Board Thread:Antaeus' Arena: Audience Chamber/@comment-1515612-20170125025036/@comment-24067344-20170130050923

TheViralSorceress wrote: Personally, I admired the way Rick Riordan blended humour and seriousness perfectly in the Percy Jcakson series. His books after that, seem sillier and harder to read.

I disagree. I feel like HOO was a lot more mature, darker and more serious than PJ, with still plenty of humor, but a lot less, considering the darker and edgier tone. The reason why I believe this is because Riordan wasn't afraid to put more adult and mature topics such as Nico's sexuality. To be honest it's rather rare to see this being talked and mentioned in the series w/h care and caution, while at the same time,and not being too preachy. Not only that, but HOO explores and went into deeper and more mature topics such as a hero's morality, if he'd doing the right thing, if he's truly a good person, things that weren't talked much in PJ, or at least not talked a lot like in HOO. I mean, the friendship with Percy, Annabeth, Bob and the giant are one of the most mature and unexpected relationships Riordan has ever done, up there with Nico's and Reyna's relationship, IMO. Talking about Nico and Reyna, they have one of the most humanistic and realistic friendships that Riordan has ever done, so I'm scratching my head and wondering why you think HOO is sillier. I agree the villains are definitely sillier and the ending of BOO being to lighthearted and silly, but besides that I believe HOO was less silly than PJ and took their characters and relationships more seriously. Just my 2 cents.