#octavian analysis

[ilovewillsolace]

people who hate Octavian only for "killing" panda pillow are absolutely crazy to me. it was an object, a fucking object, Octavian refused sacrifice animals for making prophecies. he showed his empathetical, capable for compassion to living creatures side and people hate him just because it was some Percy's crap about which he forgot on the next page? it even sounds crazyly. you just want to hate him, but use the most finished up, twisted reason to do so

[zazzander]

random thought, not even sure if you still like Octavian but i was watching a summary of Augustus Caesar’s reign and something interesting is that Augustus never declared himself a king or an emperor (due to not wanting to be stabby stabbed like Julius) instead he strategically made the senate acknowledge his status without making any actions or saying anything that implied that he was giving himself power

So technically if Octavian looked up to Augustus (this is me assuming Octavian would have looked up to Augustus, given he mentions his namesake) no way would he try to declare himself anything higher quoting Reyna “Octavian was elevating himself almost to the level of emperor.”

Which is giving me the impression that the whole declaring himself pontifex Maximus had nothing to do with him declaring himself like an emperor, since it would make sense for Octavian to pull smth like Augustus and not make any big moves.

Sorry for the unhinged/maybe wrong rant!

Have a great day’

I've analysed Octavian all I can without more content (if he comes out with a Roman prequel or something it will definitely reactivate my fixation lol)

It's hard to know what Riordan was going for in this scene beyond "look he's (still) evil".

Octavian definitely looks up to Augustus. He says so in this very scene. But I think the big context is whether or so New Romans care if they have a sole leader or not. On the face of it, they do, since they have two praetors and a senate. But then again, Reyna was able to reign solo for months without any objections (even Octavian didn't point the blatant power imbalance). She was technically co-ruling with Jason but regular Romans would definitely find it icky. If they do care, Octavian would need to work around that.

It's weird that he'd even do the Pontifex thing, considering he stated in the previous book that he'd be in charge if Reyna left anyway. That just seems like a great way to make them mad! Especially because Octavian would be one of the only people at Camp who could be a Pontifex in the first place. All the children of the gods are inherently bastards. And to be a Pontifex your parents have to be married in a specific way (Romans have three types of marriage).

I think this is just a case of Riordan not reading his own books back. Because Reyna also directly contradicts her previous orders in this scene as well.

In the empire, the emperor was also the Pontifex Maximus. So I think that's where Riordan ripped it from. But that makes no sense in the New Rome context since, canonically, there are no other priests! You could say Octavian was always the Pontifex Maximus based on that. Furthermore, when Jason takes the title literally no one accuses him of claiming the powers of an emperor.

If I were to read into the scene, without Reyna's hate tinted glasses, I'd say he was desperately trying to appease/communicate with the gods – which would match what Jason is told in this same book. I think it's also important to remember that Gaea is the one sending this vision. She wants Reyna to hate Octavian and will show her exactly what she needs to see for that to happen. (This fact is often overlooked by the heroes who have them)

[ilovewillsolace]

how cool it would be if people conducting an "analysis" did not talk about things in which they do not understand at all. Octavian did NOT capture the camp, Reina literally abandoned them to their fate, he was the senior legionary and centurion of the best cohort, he could not just let it, he had to take over the praetorship, is it really so difficult to understand? and he never liked Bruce, in all their communication from Octavian there was disgust for him, no matter what you think about him, Octavian is an honest man who respects the laws and is ready to do anything for his people, so Lawrence was just an opportunity for him to help the legion. with a very high probability, Octavian knew that this task would end sadly for him, which is why he sent Bruce in the footsteps of Niko and Reyna.

I would have been extremely indifferent to this post if it hadn't been for an _another_ attempt to make Octavian look bad

заебали

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.

[just-some-feels]

I know that "Nico is a cinnamon roll" is a terrible flanderization, but I also think we should talk more about how "Nico is a cold-blooded sociopathic murderer" on PJOblr is also a flanderization which is just as bad.

His morality is a lot more complex than that

He did have qualms over 'killing' Octavian:

He's basically projecting his guilt onto Will's lack of interaction here

He has some restraint and hesitation when it comes to killing other demigods:

Oh, I hate how this fandom can't understand complexity or nuance...

[somewhereincairparavel]

Ok, but like I feel like I've never dove in how Jason was probably the youngest in the legion. Probably for a very, very long time. And imagine how it felt to watch as kids played in new Rome, and eventually joined you. And you could never join them as they played in new rome. Imagine all of the kids you know are older than you, and you can't make friends. Imagine having to lead quests of people way older than you that resent you for it because of your parentage. Imagine how happy he was when people his age finally started joining, and I wishing he could he them? Imagine basically being raised by a bunch of teenagers, many of whom dislike you? Would love to hear ur thoughts

honestly, i imagine all of the older members of the legion whispering behind Jason's back about how easy he has it in camp jupiter bc of his dad, about how he isnt "qualified" enough to lead missions, and how he has everything "handed" to him. i feel like he had a LOT to prove and only when his missions started getting successful, people actually accept that he is capable, but even then envious members of the cohort would say that he got lucky or only succeeded bc of jupiter's blessings or smth. could you imagine a baby jason going to the older members of the legion for advice and they just coolly shrug him off? i feel like in a realistic standpoint, they arent outright mean to him bc they are terrified of jupiter's anger but they arent friendly either.

They just let him sit in a corner. i feel like at some point, even when people his age start coming in, he still wouldnt feel loved, because they all would think jason is too scary or intimidating and would avoid him out of fear, also bc he doesnt understand their jokes bc he was brought up too serious. so he would be an outcast. he would be an outcast but not necessarily in a bad way, but like "he's too good for us" type of way which actually hurts jason way more. like when he comes in they all would give him a small bow or something and it gets on his NERVES.

overall i feel like there is too much jealousy surrounding him for him to have any comfortable conversation with people, especially because he is their "leader" even if he was a praetor very late, people still subconsciously saw him as one, even the old praetors consulted him before they came to a decision.

i feel like the moment people even remotely saw him as a human with feelings is when he joined the least reputed legion simply to popularize it. i feel like that was HIS moment where ppl were like "yep this guy is actually a living person with empathy!" but it reverted back to ppl seeing him as an unapproachable artifact

which is why im so upset that frank and hazel didnt have a closer relationship with him, i mean we did see jason and frank talking together on the deck of argo 2 after jason transferred his praetorship to frank, probably filling him in his position, but i wish their relationship ascended beyond just a mentor and his apprentice. because that concept with jason's character gets so old. literally everyone saw him as an advisor and leader that they could learn from, but who really saw something beyond that about him? only leo, nico, reyna, piper and percy tbh.

and in the end, reyna had a subtle fallout with him so they didnt talk, piper broke up with him so they were awkward and tense, leo "died" and never saw him again, the last time nico saw jason was probably during the strawberry field scene when nico told him he's staying at camp, and jason got too busy with his temple project to see anyone else. he was working to keep his promise till the very end, just like a true roman. honestly thanks to you i might actually expand on this in a separate post and tag you in it :)

[knightofthenewrepublic]

Percy would have worked with Octavian, but the Augur never gave him a chance

(or Why Octavian's actions weren’t justified)

As people spend more and more time critically examining the Riordanvese (often to a fault, it must be said) one of the most common revisionist arguments is to try and absolve the mortal villains of the consequences of their action; usually by exaggerating their motivations. That includes the argument that Octavian was so quick to war partially because he was treated poorly by the Greeks. Particularly by Percy Jackson. 

But does that actually hold up?

People will argue that Octavian was not evil, because attacking Camp Halfblood was justified from his perspective; he thought they had broken a truce with New Rome and attacked it. And that would be a fair argument, IF that was the only bad thing Octavian had done, or even the worst thing. It wasn’t. And Octavian had begun trying to trigger conflict well before that. Percy, on the other hand, did his best to prevent it.

The first scene where Percy meets Octavian, is also the first time we see his sinister side. And that is of course when he tries to blackmail Hazel into supporting him for Praetor.

Now there is an aspect of the context of this scene that I think a lot of people overlook; their ages. Octavian is 18, or near enough, and Hazel is 13. This is a guy old enough to vote, (the only one of them who isn’t a child soldier) blackmailing a girl too young to get a learner’s permit. Just before this, Percy says Octavian reminds him of someone; which is obviously a reference to Luke Castellan. This type of nearly grooming behavior would have really reinforced that impression; which explains Percy’s hostile reaction to it.

Percy slipped his hand into his pocket, and grabbed his pen. This guy was blackmailing Hazel. That was obvious. One sign from Hazel, and Percy was ready to bust out Riptide and see how Octavian liked being at the end of a blade.

But Percy keeps these urges internal. He doesn’t voice his anger, and doesn’t give any visible reaction. The other two keep talking like he’s not there. This is a pretty good demonstration of Percy’s hard won self control; on his first day at Camp Half-Blood he doused Clarisse with toilet water for less, without even meaning to.

The next interaction he has with Octavian isn’t much better.

“Recruit,” he [Octavian] asked, “do you have any credentials? Letters of reference?” Percy shifted. “Letters? Um, no.” Octavian wrinkled his nose. Unfair! Hazel wanted to shout. Percy had carried a goddess into camp. What better recommendation could you want? But Octavian’s family had been sending kids to camp for over a century. He loved reminding recruits that they were less important than he was.  “No letters,” Octavian said regretfully. “Will any legionnaires stand for him?”

Now just asking this question is obviously standard practice, so Octavian isn’t wrong for that. It’s his condescending reaction that is the unsubtle putdown.

But then things come to a head very quickly, when that night’s game of capture the flag ends in a visit from the god Mars, and the command he delivers; a quest to retrieve the legion Eagle, and free Death.

Now what’s really important here is that, while people often think of Leo attacking Camp Jupiter as the point where Octavian turned against the heroes, THIS is the actual point. THIS is where he goes from being a nuisance to being an antagonist.

It starts in the Senate meeting the next day, when Percy tries to make sense of the situation:

“This Giant, the son of Gaea--he’s the one who defeated your forces thirty years ago. I’m sure of it. Now he’s sitting up there in Alaska with a chained death god, and all your old equipment. He's mustering his armies and sending them south to attack this camp.”

Percy is just repeating what Mars literally told them the night before. Octavian’s reasonable reaction to this is:

“Really?” Octavian said. “You seem to know a lot about our enemy’s plans, Percy Jackson.”

Him, and everyone else who was conscious at the end of the war games.

In spite of being almost outright accused of treason, Percy still keeps his cool. This shows a lot of growth on his part, compared to where he was in the second book of the previous series:

This was so completely unfair, I told Tantalus to go chase a donut, which didn’t help his mood.

After a bit more discussion, Octavian makes his move. First he gets in another insult. 

“Mars has clearly chosen the least likely candidates for this quest. Perhaps it is because he considers them the most expendable.”

And then he argues that the senate should not give any of the support that would normally be given to a quest. The odds of them succeeding are already so low; better to use their resources to protect the camp.

It’s pretty easy for us, the readers, to overlook what a dick move this really is. Of course WE know that the heroes are going to come back alive; but in universe, there is nothing to guarantee that. Even a small magical trinket could be the difference between life and death. And Octavian is trying to deny them that.

This could be understandable, if there was any sincerity to it. A sad but necessary sacrifice for the greater good, to protect the camp. But after arguing that all their resources have to be saved for the battle, Octavian proceeds to do nothing with them. When the giant’s army arrives, the legion simply marches out and fights them with conventional ranks and swords. Aside from a few roman scorpions (large crossbows), no specialized weapons are brought out, no magical items are used, they didn’t even build a wall or a trench. So there was no real reason not to give them anything; even if he sincerely believed the quest was doomed, that was all the more reason to help. The right magical tool might have at least given them the chance to get back alive. Depriving the questers served no purpose other than to make them fail.

You can also see this, in the fact that all Octavian’s stated reasons don’t actually win over the senate. 

The senators’ eyes moved back and forth between Octavian and Reyna, watching the test of wills. Reyna straightened in her chair. “Very well,” she said tightly. We shall put it to a vote.”

No one gives their support to Octavian before this. The senators are waiting to follow the person they see as more powerful, not the argument that was more convincing.

As for motivations, there is only one that Octavian could have; with the election just days away, he wants to prevent a rival for the praetorship.

Is the fulfillment of an epic quest a silly basis for entrusting someone with supreme executive power? Yes, in the real world, it is. But demigods don’t live in the real world; and in their world, everything revolves around quests. Quests drive every important event in the series, and are the ultimate standard by which the skill and power of a demigod are demonstrated. As Annabeth puts it in TLT:

“At camp you train and train. And that’s all cool and everything, but the real world is where the monsters are. That’s where you learn whether you’re any good or not.”

If Percy returns from a land that wiped out half a legion of demigods, with the long lost legion Eagle, the mob that is Rome will raise him up on the fanciest shield they can find. And Octavian isn’t the only one who has put that together. The very next chapter sees Reyna tell Percy that he could stand for praetor if he succeeds; and we are reminded several times that Octavian is far more politically savvy than she is. If she’s put it together, you can bet that he has.

But going back to the senate meeting itself; we see another example of Percy choosing not to start a conflict with Octavian, even when he seems to be trying to get him killed. Instead, he focuses on the important issues:

Frank jumped to his feet. Before he could start a fight, Percy said, “Fine! No problem. but at least give us transportation.”

Percy is more concerned about succeeding in saving the camp than satisfying any grudges. Octavian is more interested in how many insults he can fit into one meeting.

“A boat!” Octavian turned to the senators. “The son of Neptune wants a boat. Sea travel has never been the Roman way, but he isn’t much of a Roman!”

(The insult proves to be quite a hypocritical one in BOO, when Octavian has boats built to surround Camp Half-Blood.)

Octavian’s next attempt to start a conflict with Percy is slightly more subtle.

They were only halfway across the forum when someone called, “Jackson!” Percy turned and saw Octavian jogging toward them.  “What do you want ?” Percy asked. Octavian smiled. “Already decided I’m your enemy? That’s a rash choice Percy. I’m a loyal Roman.” Frank snarled. “You backstabbing, slimy–” Both Percy and Hazel had to restrain him.

Why is Octavian talking about being enemies? It doesn’t say Percy asked angrily, or Percy growled, or Percy glared at him. It’s a very dramatic reaction.

And Percy has done nothing to suggest that he wants to be Octavian’s enemy. Sure he has grown to dislike the augur, as most people would with someone who insults them and blackmails children:

Nico put his finger to his lips. Suddenly all the lares went silent. Some looked alarmed, like their mouths had been glued together. Percy wished he had that power over certain living people . . . like Octavian, for instance.

But he’s been keeping those critical thoughts to himself. He even avoided arguing in the senate meeting so as not to escalate things. The worst thing he’s done was knocking Octavian out during capture-the-flag which was both a perfectly fair move and a good strategy. Hardly something to base a feud on.

Most likely, this is a freudian slip on Octavian’s part. He’s already started to see Percy as an enemy, for no other reason than he might be a rival. That, or it’s an attempt at gaslighting Percy into thinking he somehow provoked Octavian into trying to get him killed. In any case, the augur hardly seems unhappy to see him, and the two legionnaires at his side, go off to their deaths.

Octavian smiled wickedly. “The last person she [Reyna] had a private talk with was Jason Grace. And that was the last time I ever saw him. Good luck and goodbye, Percy Jackson.”

If he’s happy to see them go, he’s certainly not happy when they come back alive. 

The look on Octavian’s face was priceless. the centurion stared at Percy with shock, then outrage. Then, when his own troops started to cheer, he had no choice except to join the shouting: “Rome! Rome!”

Not the appropriate reaction when Percy is saving the city, not to mention Octavian’s own life. The auger doesn’t have a single kind word to say.

The Roman symbols burned into Percy’s arm: a trident, SPQR, and a single stripe. It felt like someone was pressing a hot iron into his skin, but Percy managed not to scream. Octavian embraced him and whispered, “I hope it hurt.”

Just before this, Octavian kills a teddy bear and reads the future from it, announcing:

good omens for the coming year–Fortuna would bless them!

It has been suggested that Octavian actually had a very different vision at this moment; that he saw the Argo II opening fire on New Rome, and kept that to himself, but turned against Percy and the other Greeks because of that. This doesn’t seem likely. It would serve his purposes better to share that information; and he would have seen that vision in front of hundreds of demigods hardwired to notice small details, none of whom notice him having any visible reaction to it. Besides which, this can’t be the point when he turns on Percy, since he’s already been trying to sabotage him for most of the book.

Now if there is some big conflict between Percy and Octavian, this is the time for Percy to win it decisively. To use his new power and authority to put the auger in his place.

But Percy doesn’t do that.

“Why should we trust these Greeks?” Octavian was saying. He’d been pacing the senate floor for five minutes, going on and on, trying to counter what Percy had told them about Juno’s plan and the Prophecy of Seven.

Rather than simply steamroll over the discussion, and try to use his authority to silence any opposition, Percy allows Octavian a reasonable amount of time to air his concerns, before finally stepping in with his counter argument.

When Percy lays out the details of why they must join the Greeks, Octavian never comes up with a logical counter argument. Instead, when a messenger reports the Argo II has been spotted, he resorts to paranoid rambling.

“Praetors!” The messenger cried. “What are your orders?” Octavian [who is not a praetor] shot to his feet. “You have to ask?” His face was red with rage. He was strangling his teddy bear. “The omens are horrible! This is a trick, a deception. Beware Greeks bearing gifts!” He jabbed a finger at Percy. “His friends are attacking in a warship. He has led them here. We must attack!”

Yesterday when he last read the entrails, Octavian said the omens were good. Now, they’re suddenly horrible. That pretty well justifies Percy’s growing disregard for Octavian’s auguries.

Not only that; he is accusing Percy of treachery, while at the same time suggesting they attack a ship that can be seen bearing a white flag.

And this is before a single shot has been fired on New Rome. That false-flag attack by Gaea can not be the inciting incident for Octavian’s hostility to the Greeks. Not if what he wanted to do before it happened is the same as what he wanted to do after it happened. The attack is just what incentives the rest of the camp to support him.

The last interaction between Percy and Octavian is pretty much the first two chapters of MOA, where Octavian does his best to offend the Greeks.

“You’re letting these intruders into the camp!”

When Reyna orders Octavian to go make a sacrifice to the gods, Percy adds:

“Good idea. Go burn your bears Octavian.”

An insulting way to put it; but no more so than calling the Greek ambassadors (including a Roman praetor and Percy’s own girlfriend) “intruders.” And no more harsh than the insults Octavian has used for legionnaires below himself, like Frank and Hazel. And Percy has been given enough reason not to trust Octavian’s auguries any more than he trusts him.

The last exchange between them is about the praetorship:

Octavian snorted. “Which means we have three praetors! The rules clearly state we can only have two! “On the bright side,” Percy said, “both Jason and I outrank you, Octavian. So we can both tell you to shut up.” Octavian turned as purple as a Roman T-shirt. Jason gave Percy a fist bump.

I can only imagine how long Jason has been waiting for someone to say that to Octavian. It has been suggested this is an abuse of power on Percy’s part, but there is no reason to think so. They are surrounded by the senior officers of the legion, some of whom will be on Octavian's side, and no one raises an objection. And it's not like Octavian actually treats it like an order.

“I’ll step aside for Jason,” Percy said easily. “It’s no biggie.” “No biggie?” Octavian choked. “The praetorship of Rome is no biggie?”

No need to go into detail about how the rest of the series goes. Gaea triggers a war between the Greeks and Romans, and Octavian walks right into it. There is no reason to think he was working for her; but he was plainly looking for an excuse to start hostilities.

[ilovewillsolace]

calling Octavian an asshole and a blackmailer is incorrect. I mean, if we compare him to the same Percy, he'll be just an angel in front of Jackson. and as for the blackmail, well, it was an obvious bite from Rick to SOMEHOW make him look "bad." let me remind you that it was just one stupidest scene, because Riordan apparently couldn't come up with the best for the conflict between Octavian and Hazel, because it was fundamentally meaningless — why would a centurion of the best cohort blackmail a girl who's nobody in the camp and doesn't even have the status of a legionnaire? plus, there were no more such scenes, and the "elections" of the new praetor themselves turned out to be nothing more than a farce, where it was not the camp that decided, but one biased and not very smart Reyna. if we are going to use cliches, then the role of Octavian is not a "mean girl" at all, but rather a lonely nerd who is bullied by the main characters, but asks him for homework when necessary

Octavian is not the villain all of you make him out to be.

He's annoying. He slices open teddy bears to supposedly see the future. He's a rich boy (although we never actually see him brag about that). Out of context, he sounds like a demonic toddler. He's a blackmailer. He's a fucking asshole. But that's all.

Not trusting Percy? Perfectly normal. If all your life you were told that there's this group of people that you've been in war with ever since before the Roman Empire was a thing, that this group of people hates you with a burning passion and wants nothing more than to see your doom, that you've hurt and humiliated them and they've hurt you and humiliated you back, that they inferior to you in every way, and then a person from that group showed up at your doorstep, chased by monsters and started making friends with a suspicious looking guy that turned out being a spy and an undead person, would you trust them?

Personally, I wouldn't. Remember, the audience knows and loves Percy, but to a stranger Percy is a random, aggressive, powerful dude that causes chaos everywhere he goes and is the main suspect in multiple cases of terrorism. To Octavian, a person he knew and had worked with and might have enjoyed the presence of suddenly went missing, and then this troublesome, forbidden kid shows up and hangs out with a spy and a zombie. What reason could he possibly have to like Percy? How is he a villain for not trusting Percy? He's just being a freaking sane person dude.

Not go mention that Percy was also a forbidden child, one that typically everyone is wary of. And what does the greek forbidden child that causes chaos and develops friendships with spies and zombies do? He goes in one quest and is immediately granted the position that Octavian has wanted and has been working for for years, which happens to be the same position that Octavian's... Friend (?) had before he literally went missing. Doesn't it sound a bit suspicious when your powerful friend disappears, and a powerful potential enemy with questionable company shows up and steals your friend's job?

What luck, am I right? For a powerful enemy to show up as soon as there's a position of power open that needs to be filled by somebody who has power? Who's to say that Nico, who was later on proven to be a spy, wasn't send there by Percy? Who's to say Percy wasn't the one to kidnap and maybe even kill Jason, so that the position of the praetor would be open for him to take, and then allow Greeks into the camp so that they can destroy it and win this endless, centuries old war between Romans and Greeks?

And isn't that exactly what Percy ended up doing? He was granted praetorship, allowed Greeks into that camp on a heavily weaponed, flying warship, and they ended up blowing up part of the camp!

And what excuse do they give him for that? "This dude you don't know and don't trust and has built this warship got possessed by a ghost who we claim is rising but have no real, solid proof to support this claim. But she is rising and she did posses Leo, he didn't want to do it, he's a good guy that just happened to walk into your property with a huge weapon and blew up your house by accident. Despite all you've ever been taught about Greeks and despite that all the history books have told you about how much they hate you, and despite the extremely suspicious circumstances surrounding the situation, and despite blowing up your home, Greeks actually love you and want to work with you. Trust me bro." And this was coming from the dude that was friends with a literal spy that lied and kept secrets from everyone.

You know guys, you're right, I'm starting to see why all of you hate Octavian so much. He's being so unreasonable and overreacting over such small things. 😐 /sarcasm.

And then you were all upset that he gathered an army to go to war against the people that threw bombs in his house to defend himself.

Octavian was a dick, that's out of the question. He manipulated and blackmailed people. But the only thing he did that crossed the line of "dick" and entered "villain" territory was being the primary suspect for Gwen's murder. And she didn't even stay dead, so even that is not that bad.

This proven.

And for scientific reasons, I want to see if I actually convinced anyone.

[lookslikethatsallthetimewehave]

Mya could've turned out exactly like Octavian if she didn't have a support system, which makes me wonder…

If Octavian had actual family and friends like Mya, would he not have turned out how he did?

One of the themes of the story is that “You're only as good as the people next to you”.

If Jorge's former friends hadn't abandoned him, he would've turned into a jerk.

If Oliver's father hadn't abandoned him and his mother, their family life and mental state would've gone down the drain.

If Jonas didn't have the trio with him, he would've killed Octavian in revenge. 

And if Mya didn't have her new family and friends, she might not have fully recovered from her depression over losing her mother. 

Octavian… probably didn't have anyone. Idk whether or not the Protectors were raised in the Society, or recruited… or what (the way they act heavily suggests some type of indoctrination), but it sure doesn't seem to be familial-like. 

Jonas does see Spencer Albright as a father-figure, although I'm not 100% sure if Albright sees Jonas as a son.

Well, anyway, Paulla and her family were probably Octavian's first and only real family. 

[cardboardboxy]

Octavian is badly written compared Luke

Here's why :)

For Luke, we understand why and how he is lead to betraying the camp. He grows up with a severely mentally ill (and abusive) mother who ended up like that because of the gods (I'm not certain as to whether or not luke knows the whole truth about this) he was neglected by his father and forced to become homeless

While homeless he had to fight for his and his friends lives daily against monsters, as well as the typical aspects of homelessness such as dehydration, starvation, hypothermia, illness etc. Then one of those friends dies and with the help of her father, who is also neglectful, becomes a tree, rather then him helping sooner and saving her life (yes thalia does come back but he doesn't know that at this point). All under the age of 16

Then he has to watch as more and more children pile up in the hermes cabin due to their neglectful parents, and when he becomes the head of the cabin he has to help and guide those children, essentially taking on a parental role

After a few years of that/during that (its not specified i dont think) he starts getting groomed by an essentially all powerful being to rebel against the neglectful parents and is promised a better future

Despite all the reasons he has to believe kronos and be behind his cause, luke still starts questioning and fighting against kronos to delay him as much as possible, and eventually overcomes kronos, manages to fully stop his plans and he gets the neglected parents to stop being as neglectful (because the gods wouldn't've made the promise if it werent for luke)

Octavian is just potentially manipulated by gaea/truimvirate, which don't get me wrong is still bad but we dont get any insight as to how this happened or whether or not its actually true

Both luke and octavian did bad things, this is absolutely not up for debate and not defendable, but the way they went about those bad things is very different

Luke killed as a means to an end, if anyone got in his way he'd cut them down both literally and metaphorically. He'd openly ridicule the people who worked for him and he manipulated people to turn against their friends and join his cause

Octavian was planning on slaughtering an entire camp of children and giving them no chance to surrender. He employed the help of people he knew were morally corrupt to both assist in the murder of said children and to capture (and kill) his former colleagues who were also children. He tried to actively prevent world saving actions because it went against a law that was put in place for the individuals safety, not for moral reasons. Plus the only reason he was even able to do all of that was because he bribed and manipulated his way into a position of power

Just to be clear, octavian is badly written compared to luke if we're to believe octavian isn't a completely bad person. I have nothing against antagonists that are just bad people but octavian isn't held that way by the fandom

This concludes my yap session👍

[ilovewillsolace]

I think a lot about the fact that despite all Rick's attempts to ridicule and humiliate Octavian for his femininity, he was trained in the wolf house, absolutely not the place where money or connections could help, which Rick often uses to show Octavian's "weakness" or "dishonesty". in addition, Lupa selects not only strong, but also worthy of being legionnaires, so Octavian simply cannot be as bad as Rick is trying to expose him.

[sugar-r-rush]

I'm going insane I cannot express how well you write, like I get so intrigued It's crazy

Who supported Octavian?

Looking for more? Here's my master list of Octavian analysis.

We know that Octavian had enough support in the legion concievably get elected praetor. Then, enough support to force Reyna's hand and pursue the Seven.

But it's never state who those people are (except Michael). So I've decided to go through and see if I can work out some possible supporters.

Let's start with minor characters:

Likely Supporters

Lynda, legionary, Second Cohort; chatterbox

Carl, legionary, 2nd or 3rd

Reza, legionary, 2nd or 3rd

Marcus, legionary, unknown; possibly a spy for Nero, old friend of Jason

Ida, senator & centurion, Second Cohort; kinda haughty, isn't impressed by Apollo showing up in Camp Jupiter

Likely Against Octavian

Bobby, legionary, likely Fifth Cohort

Thomas, legionary, Fifth Cohort

Gwen, centurion, Fifth Cohort; can be assumed to not support Octavian

Colum, legionary, unknown, seems to be loyal to Frank

Jacob, standard bearer, Fifth Cohort; may or may not support Octavian, since he's a member of the Fifth, I say "not"

Leila, centurion, Fourth Cohort; very anti-Octavian

Michael Kahale - Supporter

Duh.

Michael is an easy one. He's introduced in Blood of Olympus but he's probably one of Octavian's "bodyguards" prior to that. He's centurion of the First and Reyna describes him as "very loyal". Octavian is also his sponsor (a translation of "patron" I'm assuming).

Larry & Hank - Supporters

Larry: Second Cohort, Senator & Centurion | Later: Third Cohort, Senator

Hank: Third Cohort, Senator & Centurion

I'll mention these two together. In Son of Neptune, they are seated next each other at the Senate meeting. Hank raises an objection about the Fifth Cohort taking on the quest.

Larry then seconds the comment. It's possible, even likely, that Octavian prepped them both beforehand. They are acting in accordance to Octavian's agenda. See my theory regarding that.

We see nothing of Hank post this point, and it's possible he died at Camp Half Blood. Or against the zombie army.

As for Larry, his position is interesting. When we see him again in Tyrant's Tomb, he's still a Senator, but he's now a member of the Third Cohort.

A different senator raised his hand. 'Uh, Senator Larry here, Third Cohort, son of Mercury. [...]"

It’s possible Reyna redistributed Octavian’s supporters into the various Cohorts to reduce their strength and allegiance. Legionaries still listen to his commands. This either means that he's now centurion of the Third Cohort or, possibly, he simply still has their loyalty.

Meg stumbled to my side, breathing hard, her swords glistening with monster goo. “Hey, Larry. How’s it going?”

“Terrible!” Larry sounded delighted. “Carl, Reza—escort these two to Praetor Zhang immediately.”

“YESSIR!” Our escorts hustled us off toward the Caldecott Tunnel, while behind us, Larry called his troops back to action: “Come on, legionnaires! We’ve drilled for this. We’ve got this!” [The Tyrant’s Tomb]

He calls himself "Senator Larry", not "centurion". And while he can be striped of his centurion position during the transfer. He can't be stripe of his position of Senator, since it's an elected post. And senators hold the role for a year.

[side note: he seems to be pretty gleeful when it comes to battle - so he wouldn't be against the war]

There's another point:

[Larry speaking] "So, when you say help, do you mean like ... battalions of gods charging down here in their chariots, or more like the gods just giving us their blessing, like, Hey, good luck with that, legion!?' [The Tyrant’s Tomb]

I’m going to take the word ‘blessing’ and run with it. Octavian was given Apollo’s ‘blessing’ and ended up dying. So Larry is very hesitant to support Apollo here. He's been there, done that.

[Remember Frank also got a blessing, from Mars, but Larry's doubt aligns more with Octavian's failure]

Dakota - Neutral

Dakota is an interesting one. I think he's ultimately neutral and has loyal to both Octavian and Reyna. Note, just because he might support Octavian doesn't mean they necessarily he didn't support Reyna. The two of them are ostensibly working together, and its only right at the end of Blood of Olympus when the legionaries have to choose one or the other. (Obviously Dakota chooses Reyna)

“I was just lucky to find Hazel… in New Orleans, I mean.”

Dakota grunted. “Unless you believe the rumours. Not saying that I do.”

“Rumours?” Percy asked. [Son of Neptune]

Here: Dakota has heard the rumours, the same ones related to Octavian’s blackmail. He even brings them up.

Dakota is then seen fighting against the Seven in Mark of Athena. He is mentioned by name - which is important. It means he's an active participant in this scenario, rather than a by-stander. He's dispatched rather easily.

Jason stood about fifty yards away, sword-fighting with a stocky centurion whoe lips were stained cherry red, like blood. A wannabe vampire, or maybe a KoolAid freak?

As Annabeth watched, Jason yelled, "Sorry about this, Dakota!"

Onto Blood of Olympus,

“We are at war,” Michael said. “We have to pull together. Dakota and Leila have not been the most enthusiastic supporters. Octavian have them this one last chance to prove themselves. If they help me bring you in – preferably alive, but dead if necessary – then they keep their rank and prove their loyalty.” [BOO]

This reasoning seems odd to me. Octavian might have sent them because he believed Reyna would respond to them to best. Reyna seems to have a good opinion of all three emissaries. But he also had to be under the belief that at least 2 out of 3 of them would be loyal enough to bring Reyna back to the legion. To actually try and sway her. Octavian knows Reyna's influence.

And while Leila is firmly in the anti-Octavian camp. I don't think Dakota necessarily was.

“Yeah.” Dakota nodded vigorously. “The legion’s not nearly as united as Michael claimed. We don’t trust all the auxilia forces Octavian has gathered.” [Blood of Olympus]

From the perspective of Dakota, he needs to show his loyalty to Reyna. He has just betrayed Octavian, who he has been supporting on the front lines previously (Mark of Athena). He must convince Reyna that he has been "on her side" since the beginning.

But, we can see that Dakota isn’t actually fully onboard a little later...

“We’ll need a distraction,” Reyna said. “Something to delay the attack on Camp Half-Blood and preferably put those weapons out of commission. Dakota, Leila, will your cohorts follow you?”

“I – I think so, yes,” Dakota said. “But if we ask them to commit treason–”

“It isn’t treason,” Leila said. “Not if we’re acting on direct orders from our praetor. And Reyna is still praetor.” [Blood of Olympus]

Dakota is still thinking in a way that shows he’s loyal to both sides. He’s chosen to follow Reyna, but unlike Leila, he’s not all in.

“Alright, but I’m not hurting any of my fellow legionnaires.”

“No one’s asking you to,” Nico growled. “But if we don’t stop this war the entire legion will be wiped out. You said the monster tribes take insult easily?” [Blood of Olympus]

Dakota and Nico are actually arguing over this. I believe Dakota includes Octavian in this ‘fellow legionnaires’.

But also, Dakota and Leila’s actions directly result in the deaths of several members of their cohorts. Recall, Octavian’s plans involved no Roman deaths. And we know that the monsters aren’t actually that bad.

So I can’t help but think, post the battle, Dakota felt guilty about his actions yet couldn’t air that. Not that he wanted the Greeks to die, but did he do the right thing? Could he have avoided those deaths somehow?

I believe Dakota didn’t intend for Octavian to die in the battle. He included Octavian in his "my fellow legionnaires". But Octavian ended up dying. And Nico was there. The person Dakota trusted with the other side of the plan.

Finally, Dakota, long-time centurion of the Fifth Legion, had died overnight from wounds he received fighting in the city.

Dakota served a long time as centurion. He likely remembered a time when Jason, Reyna and Octavian worked together as allies and friends.

So, for me, Dakota is a character who was suddenly thrust into a messy divorce between Reyna and Octavian, not knowing which side to take. Feeling guilty regardless. And later succumbing to an addiction as a coping mechanism.

Summary

Anyway, outside of the "neutral" Dakota. Octavian seems to have had the First, Second, and Third Cohorts in his pocket. Our main characters hail from the Fifth, so we get their perspective, which is one of hatred and distrust. But for at least half the legion, Octavian is someone they are willing to back.

[We obviously don't know their motivations for doing this]

[Editted: Turns out in the UK it's "fruit punch" and the US it's "Kool-Aid". Apparently the Son of Neptune version I have uses the American version, while my library's copy of Tyrant's Tomb is for the UK. The curse of being Australian lol]

[ruegarding]

for context, @rosabell14 is referring to tags on this post.

ok we're going off-road w this one

generally speaking, i like the concept of "some things aren't meant to be controlled," which annabeth says to percy after he controls the poison. this is said and then immediately forgotten abt, however, this could be another angle of change, a reoccurring theme in hoo, as well as a continued theme from pjo.

obviously, from pjo, the change is addressed w the myths, the theme of yielding, and w the conclusion of the story:

hoo continues this concept of change w the percy-jason switch, the greek-roman conflict, the idea of what an identity is and how to change it, etc. there's a lot of individual character work w this idea, but there's less of a mythological concept attached to it. gaea is a static and flatly written antagonist, octavian becomes incredibly flat as a character and his development into this sort of fanatical antagonist that is never explored, there's a lot of teeth-gritting abt how the gods are gods and they never change and everyone just has to accept it, the myths aren't challenged in the same way they were in pjo, etc. there's a few major exceptions, i'll get to that.

this is a glaring issue i have w hoo. it wouldn't be as bad as a standalone, but hoo makes the entirety of the previous series meaningless. in tlo, percy asks for kids to get claimed and be trained so when (or if) they have to go on dangerous quests/fight monsters/etc they're both older and more experienced. this is the conclusion to the war and how the status quo is changed (disability accommodations expanded to reach more ppl and work more effectively).

hoo, however, does not do this. camp jupiter infamously has a child army while the adults are retired, all of the new characters are younger than percy (who is still 16), and only two of them have spent a long period of time training, although hazel's isn't formal/in a camp (and piper doesn't even learn how to fight until book four ffs). this sort of immediately bastardizes pjo in a way that is never acknowledge by the series and makes it, and anything after it, a failure as a continuation of pjo.

and that's where this theme could've come in. when bob is remembering who he is, him and percy have this back-and-forth abt identity. percy relates to bob bc he, too, just had his memory erased and that vulnerability exploited (annabeth's perspective in this conversation is very different bc she doesn't have this same experience nor does she understand percy's feelings abt it. a good way to build tension using different povs, but, once again, doesn't get fully utilized). in the conclusion that conversation, there's an interesting moment:

this is that idea again, "some things aren't meant to be controlled," like fate, like identity. titans are meant to "be the same...forever." and here percy is, not only as the catalyst for change by throwing bob into the river lethe, but also by encouraging him to commit to this change once bob should know better. this was percy's role in the previous series, as well, where he constantly challenges the perspective of other characters to be more quote human unquote.

afterwards, annabeth has a similar moment w damasen:

i also think these are very funny to have side-by-side, just as character analysis, bc percy is very much both insecure and empathetic like u can choose ur future, it's up to u, etc, whereas annabeth is like i am right, listen to me.

anyway, both of these moments repeat the idea from pjo/tlo: immortals can't change. but they are changing. and they will change. the rules of the world are malleable (i also think hazel's monologue abt seeing the minotaur as a victim would be another aspect of this to explore). what abt traditions? what abt camp jupiter's child army? how should these change? going back to the og thought, tho, what shouldn't change? what are the "some things" that aren't meant to be controlled? how do you balance traditions and reform (great opportunity to use octavian btw!)? why can't a god be human, act human? why are the ancient rules important? that's an important discussion to have if we're growing this universe.

i don't particularly like that hoo immediately reverts back w the premise of the story, like i was talking abt earlier, nor do i think these characters were introduced or used well in canon, but using these characters, these moments, these conversations, rick could've salvaged this mess by embracing change isn't a static thing. he doesn't, tho, so it's all lost potential.

separately, something i've always liked abt the akhlys fight is that percy wins the literal, physical fight against her, but loses the metaphorical fight. he gets to walk away, but he walks away miserable. and this is bc the gods aren't ppl, they're physical representations of concepts. and percy has this thought abt tartarus and gaea while in tartarus, and i believe it's brought up in boo, but it's barely relevant. it's something i wish was explored more.

now onto specific characters. i talk abt my general idea here, ie this moment in tartarus is forcing percy and annabeth to confront their worst-case scenarios.

for annabeth, i've repeatedly gone on record to say i hate the way annabeth is written in hoo, here is an example, ie her fatal flaw does not come thru in her character (i also think she and percy switched characterizations from pjo to hoo, but...). separate issue is that annabeth's character revolves around percy a lot. so there are two issues i would focus on, largely bc she's not written well and doesn't have established unique conflicts. like,

this is a big revelation at the end of hoh, that she has to "step back" and she can't "protect everyone she love[s]." except it doesn't make any sense. tlo ended w annabeth telling percy to give luke her knife which luke uses to kill himself. not to mention, thalia's sacrifice on hbh. ALSO. percy accepting the prophecy and "taking the brunt of the danger"! and finally. annabeth has been at camp for 7-8 years. 1) she should have relationships w these ppl and 2) she should care that some of the ogs died in the previous war (which would also require rick to figure out who died lol). but the point is, this isn't a new conflict for annabeth!

the thought she had in moa abt having to accept she's not always the best person for the job:

this is not built up nor is it delivered on, but would be interesting, given that she demanded to be on the quest and if there was an actual power struggle instead of writing her as the de facto leader. this would be a better conflict than accepting that "she couldn't protect everyone she loved" when she has historically not been able to protect everyone she loved.

anyway, back on topic.

first, this moment exists to challenge her perception of percy, which is important to challenge bc she quite frankly has an unhealthy attachment to him. other ppl have said this better than i, so here's a post abt codependency and p*rcabeth and here's another one i rbed a while ago.

tldr; rick treats annabeth's abandonment issues/possessiveness/codependency as like. cute, peak romance. and he's been doing this since pjo, right, like annabeth's abandonment issues and possessiveness didn't matter when it was thalia joining the hunters,—bc there's no romance trope here w thalia—but gods forbid percy speak to rachel.

and this doesn't change in hoo. in fact, it's worse. like,

i'm going to [statement redacted] rick for this. what part of this is cute??? i'm killing it with fire.

so anyway, i want to treat annabeth's possessiveness/etc as an actual, consistent, character flaw, that she can grow out of, even. maybe even connect it to her hubris or her rsd. explore her feelings abt luke now that we have her pov to do it in. the fallout from this moment w akhlys is a great way to begin delving into that bc it's a shocking moment for her.

second, and going back to the theme of change, annabeth is different from percy in the sense that she has a different relationship to the gods than him (which i'm comparing bc i think rick (and fandom) has a hard time giving these two consistent and separate personalities/beliefs post pjo). the two times she has rebelled against the gods directly were bc of percy's influence (again, this is percy's role in pjo), 1) in the zoo truck, a scene that only takes place bc percy challenged her view of the poseidon-athena rivalry and their place in it, and 2) w hera where the first words out of annabeth's mouth are literally "percy is right."

i find this interesting especially bc her fatal flaw is hubris, which is common in mythology and frequently ends up fatal bc ppl challenge the gods. so, annabeth using the gods and these stories to keep her hubris in check makes complete sense.

and it seems like this is the same approach she's using w percy:

percy is directly challenging a god for power, and more than that, he's challenging a domain he's not supposed to have control of at all.

very interesting! does not get explored. such is common for hoo.

for percy, this scene is part of a long-running conversation of his powers (which is a huge part of his disability coding!!!!!). and it doesn't go anywhere.

percy has established anger issues and implied emotional dysregulation. this has been a thing since the beginning, literally chapter one of tlt! punishing percy for this when he's clearly not getting the support he needs is. a choice. also there's the issue that hoo kinda. erases this aspect of percy's character until the confrontation w akhlys, which is a separate but related issue.

there really should've been more buildup to this outburst (eg: in son percy punches a shelf in the library and immediately feels guilty bc he scares frank and hazel. percy is in an incredibly stressful situation; this should've happened more), but that would mean rick would treat it and the disability conversation seriously (which falls flat after son) and do less teeth-gritting abt the whole gods thing.

so, to go back on my "using the different povs to build tension was wildly underutilized" train, a featured part of almost everyone's pov is that percy is very kind, and gentle, and forgiving. i discuss a moment w frank being impressed w percy's selflessness here and he also says that he would follow percy anywhere, jason says percy is "a nice guy" after like 2 days, nico has his whole thing, hazel says "percy was a child of poseidon’s better nature," going on to describe him as gentle, etc.

and all of this praise goes nowhere and kinda just becomes percy is so awesome...and then turns into everything is percy's fault in boo...it's bad writing.

but it's an interesting opportunity to play w perspective. percy in pjo is dehumanized in that he is both villainized and idolized, and obviously hoo is continuing the trend w idolization. rick sets up a great plotline w this in moa:

and this doesn't go anywhere bc apparently percy's problem is that he needs to learn to step back. which. part of this is bc rick recycled plotlines from percy and gave them to other characters, which means that percy cannot be in character anymore without making themlook bad (the recycled plotlines i'm talking abt are the idolization, imposter syndrome, wanting to step back but constantly pushed into the spotlight, being seen as different/elevated status bc of ur parentage, struggling to connect to who your parent is, even the dehumanization as a weapon is straight out of percy's writing in pjo). this is a big problem w hoo in general ie characters becoming ooc by necessity (see: bad writing). the other part to blame is that rick is literally trying to redo tlo what w the whole "you are not the hero." it's all the same from pjo except written worse. it's a running theme of hoo (and a bonus). bad writing all the way down!

ANYWAY. so pjo ends w percy at an elevated status bc he 1) survived an unsurvivable prophecy, 2) was offered godhood, and 3) turned down godhood to improve the lives of the demigods while all the demigods watched. and he has the curse of achilles but. we all know how that went. the point is, all of this puts percy on a pedestal. i like to think it's the biggest reason hera kidnapped percy: if he said no, if he refused, she would've lost the support of almost all the demigods at chb (also the metaphor for the audience lol). i think making percy go on the quest, or at least to new rome, is the only good bit of world building rick did between books.

the problem is, rick is kinda all over the place w how percy is perceived and misses both the point of percy's character (callback to what i said abt his disability) and the world building of the previous series (what happened to power-scaling, narrative consequence, etc fr). that's what creates the flip-flopping "percy is perfect" and "everything is percy's fault," and neither are particularly good reads.

going back to annabeth, i don't think she's an exception in idolizing percy. she has no reason to see percy's vindictive side bc he works hard to hide it. even w crusty, annabeth is preoccupied. annabeth is smart, she's not omniscient. instead, there's the famous "percy is too nice" from som. i also like to think this is why she keeps trying to talk to percy abt luke as if luke is a good person who didn't try to kill percy. she doesn't understand that percy would hate luke for betraying him bc why would he? percy is a good person.

(for the record, i think the exceptions are: 1) grover, who chooses not to bring it up w the exception of his nemesis comment in tlt, 2) rachel, who made a painting where percy's "expression in the picture was fierce—disturbing, even—so it was hard to tell if I was the good guy or the bad guy" and simply said that's how he looked, and 3) arguably nico—considering percy has attacked him before—but i do think "very [dangerous]. to his enemies." does a good job of capturing that, it just doesn't go anywhere).

so, to condense all of this, ppl are idolizing percy in terms of both strength and morals and percy feels stifled by this knowing that he is not as strong or good as ppl think (and also by the fault that he was demonized prior and has corresponding low self-esteem bc of that lol). keep this in mind, i'm changing the topic.

in botl, percy's torture scene is used primarily to set up how powerful he is. he can cause an eruption that necessitates the evacuation of thousands of ppl and wake the biggest threat in greek mythos, but he would never know that if he wasn't back into a corner. bc that's not who he is. he shies away from power and titles. he wins his fights w strategy and very rarely relies on his powers to overpower his opponents.

just to clarify, i categorize percy's powers in two sorts of ways: involuntary and voluntary. involuntary is like speaking to sea creatures, healing in water, things that don't require a lot of energy/effort/focus. he's not scared of this. he's wary of the voluntary, powerful explosions, the things that set him apart from his peers. that's what i'm referring to in this section.

so, percy has to come to terms w the fact that he 1) blew up a mountain, 2) survived blowing up a mountain, and 3) woke typhon. and what does he say immediately after that?

he immediately deflects! he wasn't in control, it wasn't him that's powerful, it was an accident, and besides, he can't do it again bc he almost died. and what's even more interesting is the only time he uses his powers after this (in botl) is when grover asks him to stop the fire in the woods.

so, what lesson did percy actually take from mt saint helens? that he's dangerous. very interesting to use this teaching moment and have the protagonist come to the quote wrong unquote conclusion.

in hoh, we don't have a purpose for the torture scene. there's no significance to confronting how powerful percy is. percy is not addressing his self-sacrificing tendencies nor his propensity for bottling his emotions up. there's no questioning of p*rcabeth's relationship. there's no questioning of the gods. it's a cool scene w no narrative purpose.

so, take two. what is percy supposed to be learning from akhlys? how do we relate this to percy taking the wrong lesson from mt st helens?

at the end of botl, nico comes up w the river styx plan and percy takes almost a full year to agree to it. how much further ahead in the war would they have been if percy had accepted the curse sooner? how many fights could percy have won faster if he used his powers? if he trained his powers? if he trusted his powers?

there's a really interesting comparison w phorcys and akhyls where percy doesn't attempt to fight phorcys bc he assumes he won't be able to overpower him,

but w akhyls he tries anyway,

bc he's backed against a corner. and he succeeds.

percy is a character who very much embodies duality. i've talked abt this before wrt his loyalty being both his greatest strength and greatest weakness and how it clashes w his desire for freedom, but it's true for almost every trait. he's honest and manipulative. he's ruthless and merciful. he's kind and violent. he's looked up to and looked down upon. he's the saint and the scapegoat. etc etc. and percy responds to this by frequently trying to deny his quote worse unquote traits until they eventually bubble up and explode out of him. this is part of why juno calls him a loose-canon (which btw, i love. everyone has been treating him as a loose canon and no one on this side has the balls to say it until then, seven books in).

all this to say, *ethan voice* it's abt balance! this moment should've been abt percy confronting his unfair treatment! the idolization from his peers! the demonization of his flaws/disability!

thanks for coming to my tedtalk.

[lookslikethatsallthetimewehave]

"Secrets of Poptropica"? Don't you mean... just where each island is...?

Octavian with the dodos in the book:

Octavian with the dodos in the game:

So weak XD

I know the reason why they nerfed him in the game was in order to incorporate the player character into the story, but... still.

[lady-menrva]

why the fuck do you hate will solace?? like genuinely asking

Oh anon, I don't hate Will Solace. Hate is an emotion, and I don't want to feel anything for someone who happens to be a butter paper cutout (yeah, that's a classic truth insult).

On a more serious note, no I don't hate Will, because he really isn't worth that much emotion. I'd say I have strong disdain for him, which is for multiple reasons, the primary one being that he isn't just flat and revolves around Nico, but also happens to be poorly written.

Understand it this way: We, as spectators/readers have the liberty and privilege to view the characters and story through two, (and many more) lenses, the primary two being Watsonian (in-universe) and Doylist (outside, real-world perspective of the author).

My main concern is that the two perspectives just don't align, and that makes it even harder to take Will seriously. The Doylist perspective would like you to believe that he's sensitive, thoughtful, responsible; his objectionable remarks serve either of the two purposes:

Expository: as we know, he disclosed sensitive information about Nico's past and PTSD to Lester without the former's consent

Undoubtedly, this serves the Doylist purpose of information to the audience; the bit about PTSD serves to inform the reader.

Humor: His 'anemic loser' comment directed towards Octavian is supposed to be interpreted as humorous.

However, when these actions are viewed from the Watsonian perspective, they directly contradict the Doylist establishments regarding his personality (sensitive, thoughtful and responsible) making it hard to take him seriously as a character.

You can find an excellent analysis detailing Will's obnoxious behaviour (from the Watsonian lens) over here.

[shattered-glasswork]

@octag0n-l0v3r @octaviantheloser @praetorialreject @littlestarbeam @ilikepjo24 @ilovewillsolace @idontneedtherapyihavefanart @itsjustoctavianhere @s0n-ofvenus

do u have those mutuals who are like WAY COOLER THAN U and when they reblog/like ur stuff ur just like 👀💯✔️👀

[starlightshadowsworld]

Concept: Octavian wasn’t his real name but a nickname.

Octavian joined Camp Jupiter as a wide eyed and short tempered 11 year old. He believed himself to be sharper than his peers. And that he didn’t need them to succeed.

One of the Praetor’s at the time, Jules overheard him taunting his fellow 1st cohort legionaries. She was none too pleased and so in the 1st’s next training session, she selected Octavian to fight her.

Octavian was overconfident in his own abilities and was defeated very quickly. With a cutting analysis on his abilities and his place at Camp.

You’d think a humiliating loss like that would have turned him against her.

But it became clear as time went on that Octavian’s strive to improve was built upon earning Jules respect.

Jules was a strategic mind. She was cunning, clever and a strategist that the rest of the legion looked too for guidance.

In short she was everything Octavian wanted to be and more.

He would trail behind her and constantly ask for tips and advice like an eager younger sibling. Yet Jules, despite her cold nature ever sent him away. She always answered,

It was clear she had grown fond of him too.

To the point many joked that the boy might become her successor when she stepped down as Praetor one day.

Hence the nickname.

As Octavian (formerly Augustus) named himself the successor to Julius Caesar.

Unfortunately even for a legacy like her, happy endings are never in the cards. While on a quest, Jules was ambushed by her quest mates and while she fought back valiantly she lost her life.

The traitors were killed and her body was retrieved and buried. Octavian took her death the hardest. After her funeral he discarded his old identity and took on the moniker of Octavian.

He didn’t use his old name nor did he answer to it.

He was Octavian.

Legacy of Apollo.

He would be Jules’s successor.

No matter what it cost.

(Jules is just an oc for this she doesn’t exist in canon btw.)