Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-35094745-20180504013804/@comment-5896827-20180901161712

Honestly, this shouldn't even be a debate. I can only assume people are being willfully ignorant. The author literally outrights says, not once, but multiple times that:

Jason isn't coming back. It's a permanent death.

''Jason isn't coming back. It's a permanent death.''

'Jason isn't coming back. It's a permanent death.'

Permanent≠Temporary. Good authors pick and choose every word that goes into their stories. So when a prophecy (which is set in stone) says permanent death, you know the person isn't coming back. Riordan didn't throw in that word because it looked nice. Never before has a prophecy specified it's a permanent death and, in-Universe, it'd be an odd thing to specify. So, we can only assume he did it for the readers, who were starting to lose tension in the story because people kept reviving. How can a reader feel suspense in a story if the biggest threat, death, isn't even permanent and was treated as more of a minor inconvenience? By killing Jason and specifying that it is permanent, Riordan is saying that: ''Look, there's going to be no BS revival this time! There's an actual threat to the heroes. There are real consequences at stake that are permanent.''