Harry vs. Percy

I finished reading the first Percy Jackson book by Rick Riordan last night. (The Lightning Thief) While I thought some of the ideas were new and interesting...it really (REALLY) isn't the next Harry Potter.

For one, he used first person to tell Percy's story. FIRST PERSON?! Please. 3rd person is the norm (am I right?) for children's fiction for a reason. Percy's story was stopping and starting and I had to keep reminding myself that Percy was young and not a late teen or even an adult.

I think third person would have been a better choice, for the above reasons. It would have moved the story further faster, and it would have kept the voice of the author, who can be however old they choose without confusing the age of the main character.

I applaud Rick Riordan's ideas and I'm going to give the second book a go, but honestly, I can't see what the hype is all about.

It's an...interesting story. Or at least, it has that potential. Time will tell if it continues and grows into something more epic.

I kind of wish Rick had picked another name besides "Half-Blood" for the demi-gods. (And what's wrong with demi-gods?) That's not original. Rowling made up words that ended up in our DICTIONARIES. That's revolutionary.

And I know, not everyone can be revolutionary. But there are quite a few things Rick could have done to make his books better - I mean, he's got the whole pantheon at his fingertips! RE. INVENT.

Slower editing might have helped him, which is why I'm so determined to let Violet's Monster: Volume I go through several, several, several drafts before it's even ready to see an agent, much less a publisher.

Even Rowling suffered from quick edits. (And Meyer DEFINITELY suffered from a severe lack of editorial eyes)

I guess what I'm really trying to say is:

Percy ain't no Harry.