Untitled

We gotta talk about the un-ignorables that were written into the PJO books. As much as I love the first series.

Starting with Rick making his protagonist disabled, and that protagonist's love interest a "she's just being mean because she likes you" bully who regularly and consistently insults his intelligence and picks on him for symptoms of that disability.

And we all just.... ignored this, for years.

I've lived my whole life, up until like 3 years ago, not knowing I was ADHD, and the amount of bullying, gaslighting, and skepticism I've faced and continue to face for "faking it" or not trying hard enough or being too difficult---never in my life would I fall in love with someone who is all of those things wrapped up in one person, who publically and privately insults my intelligence, and who everyone else in our lives does nothing to stop.

And this is Percabeth. She's bullied him, shown us her insecurities when he does anything better than her in her POV, isolated him from his non-demigod friends because of her raging jealousy that was never atoned for, and drags him around through her idealized adult life while Percy is written to be moon-struck and wholly complicit and happy in being taken advantage of.

Authors dream of the chance to have the level of input Riordan has on his show, the least he could do is attempt to stay neutral and support the direction of the show without shitting on the book that gave him his fame. And there is a way to acknowledge book fans without dismissing or undermining the efforts of all those who put hard work into this show.

They're divine beings. If they can turn into animals, Hades can have a gloriously sapphic fling. Athena can have a demigod kid who swears up and down she has two dads. Especially with it canon that Athena just thought-spawns children into existence.

Heck, even just letting Athena woo a mortal woman. Apollo surely, at some point in history, gifted a little bundle of joy to a mortal man.

PJOTV Annabeth should be blonde--"You're just racist. There's plenty of blonds and in fact, hair color and racial diversity in protagonists is necessary. I'm so sick of the blonde paragon, honestly she's superior in every way now......"

Could also be said about non-fandom issues but that's not what this blog is for.

Like, you don't have to tell me who you are, but if being in the pjo fandom--for or against the show--in your little group brings you so much stress and makes you so angry thinking about "them" -- the people who disagree with you -- and group discussion is dehumanizing rhetoric...

Leave. Just leave.

You can join a new group and not say a damn word about what group you came from. You don't have to bring a fandom rap sheet or resume. Just go. Make a whole throwaway sideblog with no paper trail. See what other communities are out there. Challenge your groupthink. Don't be afraid to state an opinion that is yours, not what's "safe" in a digital landscape where they can't do more than send cruel anons.

Whether it's radical PJO stans who think anyone who even breathes negativity toward Annabeth (book) is a raging misogynist, or Annabeth (show) is that and a racist

Or PJO haters who think they're oh so smart and have lost the plot on anyone who's ambivalent and likes this or that aspect and just wants to enjoy it quietly, who have gone full-Anakin in the us-or-them hatemongering.

Because I'm guilty of it to, in calling Percy an unreliable narrator, when I mean it in "he is a narrator who is unreliable" vs the actual literary device of an Unreliable Narrator.

And there is a difference, and to anyone all up in arms thinking they're arguing the same damn side what's the problem here, I shall explain.

An Unreliable Narrator (using caps here for distinction), the lit device, is a narrator deliberately misleading the audience on behalf of the author to propel a mystery or perpetuate the identity the narrator believes themself to possess.

Meaning, your narrator could be a thief or detective lying by omission to the audience to keep the game of cat-and-mouse going, or a character suffering delusions of grandeur convincing their captive audience that they're amazing until the story reveals otherwise.

Sometimes the character does this knowingly--they're deliberately hiding or skewing information from the audience. Sometimes the character does this unknowingly--they have amnesia or are led to believe information (about the story or themselves) and then feed the audience that same information.

Oftentimes, it's there for humor. Narrator says or believes or insists something that is immediately contradicted by the plot or other characters. It's also there for tragedy, see the aforementioned "delusions of grandeur".

Whatever the case, the Unreliable Narrator is a deliberate and intentional and consistent literary device employed by the author to frame their story.

There is zero basis for this argument in the first five books (we'll get to the squint-and-it's-kind-of-there for HOO in a second).

There is a difference between a character who suffers self-image issues downplaying their intelligence, abilities, importance, what have you, and a true Unreliable Narrator, and that difference lies in how this lit device resolves.

Percy's "unreliability" isn't a plot thread that ever comes to fruition. UN storylines have a moment where the funhouse mirror shatters and the narrator is either forced to see themselves for who they really are, or the story itself gives up the jig. Well-written UNs are also deliberately cued-in by the story, otherwise it ends up looking like the author is pulling story threads and resolutions out of their ass.

We know they're suspect from very early on, even if we don't know the full scope of how or why.

Percy just lacks self confidence, and, presumably, his arc would have been gaining some in a healthy way. He is unreliable, in that how he sees himself appears to be inaccurate to the true unfolding of events, but these moments aren't intended to be more than face-value.

In HOO, because we have a multi-POV story... yes, I can see where the line becomes even blurrier, becuase we have Percy's telling of events occasionally directly contradicted by other characters, but again, this unreliabiltiy is not a subplot. It has no resolution.

They never have confrontations about how Percy's perception of events so severely contradicts the truth that the other Seven argue about it. It never matters.

It might, if his "ha ha my girlfriend is lowkey abusive and I love it" actually built momentum up to him realizing this is bad. Which it doesn't.

So when Percy being an Unreliable Narrator is used to excuse plot holes, yeah, no, it's baseless. His unreliabiltiy solely concerns his self-confidence and perception of his own self-worth, powers, and strength. He'll downplay how brave he was in fighting Medusa, but he doesn't boldface lie to us that he fought Medusa at all.

It does not stretch to encompass other demigods' powers or the events of various subplots.

"I can't write it from the gay character's perspective because I'm not gay and I didn't experience this" hey maybe don't write it at all then

"I really want this to be a surprise, shock value, you know?" hey maybe don't diminish an entire character's massive moment to shock value when real people go through this traumatic experience all the time?

"See now it's kind of shaky but the shock value will take care of any inconsistencies from this retcon, people will love it regardless" hey Mr. Genderbend-a-Pegasus-because-I-can't-read-my-own-books, maybe you are wrong about this and should make it less shaky, or not write it at all

"Now I'm still jacking off to my main straight ship so this will remain tragically unrequited lest the queer audience that I just baited get ideas" man, that's just cruel, and pointless. So maybe you just shouldn't write it anyway

"See, see, now I have the power and money to make a gay character and stop ignoring all the gayness dripping from Greek myths" buddy you had the power and money to properly thread this through the first four books of HOO properly, and you chose shock value over actual, deep, nuanced representation of internalized homophobia and growth

Problems like Annabeth's playful and immature traits when she was white now replaced with serious, no-fun, "Strong Female Character" now that she's black.

Like you can absolutely think "hey man I just want to turn my brain off". Taking the step that insists that because you don't want to think about these issues means that they're not there how dare you is where we have problems.

I'm happy to be bygones and yet you keep inviting yourselves into #pjocrit and #rrcrit and #antipjoshow posts to pick a fight.