[Rob B]

Has anybody 'round here at SFFWorld read the Percy Jackson and the Olympians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Jackson_%26_The_Olympians) series by Rick Riordan? I've seen some pretty good things about this million-selling series. The story has Greek Gods in a modern day setting. A movie based upon the books is releasing February 2010 and I'm interested, and like many people, I do sometimes like to take a look at the source material before the adaptation.

Thoughts?

[cgw]

It's YA. Sounds like it would be right up my taste alley. Maybe my son will like the series.

[Roland 85]

A little topic necromancy, but I just reviewed the first book on my blog (http://rolandscodex.blogspot.com/2010/08/percy-jackson-and-theolympians.html), and thought I'd share:

...

The Lightning Thief is a fun and fast-paced read, intensely formulaic and unfortunately a tad too predictable, but still decent. The irreverent way in which Rick Riordan manages to completely bastardize and Americanize Greek mythology is actually quite enjoyable, if one is not naturally irritated by such things (but then one would be missing on a lot of God of War merriment, so one is obviously to be pitied). What's especially nice is the fact that even though the story is lightning-fast (see what I did there?), Riordan still takes time to build some world, and explain how said world works. Another solid point in favor of The Lightning Thief is Percy himself. No cringing-at-authority with this teenager, no worries about grades or whether the potion is going to come out right. No, Percy Jackson speaks his mind, speaks it loud, and in a sarcastic voice. Even when he's all emo and sad, you kind of sympathize, instead of wishing for him to grow a pair and stop whining.

And yet, Percy Jackson and the Olympians is not Harry Potter. That is only natural, after all, I know of only seven books that are. Still, Rick Riordan seems to have missed the point of what actually makes Joan Rowling's series so good. It is not the hidden mystical world concept itself, although that plays a part too. It is the richness of it. The little detail and the big history, and the background. The Lightning Thief doesn't have that. What's more - being based on a non-original concept, it is not only predictable (after all, if you've read the mythology, you simply know how certain characters would react), but it also feels too much like a theme-park. Percy and his friends (yeah, he gets his own Ron and Hermione) travel throughout America and meet various monsters and characters from the Greek myths, but it never feels like a real world. It's like they don't exist outside of guest-starring in his story, like they don't have independent life of their own.

...

[Hellequin]

I thought the series was a fun read. I like Greek mythology though.

The movie was horrible though didn't follow the books at all

[Roland 85]

What do you mean exactly - that it was horrible because it didn't follow the books, or that it was horrible AND it didn't follow the books? Cause if it's the former, you got a BIG flame coming your way :D

I don't know, I just liked it in a non-caring sort of way. Pretty much like the books themselves. Probably will review the second one tomorrow.

[Hellequin]

I'm a huge fan of that genre of movie. So I guess the reason I thought it was horrible is because the storyline was almost completely different than the book and grover's character was nothing like in the book.

I really dislike it when movies do not follow the books. I really want to know what is the purpose of that.

I think if I would've watched the movie before reading the book I might have had a different opinion

[Roland 85]

See, you've hit on a favorite flame-war topic of mine*. The medium of cinema is COMPLETELY different than that of literature. Especially in terms of pacing. A book's story would suck tremendously if put in a movie without any change. Of course, some changes are more unnecessary than others, and some are completely pointless. But the thing is, I'v gotten it out of my system, this expectation to see things in a movie exactly the way they are in the book. It is unhealthy and leads to wrong perceptions as there are some trully great movies that deviate seriously from the original novel (case in point - The Shining or even Lord of the Rings).

Like I said, it's a matter of perception - if you look at the adaptation not as "the book, but with moving pictures", but as "an alternate retelling of the same concept", than you're gonna enjoy a lot more about movie adaptations in general.


*Funny thing with me is that I got a Theory and Opinion about everything. I'm quirky that way.

[KatG]

I'd heard about the books for awhile but hadn't gotten around to reading them. They've been developing a vast kids audience. My family enjoyed the movie and my husband promptly bought and read all the books, which my daughter is at work on and I've read the first book and probably will eventually read the rest. They are written essentially for a middle school/young YA audience and are very similar to Lemony Snickett without the nineteenth century styling. They have a nice bit of satire to them and an inventive way with Greek mythology.

The movie had a hard time of it, trying to get everything basic in and changing material to do so. It was not possible for them to do the summer camp adventure framework of the books, as that was too close to the Harry Potter movies, plus they didn't have the budget for it. But they did the adventure stuff well and I thought Uma Thurman made a pretty good Medusa. The books are not as teen oriented, at least at first, but that makes sense. The movie was trying to draw in a somewhat wider audience. In terms of writing, I would not say that the author is quite as deft as Rowling or Snickett, but definitely is in the Meg Cabot area. They're fun stories and kind of remind me of A Cricket in Times Square, which I greatly liked as a kid.

[Justaquickpost]

I'm rather young, barely fifteen, yet I started reading this series when it was released. The first book is probably the best but all of them are worth reading, the ending of the series kinda sucked in my opinion because it was so... I suppose the phrase would be "Goodie-Goodie".

The author has penned another similar series(Or at least the first book), called the Kane Chronicles, about Egyptian gods instead, and is not just a copy and paste of Percy Jackson but changing the names. The target audience is a little under where I am, but still, it was a nice read after getting over my expectations from Percy Jackson and the Olympians.

[Nausikaa]

I loved this series, it was funny and interesting, and had a lot of Greek mythology in it. Even though it's for a younger audience, I still enjoyed it as much as my younger brother (12) did. The setting worked pretty well, I thought, even if they did have swords etc in a modern setting, the explaination of the "Mist" sort of covered that and it was written well. Very good books, I only wish there had been more (and I was a little dissapointed w/ the ending).

I also started the Kane Chronicles, but I liked Percy Jackson & the Olympians much more. I never really liked either of the main characters, and I kept noticing similarities with the Percy Jackson books that didn't work to me...like the humor, which didn't make sense for Carter, who is supposed to know a lot about Egyption mythology. The mythology in it was my favorite part of the book.

However, I really like mythology, so that may be why I enjoyed these books so much (Percy Jackson). They're fun and are light reading, really great books.