, he went through an ordeal, so yeah, not fun.

[banana-breaded]

Something that’s never really acknowledged

in “The Heroes of Olympus” series is the seriousness of the Roman/Greek war. The Romans meant to march into Camp Halfblood and quite literally kill or capture literal children. Human beings who would not explode into dust and be eventually regenerated, but who would bleed out and die, leaving people to mourn for them.

Granted, their motivations for doing so were out of retaliation and Octavian’s lust for blood and power, but it always struck me as odd that he was able to manipulate the legion so easily. It also struck me as odd that the Romans were forgiven so quickly after the fight against Gaea. Yes, they technically weren’t the ones to deal the first blow, but they still hadn’t given the other camp of, and I cannot stress this enough, children the chance to explain or even try for peace.

This makes a case for how throughout the entire series the Greeks are depicted much more favorably than the Romans. Often its mentioned that the Romans essentially plagiarized off of the Greeks, how their rules and customs are overly restrictive, and how in the Civil War, the Romans mostly sided with the Confederacy.

However, it is explicitly said that not all Roman demigods and not all Greek demigods were on one side in any war (such as in WWII when the children of Hades apparently fought for the Axis Powers while the children of Zeus and Poseidon fought for the Allied Powers).

Nevertheless, the point still stands that the Romans were surprisingly, lethally ruthless throughout “HoO” and this trend of depicting Romans as bloodthirsty would continue throughout “The Trials of Apollo” where the antagonists are quite literally resurrected Roman tyrants.

Not that it was undeserved, of course. The real-life counterparts of Commodus, Caligula, and Nero were atrocious.

[banana-breaded]

Percy has always unfairly villain-ized Nico.

Upon learning he was a son of Hades, he assumed Nico was vengeful and corrupt. In "The Battle of the Labyrinth" he assumed that Nico was out to kill him, when in fact he was going after Daedalus, who admitted himself that it was his time to go. Not to mention, Nico's bloodlust was because of Minos’ corruption, which never would have occurred in the first place had Percy stopped Nico from leaving, which should have been the obvious course of action.

You don’t let a 10-11 year old, a powerful 10-11 year old who would attract massive amounts of monsters and has just sustained serious amounts of pain, go off by themself for quite obvious reasons. Percy obviously doesn't get the memo because he lets Nico slink away twice, in the end of both "The Titan's Curse" and "The Battle of the Labyrinth." The second time he even reinforced Nico’s belief that he didn’t belong among other demigods. For lack of better words, that’s messed up.

Nico will then go on to do some arguably shady things, but never with malicious intentions (i.e. letting Hades trap Percy and not telling Percy who he is in "The Son of Neptune") and always redeems himself from such actions. Percy however, uses these decisions to discredit all of Nico's suffering.

For the entirety of the "Heroes of Olympus" series, he basically views Nico as a morally grey wild card. He even expresses contempt and aggression towards him, only reigning such emotions in out of pity for his condition after being captured by the twin giants. He often reflects upon Nico's actions in a way that leaves out context, painting him in a villainous light. I don't think he once acknowledges his broken promise to Nico regarding Bianca in the "Heroes of Olympus" series, nor does he ever acknowledge how hurtful it was to Nico when Bianca appeared to him and not her brother. Additionally, whenever remembering how Nico got him trapped, he never seems to recall that Nico didn’t intend to do so and that he couldn't have escaped without Nico. Furthermore, Nico had made his father promise not to hurt Percy, but Percy responded to the trickery with violence against Nico, not the actual guilty party (Hades).

Also, did I mention that Nico is 4 years younger than Percy? In the Titan's Curse, Percy is 14 and Nico is 10. That's a large maturity difference in the tween/teen years and will continue to be throught the series. This means that all of the things Percy holds against Nico were done by a desperate, child from the age of 10 to 12, who had no support system, no real home, and large amounts of inner turmoil and canonical PTSD.

I know I keep reiterating the whole Nico selling out Percy situation but I just think Percy’s reaction was incredibly awful. He made a point to never hurt demigods on Luke’s side, but when Nico “betrayed” him (not really) he immediately wanted to strangle/behead him. Despite the fact that Nico clearly wanted to help Percy and only wanted to detain him temporarily in exchange for deeply meaningful personal information, Percy doesn’t give him a chance for a single second.

Even when it’s made clear that Hades is emotionally abusive to him, he still later feels no remorse for choking this emotionally vulnerable 12 year old. And while it was still the right decision for Nico to negotiate his father joining the war effort, Percy mainly told him to do so to keep him at arm’s length, even though he was sending him into a place where he was clearly unwelcome and would likely be severely punished.

When most Olympian parents talk about how they regret burdening their children with their heritage, it usually doesn't mean much. Yes, they have to fight monsters but in exchange they become powerful. When the Greek deity Hades says this, however, it makes complete sense. The only 3 children he ever has end up experiencing horrific things, having to sacrifice themselves time and time again (or just the once, RIP Bianca di Angelo). On top of this, even the most congenial demigods become biased towards them whether they deserve it or not.

It's sad that there's a hierarchy within the camps and that its determined by parentage rather than character, at least until the demigods in question prove otherwise.

[banana-breaded]

Percy is a great protagonist, but

his flaws are never really acknowledged in a way that makes sense. Whenever he’s depicted as less than perfect, it completely backfires and portrays him as admirable. The three main instances of this are

When his “fatal flaw” is revealed

When Calypso is left on Ogygia

When he nearly drowns Akhyls in her own poison

Starting with number 1, he has the most flattering “flaw” ever. He’s just too loyal, too compassionate, too empathetic and selfless to even consider letting someone die. This is a much more desirable weakness than something like pride, and also doesn’t even really ever come into play. Plenty of his friends have died, despite his best efforts, namely Bob and Leo, and those deaths didn’t even prove to be permanent.

Granted, some deaths such as Bianca’s and Leo’s he could not have prevented, but in the case of Bob he should have if his flaw is to be believed. He could have forced Bob into the Door of Death/elevator and stayed behind to push the button, but he didn’t. Obviously it wouldn’t have worked out well if it did, but that’s the entire point. He’s supposed to be willing to sacrifice the entire world to save one friend. The fact that he didn’t can be counted as character growth, but that just means he’s outgrown all of his faults, further reinforcing the point. And of course, he’s never not saved the world, so there’s that.

Onto no.2, there’s nothing he could have done about Calypso. The Olympians swore on the River Styx to free her, so he assumed they followed through. Obviously they didn’t, but he didn’t know that or think to check, probably because he was dating Annabeth and therefore not thinking about the other beautiful girl who fell in love with them.

Even if he had, what was he to do? He could’t force the Olympians to keep their word; he was already on shaky terms with them due to refusing the immortality offer and wounding their pride. He probably would have ended up as a pile of ash, with Calypso still stranded on Ogygia.

Once again, this supposed negative thing just paints him in a more favorable light as he accepts full responsibly and repents for Calypso’s predicament even though he didn’t need to. Leo, who he’s discussing this with, even points out how difficult Percy is to hate because he’s always such a great guy.

Finally, no.3: drowning Akhyls was a completely reasonable course of action. Call me heartless, but when someone tries to kill you and your loved one solely because you’re demigods, meaning that she will absolutely go on to kill more demigods, it’s reasonable to want her dead. Percy’s mercy meant that she could possibly pursue them, that she could possibly sell them out and get others to pursue them. It’s the logical thing to do to get her out of the way.

Not that he could, of course. She was immortal, yet another reason why Percy’s actions aren’t that terrible. The pain she felt was nothing compared to what she’s inflicted for millennia, and lasted an insignificant amount of time in her immortal lifespan.

Percy’s ruthlessness most likely saved both of their lives by sending a message to Akyhls.

This all isn’t to say that Percy is entirely perfect. It’s more to point out that the flaws of his that are acknowledged aren’t his actual misdoings. And to nobody’s surprise, these wrongs are related to Nico di Angelo.

[banana-breaded]

Something that’s always been sadly funny

about the “The Heroes of Olympus” is just how different the characters are to one another in terms of their pasts. The escalation from the original series’ “Percy gets kicked out of school often and has an awful stepfather” to “Leo might have killed his mom which then led to his family turning against him which then led to his terrible experience with the foster system, including but not limited to running away and living in sewers”.

If I had to rank the severity of the Seven’s pasts in terms of “wow that child should not have to go through that” from least to greatest, it’d probably go as follows:

**this only includes backstories that occurred before the events of “Percy Jackson and Olympians” in regards to Percy and Annabeth and “The Heroes of Olympus” in regards to everyone else**

1. Piper (bullying, lacked attention from father)

2. Percy (aforementioned school shenanigans and grody Gabe)

3. Jason (no familial connections, massive burdens of responsibility and expectations due to ability and parentage)

4. Frank (passing of mother, firewood, ridiculed, unclaimed by parent)

5. Annabeth (spiders, tense familial relations, events on the run, Thalia-tree situation)

6. Leo (loss of mother that was pinned on him, rejected by family, prompted to run away several times)

7. Hazel (gemstone/precious metal curse, grew up in unkind time period, bullying, mother manipulated by Gaea, uprooted/taken from her life and Sammy, isolation, death/self sacrifice, time in Asphodel)

**again, this refers strictly to the backstories of these characters before their exploits are written about, the events that actively occur within their stories are not taken into account**

It is noteworthy that the “golden/poster children” of the Seven (Annabeth, Percy, Jason, Piper) with the exception of Annabeth are very low on the list. The trend seems to be that the characters with messier pasts have messier personalities and aren’t typically as widely accepted and praised by other, in-universe characters. This is seen in the cases of Frank and Hazel, both of whom had to fight to earn their places among their peers.

Also it’s so obvious that it probably doesn’t need to be said, but Nico di Angelo would top this list and also the list I may make about the same topic except taking into account all events up to the end of “The Heroes of Olympus.” He truly is the series’ angst-ridden punching bag.

[banana-breaded]

I think its extremely clever

how, in “The Titan’s Curse”, Artemis is shown to typically present herself as a 12 year old girl. Yes, this is reflective of her followers and whatnot, but it also is very effective in sending a message: “I have chosen eternal maidenhood; I am not available.”

In short, no adult, mortal or otherwise, is even going to entertain the notion of trying to court her. It would be too weird, even if she is essentially timeless.

This is only reinforced by the fact that this is not her true form as is seen in “The Blood of Olympus” on Delos. Delos was the birthplace of Artemis and Apollo and therefore a place so sacred to them it warded off the effects of the Greek/Roman war. In other words, it let them sustain their forms as their original, truest selfs, though they could dress themselves however they wanted and use whatever items they desired, modern or not.

Since Artemis’ form was of “the same age” as Apollo’s when Leo and co. encountered them, I’ve always assumed that said form and its age was a diluted, similar version of what her true form would be when it is lethally revealed. This emphasizes that her chosen form as a young girl is undoubtedly intentional.

As for Apollo, the thing that always stood out to me about his presentation is how quickly he changed from “cool, laid-back guy” in “The Titan’s Curse” to “gullible, whiny brat” in “The Blood of Olympus” and the first half of the “Trials of Apollo” series. Furthermore, the way he speaks progresses from modern lingo to more stiff, dated diction as the series change.

I don’t think this is a flaw in the storytelling, I think it’s more of a subtle world building device. In “The Titan’s Curse”, his purpose was aiding a group of teens. It was no skin off of his back to do so, so he was in good spirits, and he obviously aimed to impress. Subsequently, he took on an attitude that would resonate with his audience and spoke in a way that was familiar to them. He could afford to be carefree and “cool”, and since showing off was his main priority he did so.

This doesn’t mean he wasn’t petulant and easily fooled at that time, just that he made an effort to hide those traits (assuming her recognized them at all, alternatively they just weren’t relevant enough to reveal themselves in the circumstances).

Fast forward to “The Blood of Olympus” when he clearly doesn’t care about how Leo, Frank, and Hazel view him because he’s too busy wallowing in self pity and therefore his negative qualities are quite clearly on display. Also note, his language here is more similar to the formal style he uses in “The Trials of Apollo”, which can explained using the same logic used for Artemis’ older form.

I believe this is how he most naturally talks (the fact that its in English can be attributed to Olympus’ westernization, though I do think in his true form he would speak Greek) and that being on Delos means his speech is at its most genuine.

Obviously his attitude can be explained by the fact that things aren’t going well for him, and will continue to not do so for a little over 6 months (the Trials). During this period, even though he finds himself inhabiting the mortal teen form of Lester, he will continue to use his dated lingo and come off as initially unpleasant. This makes sense as he has little to no control as to how he presents himself as a mortal and it bodes that he can’t readily switch to an up-to-date-charismatic-mode.

Of course, it was abundantly clear that at first, he wasn’t in the mood to anyway.

[banana-breaded]

I <3 unreliable narration in “The Heroes of Olympus”

because the series’ 3rd person pov implies that what it presents is the absolute truth, even when this is not the case, and leaves you to discern the accuracy of every statement.

For example, in “The Son of Neptune” it explicitly states that “Sometimes Hazel thought that Nico had gotten the better end of the deal.”

This refers to their powers and how Hazel thinks her powers outweigh Nico’s abilities in terms of harm. Even though this is explicitly called out as a thought, it still leaves the impression that Hazel is more cursed by her powers than Nico is his.

While this is debatable, we know that at this point Hazel knows extremely little about Nico’s past and the pain his abilities have caused him (e.g. Minos’ manipulation of him when he was summoned) and the extent at which he’s been ostracized because of them. Therefore, this impression is arguably misleading to the reader because it was made without the full picture being known.

This is great storytelling, because it really sells you on the fact that you’re experiencing this epic journey through the imperfect eyes of each protagonist, and never breaks character. It’s up to the reader to differentiate the reality and actual events of the story from the assumptions and differing views of each character, especially in the sense that they often disagree with or misunderstand one another.

In short, dramatic irony is your best friend and Rick Riordan knows what he’s doing.

[banana-breaded]

I know that it makes thematic sense

for Jason and Leo to be the “storm” and “fire” from the “Prophecy of Seven” but I always thought it was a little odd how much this prophecy (and all the others) adhered to such reasonable meanings. For the sake of the argument, let’s adhere to this one specific line in this one specific prophecy.

Percy, who can summon hurricanes, and Frank, who both fears and can conjure fire from his lifeline, could easily be the referenced storm and fire but this possibility is never entertained. Still, this explanation would also be very straight-laced.

What would be really interesting is if something extremely unpredictable was thrown into the mix. Prophecies are said to be tellings of what is to come. Who’s to say what to come will make neat and tidy sense?

It would be entirely possible for a character completely out of left field to belong in the prophecy. What if Surt, the fire giant from Norse mythology and the canonical, in-universe Magnus Chase series, was the one to destroy Gaea? It would be complicated and unexpected, but not contradictory to the prophecy. We know that mythology cross-overs are on the table; that’s the point of the series, though admittedly the Greek and Roman myths are extremely similar.

Nevertheless, Surt definitely fills the role of fire, and we know from the line “foes bear arms to the Doors of Death” that not every line of the prophecy pertains to the heroes. Outside forces could come into play.

Furthermore, what if Surt made the world fall in a literal sense? As in he destroys it? This would have meant a completely new and just as formidable threat that the demigods would have to deal with. The prophecy never mentions Gaea in name, so a bait and switch of the villain certainly could have occurred. For all the Seven knew, she could have been a distraction, pitting the Greeks and Romans against one another in order to leave the Norse monsters unattended so that they could overpower the Norse heroes and initiate Ragnarok (the apocalypse in Norse mythology).

This isn’t to say that I think the prophecy played out in an unsatisfactory way. I actually think it happened exactly as it needed to. I just think that all of the Oracles’ (yes, plural, see: Trials of Apollo) prophecies were so vague that they could have had an infinite number of meanings and that it’s a wonder that the protagonists try to interpret them at all.

[banana-breaded]

One thing that always bothered me in “The House of Hades”

was how the Seven, a crew composed of misfits and outsiders, treated Nico as a misfit and an outsider to the extent of not caring about his well-being.

They each noticed how sickly and ghost-like he was, including the fact that he rarely ate at all, but instead of trying to reach out and help him, they alienated and avoided him because he was “freaky”.

He had done so much for their cause, arguably more than the majority of the crew at that point despite having no prophetic obligation to (the “twins snuff out the angel’s breath” line doesn’t count because he hadn’t known about it or that it would apply to him when he started contributing) but still nobody wanted to be alone with him.

Granted, he would’ve tried to push them away, but each demigod was well experienced in befriending those who were initially hostile to them, usually in much more perilous circumstances.

Instead, they never even attempted to know him, only regarding him through assumptions (he must have a crush on Annabeth, etc).

Jason only started to regard Nico as a friend once he’d been humanized to him through Cupid’s interference and seemed to only do so out of concern, which would quickly lead to genuine care, but the origin rubs me the wrong way nevertheless.

Hazel was always kind to him of course, but even she didn’t really check up on him. She wasn’t ever troubled enough by his reclusive and unhealthy behaviors to actively step in

This doesn’t make the Seven bad people, especially since they’re teens under incredible amounts of stress, I just think its interesting that their personalities largely revolve around not being what people expect (e.g. Jason, Piper, Frank) and looking out for everyone, but then they go “he looks creepy, I think I’ll avoid him indefinitely even though he’s clearly suffering alone.”