Let's be honest, there's plenty of similarities between the books. There are of course plenty of differences and no one is going to accuse Riordan of stealing Rowling's work (Or even Vice Versa).

• Even the protagonists look alike, black hair, green eyes (Though Riordan does justify it by explaining they're traits of the sea).

• There's a trio of friends (Though in Percy Jackson the trio shows up less and less together and the use of a trio is explained as being important to Greek mythology).

• A smart friend who could be a romantic interest (Didn't happen like that in Harry Potter of course).

• A male friend who is not quite as...something (Heroic?) as the protagonist but still loyal, relatable and a source of comic relief (Ron's loyalty has shown to waver though).
• Being introduced to a magical place at a young age (I think Percy was even 11 at the time as wll).

I could go on listing more similarities but most of them are the kind that are typical for a YA book or even a fairytale (Prophecy, wise old mentor, etc.).

The main difference I think is the protagonists (Not physically obviously). Percy takes a more proactive approach while for the majority of the series Harry takes a reactive one. Also, Percy is more the image of what a "Hero" should be while Harry is more the average guy stumbling onto tings (Something which I should note was done intentionally by Rowling) yet somehow I find Percy more relatable though this might be due to his series being written in First Person POV which also allowed for more funny moments.

What do you guys think? What did the HP series do well, what did the PJ series do wrong and vice versa? Which did you prefer more? An obvious question seeing which website we're on but I actually like Percy Jackson more.

Also, and this might be a bit controversial, how does the Percy/Annabeth relationship compared to how a Harry/Hermione relationship would have been?

 

I really like PJO, but every subsequent novel by Riordan just feels like he's recycling the same ideas just because people buy them (Especially with all the different pantheons of ancient civilisations). I stopped reading after Mark of Athena. I think I would have preferred it if the Percy Jackson Series ended after The Last Olympian.

 

Yeah, same for me. I used to reserve every PJO book in advance. I didn't even realise Lost Hero existed until I alked past a poster in WHSmith. I was really underwhelmed by the new series since it detracts from the simplicity that was PJO. HOE is much more complex (Which in this case isn't actually a good thing) and unlike PJO the romance seems quite forced.

 

Technically HP is the better series but I enjoyed PJO a lot more. One of the reasons is how well Riordan uses satire and another being that Percy is the most interesting character in the series making it easy to root for him. The same can't be said for Harry.
And yes the romance is enjoyable even if it is cliched.

 

Percy Jackson was once a very good series, but after the 3rd book in the HoO series, it just got plain boring

 

The thing about cliches is that as long as they're writte well and enjoyable, I don't really complain about it. I saw PJs and ACs romance as kind of a parallel of sorts to Romeo and Juliet (The whole rivaling families thing). I know, it's a bit of a stretch and I don't even like Romeo and Juliet (Quite the opposite in fact).

And I know this is gonna sounds sexist but: It says something that the male writer is able to write romance better than the female one. Don't kill me, women of DLP.

I don't consider HoO as part of the PJO series; I think of it as a completely seperate one like Doctor Who and Sarah Jane Adventures (Though I like both DW and SJA). It helps me to sleep better at night.

Another thing I particularly dislike is the PJO movies. When I saw Chris Columbus was directing the first one, I was cheering because of how close to canon Philospher's Stone was. After watching it, for a few seconds, I seriusly thought that someone had paid Columbus to sabotage the movie.

 

Both series are pretty good but I dont think they are that alike since in PJ they actually travel in the "muggle" world.

 

You should not forget.

Rachel the redhead!


Thank god, Sally wasn´t a readhead. :fire

 

They share a target audience and arch-plot format. I agree with Plotless when s/he mentioned the definite quality drop from PJO to HoO from the third book on.

More similarities:
-both dream of their arch-nemesis
-end in epic end-all final battles
-both magical places (camp and hogwarts) sustain heavy damage before battle ends
-Contain prospects and "chosen ones"
-Both heros have a pre-battle globe-trotting expedition/journey in order to obtain the items of their evil's weakness.
-Ultimatly, neither hero destroyed their Vilian alone.

On the romance front, perhaps it's not who writes romance better but who focuses on romance more. In HP, the readers focus is centered around Voldemort while in PJO, Kronos takes a less prominent role. Harry's relationship to Voldemort is much more personal than Kronos is to Percy. JK Rowling uses Voldemort to bring Harry into conflicts while Rick Riordan uses the people around Percy to draw Percy into the fray so it makes sense that he would focus more on the interpersonal interactions. (Not To say that Jo doesn't)


Anyways, back to my original point, I agree that had JK Rowling spent a bit more time and effort to properly write the romance in HP than fans wouldn't feel the dissatisfaction/apathy that applies to most cannon relationships. (Thus making it easier to root for "percabeth" rather than "hinny") However, I see the lack of romance as a pro.

PJO is great for a middle-school appropriate laugh while still delivering on deeper meanings and good characters.

To answer the main prompt: PJO measures up brilliantly to HP, if less flexable in its target audience.
(...Now if only Rick would also take a break from writing...)

 

Timeturn098 hits it bang on, it comes down to target audience. They are aimed at the same rough group of readers, which isn't us, and thus has to use the same limited set of tropes to appeal to them. There are many more books out there that are roughly similar to both of these series, that just haven't had quite the same level of success.

 

Personally, I enjoy both series equally. I do think one difference that cb902 pointed out is how PJO places an (albeit small) focus on how their world interacts with the "ordinary" world, whilst HP seems almost divorced from that aspect.

 

Yeah, Riordan pretty much shot himself in the foot with that. Whenever someone says that there should be another HP book I use HoO as an example for why that is a terrible idea.

But one of the things that I did like about the romance in Percy Jackson (At least the first series) is that there were very few scenes dedicated entirely to romance. There wasalways something else happening to keep our attention focused.

 

I have to say that JK's writing and worldbuilding, specially in the first 4 books is miles above Riordan's, who even though he already got 70% from his worldbuilding from other sources, still can't measure up. (fun fact, if I'm not mistaken, Brazil was the only country that the Percy Jackson book got seriously huge)

The original series? Each book got better and better, specially as a coming of age story. I think it's funny, the more Riordan focused on the characters, the better it got, the more JK focused on Harry and forgot about the world she built, the less I enjoyed.

The HoO series is quite boring, and I dislike all of the new PoVs, specially Jason who is so bland I used to forgot he even existed, while Piper, Hazel, Frank and the other kid felt... very whiny and self-centered. Kudos for realism I guss?

Riordan's books aren't something I will enjoy my entire life, they are great for middle schoolers and some high schoolers, and as I get older, the less I enjoy them. Not so true for the HP books.

Although I do wish that JK had the same care with romance that Riordan had on the first series, make something sweet and natural.

 

I actually enjoyed the HoO series quite a bit, thouh the series was best when focused in Percy. Jason always came off as a bit of a douche. Annabeth was less annoying in HoO so that was a plus.

If you want to consider God's of Asgard in this discussion I think it'a a point in Riordan's favour, though if baffles me to think how he's going to pull off cramming the stories into the same universe.

As to how the series compares to HP? It doesn't. They're not even in the same league.

 

There definitely are a lot of parallels, but I think that might be due to tropes of the genre, and not one copying directly from the other. Potential romantic interests in the form of close friends appear quite often in YA books (at least in my experience), characters to contrast against the main character often appear, and since the genre is basically "Young Adult Fantasy", a lot of the common features are typical.

I like how Riordan transferred existing mythology to a modern-day world (albeit quite removed from the mortal world), and conjured up scenarios that they fit (and disguised some mythological creatures as certain human stereotypes). I definitely agree that first-person perspective can add something to a book (like humour), but it also seems to make the writing style less formal, unsurprisingly, and focuses less on the descriptive details and more on the character's impression of an area, which can detract somewhat.

It definitely doesn't seem to have taken off as much as Harry Potter, and the world doesn't intrigue me as much as Harry Potter does, but I did really enjoy the Percy Jackson books.

 

I see what you're saying, but I think The Lost Hero and its successors are much better-written than the original PJO books. Riordan actually improved...

Note: despite the original writing being somewhat bland, I love the fanfiction for it. It has a strong and vibrant fanfiction community with lots of really good fic coming out of it.

 

I do agree with you that the writing was better in technical terms but it was much less enjoyable. Where it succeded in writing, it failed in plot, investment and enjoyability. As a reader, the only character I felt heavily invested in was Percy, even Annabeth had become much more bland than she was in the first series.

 

In fairness, I think a big part of why it never took off to the same degree as Harry Potter was the very lackluster movie adaptations. After all, the HP films were all massively popular and profitable, while the two PJ films didn't do nearly so well.

 

I know, right? When I saw it was Christopher Columbus that was directing the Lightning Thief I thought "Yes! The same guy who made sure Philospher's Stone stayed as close to canon as possible". Then I saw the trailers...And then I saw the movie...