As Part Of Our Never-Ending Quest To Be Smarter And To Be Better Readers And: Fill & Download for Free

Percy JacksonNow, whoever is reading my answer, I'm not qualified or anything so don't take anything too seriously.I'm going to be frank with you, part of the reason why I liked Harry Potter less than Percy Jackson was because I'd already watched the Harry Potter movies before reading the books. Same was not the case with Percy Jackson (and even if I had watched the pjo movies first, nothing would been ruined soo..)Therefore, I was already aware of the twists and turns and a large portion of the complex plot. Don't get me wrong, there were certain differences in the movies and the books pertaining to concepts as basic as characterization but the basic plotline, the movie covered that phenomenally.I do believe that I would have liked Percy Jackson better even if I hadn't watched the Harry Potter movies first. But I can't be completely sure and thus thought it important to mention this.Now, coming to Percy Jackson, it was the first fantasy series that I read, in fact it was first continued series I read, period. So, in that way it was already special for me. Of course, we all know it was meant to appeal to middle school kids and being at that age when I read the series, it was perfect for me. I was 12 when I read the books, just like Percy. Of course, I was 12 when I finished the books unlike Percy who had aged. I read the heroes of Olympus when I was 13 because I wasn't aware the series even existed. I didn't spend my time on the internet and never really for novels (which now I do a lot, actually it's the only thing I really do on internet other than course work). And once again I fell in love with the characters and the plot. Heroes of Olympus with all it's faults was still a very well written series. In some aspects, I liked it even better than Percy Jackson. Plus, the idea of a crew really appealed to me and the seven are still my favourite squad ever.Now, onto the analysis. I am no professional and I certainly have no clue how these analysis and comparative literary studies are actually supposed to go, so once again, don't take me seriously.Let's get on with it.Percy Jackson shares many similar aspects with Harry Potter and in a way it serves as an improved version of it.Characterization and themesHarry Potter and Percy Jackson have quite a number of similarities character wise but there are many dissimilarites too that distinguish them into two different individuals. Both of them have an admirable character arc and visible character development but in terms of growth it's vastly different in both cases. Harry Potter actually matured. Percy Jackson did too but not in a conventional or realistic way. Which might be a plus point for Harry Potter but there is this one big disadvantage and that is it was inconvenient for their target audience reading from the starting after all their books had been released. I read Harry Potter too when I was thirteen all of them at once and Harry Potter gets considerably darker as we descend into the later books and maybe certain concepts might not be appropriate for a 9 year old who was reading the HP series.Percy Jackson on the other hand while having it's fair share of dark concepts some of which might even put Harry Potter to shame (because , come on, it's Greek mythology) is subtle about delivering those messages. Only mature readers who might be reading the series fully grasp those messages which is a good thing because PJO is mainly targeted at middle school kids.From a technical standpoint Harry Potter is also targeted at middle school grade but Harry's transition from middle school mindset to high school / angsty teen really throws a curve ball at you if you are of the former mindset.(I would like to inform that this whole is just speculation and my own thoughts and I am in no way to judge how other middle school minds work)Down to the actual characters, one of the major things that endeared Percy Jackson to me (more than Harry Potter) was the humor. Now, again, don't get me wrong, Harry Potter is plenty humorous and certainly has his sassy moments but compared to Percy's train of constant humor and sarcasm even in the face of danger, no. Plus, it's creative.“Ever had a flying burrito hit you? Well, it's a deadly projectile, right up there with cannonballs and grenades”“With great power... comes great need to take a nap. Wake me up later”“How did you die?""We er....drowned in a bathtub.""All three of you?""It was a big bathtub”“In a way, it's nice to know that there are Greek gods out there, because you have somebody to blame when things go wrong. For instance, when you're walking away from a bus that's just been attacked by monster hags and blown up by lightning, and it's raining on top of everything else, most people might think that's just really bad luck; when you're a half-blood, you understand that some divine force is really trying to mess up your day”“Dreams like a podcast,Downloading truth in my ears.They tell me cool stuff.""Apollo?" I guess, because I figured nobody else could make a haiku that bad.He put his finger to his lips. "I'm incognito. Call me Fred.""A god named Fred”And the pattern continues in Heroes of Olympus.“Um...is that thing tame?" Frank said.The horse whinnied angrily."I don't think so," Percy guessed. "He just said, 'I will trample you to death, silly Chinese Canadian baby man”“Behold!" Percy shouted. "The god's chosen beverage. Tremble before the horror of Diet Coke”Harry Potter was filled with humor and sarcasm too but there never was a moment for me where I was so overwhelmed with the urge to laugh I literally had to bite my fingers to stifle myself because , oh god, I'm on public transport which I definitely found during the majority of pjo and hoo.Percy and Harry were both brave, reckless, kind, great responsibility on their shoulders type heroes which is always a crowd favourite. But this is where the similarities end. I know a lot of people find Harry to be more relatable (mostly because of that maturing reason I mentioned above) but if you look at it structurally Percy is much more relatable. Harry is an orphan. Percy ,on the other hand, has both living parents, just separated, one of them being absent throughout a major part of his life. And isn't divorced parents/ absent parents one of the most common parent issue people tend to face. That makes him much more relatable to those people who have the same issue. Percy has a single mom which is the case with lots and lots of people. While the wizarding world may coexist with the muggle world it never intersects. Harry is in this mystical school with rules that a lot of people don't understand and again, purebloods could never relate in any aspect other than their characters because they belong to a different world. Percy Jackson on the other hand while also spends his time in camp half blood (which is another mystical place), is only there for a small part of the novel. Majority of the time, he is in the real world travelling for some quest visiting places that used to boring to us and made them special. Even in camp half blood, Percy was surrounded by people who spent their time in the mortal world, who were just like other mortal teens/children but with extra godly blood.Villain, wise, the Harry Potter villain, Voldemort..I know Harry Potter is known for it's complex characters but that is one place where there is no complexity at all. And it feels like, the villain, being an integral part of the novel, would be more appealing, if he or she has that complexity to his or her character. Voldemort was pure evil. And the basis on which he was pure evil doesn't seem right to me. Merope Gaunt gave Tom Riddle senior love potion to make him marry her and then they had a child…that basically equates to rape in our world..and to say that a child of rape can know no love..it seems wrong to me. Rape is abominable but..it doesn't mean the child born would be evil because of it..it just delivers the wrong message. But fine, have your evil villain, okay, but does post horcrux Voldemort has anything even going on for him other than his evilness? He's not smart…i feel like if he was actually smart he would have already had the world in his hand..and frankly a smart person would know that killing Harry is more important than satisfying his ego and wouldn't let him go away all the time. It's all Voldemort's fault that Harry managed to survive so long. It's Voldemort's fault that Harry won. He seemed a better villain pre horcrux transformation (and not because he was handsome then).Luke on the other hand is an antihero, Kronos is the evil villain (with a much better reason for being evil). Luke had an actual reason (albeit not much valid because he was harming his fellow demigods, but I guess after he got Kronos out, he was too much under his control to do anything) and the amazing redemption arc that also added a mystery to the last novel. Kronos, of course, proved to be much smarter and didn't feel the need to kill Percy himself, he would have been perfectly happy if someone else eliminated the demigod. Percy and the demigods won because of an unpredictable variable, they were set out to lose in every other case, Harry won because Voldemort was egotistical.Another point in characterisation could be how well developed the relationships were. Romione and percabeth, I guess were the main relationships in both the fandoms that had been developing for years..and it is evident that romione must have not been as acceptable or appealing to the masses given how much opposition it faces from people who prefer these characters paired with someone else. Percabeth on the other hand, has been almost unanimously accepted by pjo fans as relegion since the lightning thief. Rachel who at one stage liked Percy and who Percy considered cool is displayed as a much more attractive character arc in comparison with lavender (who I don't think had an arc)Harry Potter, of course, brought into light many important issues such as racism and dysfunctional government. PJO mainly concentrated on the dysfunctional government aspect and showed what kinds of problems it could cause for the people when the government is inaccountable, while Harry Potter used it to display in a particular situation, how much harm incompetent government officials could cause when facing crisis. Which one is better is arguable in this criteria.2. World buildingIn terms of world building, Harry Potter takes the cake. It's creative as hell and it's made out of scratch. I won't even try.3. PlotNow, this is the point which really depends person to person. I myself, found the Percy Jackson plot to be more interesting. There are a lot of arguments claiming that Harry Potter is better because it has a more complex plot and its subplots have subplots of its own. I disagree.(Not about Harry Potter having subplots but about it having a better plot than Percy Jackson because it is percieved to be much more complex)People claim Harry Potter having plots then subplots and then subplots of those subplots but I just don't see it. It's a plot and a subplot to me in every book. And, frankly, if subplots of subplots of subplots even exist, it's because Voldemort is very stupid in his planning and makes complicated plans.For eg- The sorcerer's stone -Main plot is Harry's journey through hogwartsSubplots -Tension between Snape and Quirrel, Voldemort is there, the sorcerer's stone itself. And they all tie up together.The lightning theif - Main plot is Percy's introduction to the Greek worldSubplots - the whole lightning thief fiasco that would cause world war 3, Kronos arising, Percy's quest to Hades, and yeah, finding out who the actual lightning thief (and apparently also the helm of darkness) thief is.It's pretty much equal. Even in the later books, I don't know what subplots of subplots of subplots people are talking about because what I see are a bunch of subplots tying up together into the main plot.Example- in goblet of fire where voldemort displayed his most questionable and convulated plan everPlot - Harry and the triwizard tournamentSubplots- Harry's dreams in which voldemort is doing..something, new teacher, somebody really wants Harry to compete..and that's pretty much it. And they all tie up together quite nicely.Every Percy Jackson story left me with an air of mystery but Harry Potter didn't (though we can blame that on me watching the Harry Potter movies first, god, those really ruined the books for me didn't they? Though, I'm still quite sure, I would have liked Percy Jackson better.)Also, the narrative in Harry Potter seemed to become biased against Ron in the last three books of the series while Rick Riordan was pretty much constant in his potrayal of his own characters. Whoever he felt in the wrong he'd rightfully point that out and would not make crying a tool to make us sympathise with someone when they were wrong in the first place.Again, all Rick riordan's newly introduced (screen time or maybe umm..page time consuming..) would have some importance to the plot and not just for spicing up the novel by pathetically displayed teenage drama. Rachel, for example, wasn't written just for some Annabeth jealousy, she had her own purpose in the series. Lavender, on the other hand……well you know..It also seemed JK had a problem with girly girls while Rick clearly didn't given his potrayal of Silena.Now, let's talk about a very important aspect of both the series that makes one cool and the other , well…umm..not much in that aspect.The prophecies.Harry Potter was based on Harry being the chosen one, the one who was destined to kill Voldemort because a prophecy said it. Similar was the case with Percy, that he was supposed to save or destroy Olympus.Harry Potter prophecy was..ehhh. Most of it had already happened and the part that hadn't, there wasn't much to it. To be frank, when I read the Harry Potter prophecy for the first time it didn't sound all that grand to me.Percy Jackson on the other hand, well, I guess you should just hand rick the award for writing the best prophecies ever because really, he does. Rick's prophecies, all had a mystery to them and we as readers tended to be almost always wrong.And even Harry Potter preferring fans have to admit, Rick's prophecies are way cooler. (Plus, they rhymed)Another thing I noticed was that Percy Jackson books seemed much more well connected as a series in comparison with Harry Potter. Because every Harry Potter book sprung up a new plot and the books are ended in such a way that the author has enough space to do anything at the end of each book except after the sixth one. For eg- the prophecy, it really became a thing only in the fifth book while in pjo they've been talking about it and revealing certain things regarding it from the start. Another thing I wanted to point out, and this would also fit very well in the subplot point and the characterisation..and that is Grover's mission to find pan. That is a subplot that opened up in the first book when grover shared with Percy why he wanted to get a searcher's license and extended through the entirety of four whole books as an underlying plot. And that is something I find really interesting because this gives grover the chance to develop as his own person, an individual, rather than always being associated with Percy. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure Ron too grows as his own person, but if you compare the books, Ron doesn't have a thing, a purpose to accomplish (except quidditch) of his own that can distinguish him from his friend. He's always associated with Harry, you know, every dangerous situation he puts himself into, it's to help Harry along the way (and that is a very admirable thing to do and a sign of great friendship). But grover, on the other hand, you get to know that his whole world doesn't revolve around Percy. He has a quest of his own and that really for a reader gives him more individuality. This also fits into the subplot point because Percy Jackson basically has a subplot unfolding parallel to the main plot throughout the entirety of four books and Harry Potter doesn't have anything like that.Similarly, with Annabeth, she went along with Percy in the first place because she wanted to have actual experience. Of course, along the way it also became to help Percy (just like Hermione) but that need to finally get a quest of her own after she has had enough experience..that was still there. And it again wasn't always about Percy. In battle of labyrinth, even though Annabeth led the quest, Rick managed to make it such that Percy's still main character material. And that's a very hard thing to do when you suddenly give the reins over to another character.Also, there's an actual pattern to the first three books that really tells us that Kronos has an actual plan against Percy given that (as Athena pointed out) Kronos has taken advantage of Percy's fatal flaw in all the first three years of his being a demigod. First it was his mom, then grover and then Annabeth. And even though Percy wasn't supposed to go the second and the third time, Kronos still managed to lure Percy out of his shelter by holding someone he loved as hostage. Why couldn't Voldemort also have lured Harry back to Hogwarts by delivering the message that if he doesn't come back, everyone at Hogwarts would be killed? He had the death eaters controlling the school, he could have sent a small army to overpower the students. But noooo.. voldemort would do that after Harry does come back, overpowers those three or four death eaters and takes the fortress back. Why would you do that? I know he wants the elder wand but..he could still capture Harry first, keep him prisoner and then search.4. Writing styleI honestly don't see the point of comparing writing styles in pjo and hp. There isn't a definite contrast between them other than them differing in type of English; both the writers are not fans of elaborate flowery prose, they do believe in description and other figures of speech but they haven't explored it as much to create any sort of starkness in writing style. I'm not saying that their writing styles are same, in fact any moron can tell that they are vastly different but both are similar in the aspect that they are simple and appropriate for their target audience. I'm a fan of Rick's writing style because it's a lot more creative and humorous compared to Rowling's. There isn't anything special about Rowling's writing style, for eg- if you give me another book by Rowling (other than Harry Potter) without telling me who the author is, I won't be able to tell you who it belongs to, but I can identify Rick Riordan writing anywhere. It's a special, creative way of writing; a breath of fresh air in the thousands and thousands of works that have jammed up the children fantasy genre like a traffic scene on the roads of Mumbai.And who doesn't love humor, huh? (Especially the fancy kind that Rick writes)I'm sure there are more points of comparison but…this is too long already. Like, even Hermione would be jealous of how long my answer is😎.Ahh, who am I kidding? It's Hermione. She probably writes her essay conclusions bigger than this answer.🙄

I'm tired of this “Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter knock off” crap.Most similarities that people bring up when comparing the two are tropes that have existed before Harry Potter was ever written and exist in many other books and stories. Other than that there are things that are similar because Harry Potter and Percy Jackson both took them from Greek mythology.Most things that people claim Percy Jackson “copied” from Harry Potter, are taken out of context and looked at on a superficial and biased level. As a fan of both series I'd like to say this (beware this is gonna be long and detailed and probably filled with spoilers) :Similarity number one:Broke: Percy and Harry both have black hair and green eyes and are around the same age. This means they're the same character.Woke:Harry gets his messy black hair from his dad and his emerald green eyes from his mom, this has significance in the story because it's one of the few connections he has to his dead parents. It's so important that it gets mentioned a lot (throughout all the books).His green eyes show how Harry figuratively (and literally) carries his mother's sacrifice with him, that some small part of her lives on through him. His hair shows the trademark Potter genes and his resemblance to James. (Also James’ habit of messing up his already messy hair to impress Lily.) Snape’s hatred for Harry is because he looks like James.Harry's appearance is an integral part of his character and who he is.Percy gets his black hair and seagreen eyes from his godly father Poseidon. His appearance rarely gets mentioned again and has no real significance in the story.His dark hair serves only to establish that he resembles his dad who is very much alive. There's nothing special about it, usually kids who have a parent with dark hair, will have dark hair too. Plenty of other characters have dark hair (see Thalia and Nico). Unlike Harry, it ain't that deep. It's just a hair colour.His eyes are a sign of his heritage, he has seagreen eyes because his father is the god of the sea, that's not a brilliant original idea, many people have come up with that when designing a character with water powers. It makes sense for Percy not to have any other eye colour.Many other demigods in the story have eye colours that show who their godly parent is. Children of Zeus god of the sky and thunder, have electric blue eyes. Children of Hades god of the dead, have dark eyes. Children of Athena, who is known in Greek mythology as “the grey eyed goddess”, have grey eyes. Etc… it doesn't have any deep sentimental value. The fact that Percy's eyes are green has nothing at all to do with Harry Potter, it just makes sense.Percy's appearance is not an integral part of who he is. It's just genetics. It ain't that deep.Even if all this wasn't the case, just because one character has x hair and z eyes, doesn't mean another can't have the same. Do you know how many people there are in the world with brown eyes and brown hair? Does that mean those are all copies of each other? Do you know how many book characters there are with red hair, blonde hair, silver eyes, etc…? There are only so many hair and eye colours authors can use. Of course there's going to be repetition.Harry Potter didn't invent people with these physical traits.The fact that both characters are kids, is because this is a kids book, geared towards children. Obviously the main character is going to be the age of the intended reader. Any other kids book will be the same.Conclusion: if you stop looking at it from a superficial standpoint and use your brain, it's very clear that this isn't a similarity worth talking about.Similarity number two:Broke: The trio of Percy/Annabeth/Grover is copied from Harry/Hermione/Ron, since they're both trios.Woke:First of all, having a trio of friends who go on adventures is not an original idea that Harry Potter invented. It has existed long before that and many books and stories involve this idea. The concept of “x amount of characters in the main cast” doesn't belong to anyone. That's ridiculous. Are we going to compare every book with a trio in the main cast? And every book with a duo? Etc…Authors can have many reasons why their main cast has x amount of people. For some three is just a good number of characters because they think two is too little and four is too much.You have to keep in mind that Percy Jackson draws heavily from Greek mythology. In Greek myths, the number 3 is a very important and significant number, this gets told in the books as well, when Percy has to choose two people to go with him on his quest, that's the whole reason he takes 2 people with him. In Greek mythology you have: the 3 big important gods, the 3 graces, the 3 fates, the 3 erinyes, in some myths there are 3 hesperides, sacred tripods, Cerberus has 3 heads, the 3 judges of the underworld, Hecate the 3 faced goddess, etc,…It makes sense for someone who's writing a Greek mythology story to write about 3 main people. The second Percy Jackson series even involves 7 people in the main cast, because it's also an important and significant number in Greek mythology.The way Percy, Annabeth and Grover befriend each other is nothing like the HP trio, their dynamic is different too. Annabeth and Grover were already friends long before they met Percy. Percy and Grover were already friends at the start of the first book. There's no sense of new found friendship like in HP, where Harry had literally no one in the beginning. There's often tension between Percy and Annabeth, with Grover as the middle man, contrary to Harry Potter, etc…Conclusion: There's a valid reason why there's 3 people in the main cast of Percy Jackson and that has nothing to do with Harry Potter. Even if there wasn't a valid reason, trios aren't an original idea.Similarity number three:Broke: Annabeth is a copy of Hermione, because they're both smart and strong female characters.Woke: Annabeth has a completely different personality and backstory than Hermione. They're not the same person at all. Anyone who says this, clearly hasn't read Percy Jackson.Hermione is a muggleborn from a loving home, who has a hard time making friends. Just like Harry she discovered the magical world for the first time. She read ahead as much as she could, but obviously her general knowledge can't compare to Ron’s who grew up in the wizarding world. She's smarter than her peers and more advanced, since she studies a lot.She sticks to the rules and encourages Harry and Ron to do the same. She doesn't question authority figures and does her best to stay away from danger. She's a loyal and compassionate friend, who encourages Harry and Ron to study. She willing to help others achieve her knowledge and doesn't see herself above others. She's also often insecure.Annabeth ran away from home when she was seven, because of problems at home with her stepmom, her believing that she puts her family in danger from monsters, etc… This is all nothing like Hermione.She lived on the streets for a while with monsters on her heels and meets two other demigods (there's a trio once again) who she easily befriends. One of her friends gets killed. Still completely unlike Hermione.She has lived most of her life in camp half-blood and knows the Greek world very well. This isn't necessarily because she studies hard, any demigod who grows up in the Greek world would learn and know a lot, certainly more than someone who just discoveres the Greek world. Unlike Hermione who discovered the magical world for the first time.She's more than willing to break the rules, listen in on conversations, doesn't always let authority figures stop her from doing what she wants, she runs into danger and wants to go on a life threatening quest,…just to prove herself and to test her abilities in the real world. This is literally the complete opposite of Hermione.Her pride gets the better of her and while she's a loyal friend (like friends usually are), she's not a particularly compassionate person (see the way she treats Percy when she first meets him even knowing his mom “died” and he's new to the Greek world). She's very competitive, not particularly insecure and wants to have a complete family (like most demigods, since godly parents aren't the best). This is all completely unlike Hermione.Annabeth has ADHD and dyslexia, this impacts her life, she can't be the bookworm Hermione is and doesn't stick her nose in a book 24/7. Hermione does not have any learning disabilitiesAnnabeth isn't really a powerful strong character, especially compared to other demigods. She doesn't have any magical powers and can't do things Percy physically can't. Unlike Hermione who knows advanced spells and does things Ron and Harry can't, simply because they haven't learned it yet.She's talented with weapons because she's been training since she was 7, obviously she'd be better than Percy, who's never held a sword in his life (At least before he eventually does master the sword). This is not particularly special in the grand scheme of things. Most demigods her age are good with weapons, especially if they've lived in camp half-blood for a while.There isn't much about Annabeth that would make her exceptional in terms of power, most of her capabilities are things most demigods can do too. Meaning that the statement of Annabeth being strong and powerful like Hermione is false, that's not something they have in common.The one thing that Annabeth can rely on, is her intelligence, her lack of power doesn't stop her from beating her enemies and coming up with plans that help her on quests. But keep in mind, all the other children of Athena in camp half-blood are smart too, Annabeth isn't particularly smarter or better than her siblings, who count amongst her peers. Unlike Hermione, who's the smartest witch of her year.Technically she could've been replaced by another kid of Athena who is smart and well versed in weapons too. Hermiones intelligence clearly differentiates her from all her peers, Annabeth’s doesn't fully do that, since other children of Athena are just as smart as her.So even though both girls are smart, it's not the same and they can't use their intelligence the same way, nor are they impacted by it in the same way. Hermione’s intelligence is directly tied to her power, abilities and friendships, Annabeths isn't.Conclusion: The only similarity between Annabeth and Hermione is that they're both smart girls, besides that, there's literally a whole world of differences. They're practically opposites. Being smart and female is not a unique original trait that Harry Potter invented and no other book has ever used. Sharing a basic generic trait does not make 2 characters the same, especially not when literally everything else about them is completely different.Honorable mentions: Annabeth has severe arachnophobia, this is not copied of Ron, who also has arachnophobia because his brothers turned his Teddy bear in a spider when he was a child. Many different people in the world can share a phobia, especially such a ridiculously common and basic one as arachnophobia. Besides the idea that Annabeth has it makes sense in the context of Greek mythology, all children of Athena fear spiders because of what happened in the story of Athena and Arachne (look it up if you're not familiar with the story). Arachne hates Athena and terrorises her children as revenge, this has nothing to do with Harry Potter, it makes sense in a Greek mythology setting.Annabeth has a cap that makes her invisible, this is not a copy of the invisibility cloak. Harry Potter didn't invent objects that make people invisible, that concept has existed since forever and has been used in other works. In Greek mythology invisibility also takes place (see odyseus who is associated with Athena), so it would make sense for Annabeth, daughter of Athena to have such an item, especially considering that she lacks magical powers.Similarity number four:Broke: Grover is a copy of Ron, because they're both the dumb comic relief of the group who only care about food.Woke: Grover has a completely different personality and backstory than Ron, these two could not possibly be more different. Grover is literally not even human. (Besides this characterisation of Ron is completely false and only the case in the movies (they really did him dirty).Ron is a loud and brave gryffindor, who comes from a poor, but big and loving family. He often feels inferior and jealous of Harry. He is a loyal friend and funny, but can also be stubborn and moody. He's a strategist (similar to Annabeth). Sometimes he can be insensitive without meaning to, he doesn't seem to understand other's emotions very well. He is willing to walk into danger without showing fear and is willing to stand up for himself and his friends, even against authority figures (see when he gets mad at snape, attacks malfoy, etc).Grover is a satyr, who is very shy, insecure and cries a lot. I could literally stop here. This is nothing at all like Ron. At all. There's no comparison to be made.In reality Grover is a lot older (28 years old) than Percy and Annabeth (12 years old), but satyrs age differently, so he's more around 14 compared to human age. Contrary to Ron.We do not know anything about his family, if he has any (family is a big part of Ron's character and life). He lives in camp half-blood, when he's not going to schools pretending to be a crippled human, to find demigods and safely bring them to camp. This responsibility weighs on him heavily and he carries a lot of guilt tied to it (read book to find out).He's not particularly brave at all, and is often fearful of pretty much everything, especially in the first book (which is the book that gets compared the most to HP). In a fight he's often a distraction or he uses the little bit of magic he has, but besides that he's pretty useless. He has a unique sense of smell that allows him to detect monsters and demigods.He does not envy either Percy or Annabeth. He is a loyal friend, like friends usually are in literally every book in the world, sometimes he's funny, but not in the same way Ron is and far less often. (Percy is the more funny one actually, with his sarcasm).He's not stubborn or moody, nor is he a stragetist. His ability to sense emotions makes him opposite to Ron’s lack of emotional understanding. He's very attuned to other's emotions and understands what they're thinking through that.He eats garbage, not food, especially when he's nervous. Also the food theme makes sense in Grover’s case, since he's half goat, he has a goat’s appetite. Stress eating isn't something Ron does, he's just hungry all the time and can eat a lot regardless of what's happening.He's often not able to stand up for himself or for his friends against authority figures like Mr. D or even monsters. Unlike Ron.He cares a lot about nature and animals and his dream is looking for the lost god Pan. Ron doesn't strike me as an environmentalist.He befriends Percy, in order to protect him from monsters, but ends up becoming an actual friend to him, this happens before the book starts, we do not see them meet for the first time. Very unlike Ron and Harry's first meeting.Conclusion: Ron and Grover have literally nothing in common, except that they're friends with the main character. That's comparing apples and oranges.Similarity number five:Broke: Percy having a wise mentor, Chiron, is the same as Harry having Dumbledore.Woke: Chiron is not a wizard, nor even human, he's an immortal centaur.In Greek mythology (which existed long before Harry Potter) there's the myth about Chiron the centaur who's job is to train demigods. Percy Jackson having a wise mentor is directly taken from Greek mythology.You can't write a story with a demigod as your main character without Chiron to train him. Chiron gets mentioned in pretty much every ancient Greek story that involves a hero. This has nothing to do with Harry Potter, it simply makes sense in the Percy Jackson world.The fact that they're both mentors doesn't mean Chiron and Dumbledore have the same personality, nor do the same things, except for both keeping the prophecy secret from the protagonist (more on that later).Also the wise mentor trope is not invented by Harry Potter. Lord of the rings, which existed before Harry Potter, also has a wise mentor, who just so happens to be an old wizard too, hmmm. Star wars also uses this trope, many other works too, before and after HP.Conclusion: This isn't even a similarity, it's just a basic trope, that no one has claim over and that doesn't belong to just Harry Potter.Similarity number six:Broke: Sally died to protect Percy, just like Lily did for Harry.Woke: Sally was in the wrong place at the wrong time, if it weren't for the camp borders that don't allow mortals entrance, she would've been fine. It's a very different scenario to the Harry Potter one. Also she wasn't killed (clearly you didn't finish the first book), she was kidnapped for reasons that have nothing to do with Harry Potter. She also doesn't leave any magical protection on Percy, like Lily did. She's the main reason Percy goes on the quest, because he wants to bring her back. There's never a point where Harry goes on an adventure to bring his parents to life.Besides the mother sacrifice trope isn't original, Harry Potter didn't invent it. It's once again a very basic thing, that you can find in many stories. Anyone can come up with it.Similarity number seven:Broke: Travis and Connor are the same as Fred and George.Woke: Travis and Connor Stoll aren't twins. They're just brothers and children of Hermes. Most children of Hermes, who is the god of tricks and stealing amongst other things, are mischievous pranksters, it's not just Travis and Connor. This makes perfect sense and isn't copied from Harry Potter. If you wrote about children of a god of tricks, you'd logically make them pranksters. Also Travis and Connor are mentioned far less than Fred and George and play a significantly smaller role in the series. This scenario is the equivalent of having all the gryffindors be mischievous pranksters and just mentioning Fred and George a little more than the rest. Also Harry Potter has more mischievous prankster characters than the twins, like the marauders.Also prankster twins is again not an original Harry Potter idea, Lord of the rings also has this, no doubt there are other books who have this too.Similarity number eight:Broke: Percy Jackson copied the three headed dog guardian from Harry Potter. Also both stories have centaurs and giants.Woke: Harry Potter took the three headed dog idea directly from Greek mythology (which is what Percy Jackson is based on). Cerberus the three headed dog guards the entrance to the underworld, his story has existed before jk Rowling did. It makes sense for Percy to come across Cerberus in the underworld, because it's based on Greek mythology, so obviously Cerberus would be there. You can't make your Greek demigod character go to the Greek underworld without coming across the Greek three headed dog who canonicaly guards it.Centaurs are creatures from Greek mythology, just because Harry Potter used that idea, which has existed before jk Rowling did, doesn't mean a story literally about Greek mythology can't use it. Obviously centaurs would exist in a Greek mythology world. Also they're portrayed very differently from the centaurs in Harry Potter. The same goes for giants and any other Greek mythology creatures.Other stories have also used creatures like this, it's not an exclusively Harry Potter thing.Similarity number nine:Broke: There's a prophecy about the hero, which other people can also fit. This must have been copied from Harry Potter.Woke: Percy Jackson is a Greek mythology story. Ancient Greece consulted the oracle of Delphi and its prophecies at every turn. It was a sacred part of their culture and part of the worship of the god Apollo. In their myths and stories about heroes and demigods, this is also reflected. Every single demigod story involves a prophecy. Prophecy is an integral part of Greek mythology and ancient Greek culture. It makes sense for a story about a demigod, that prophecy would be involved and influence the story heavily.Percy Jackson consults the oracle before every single adventure, Harry Potter does not. Only one prophecy out of the many different ones in the Percy Jackson series could fit several people, this is not done in the same way Harry Potter has. In Percy Jackson, it's about who reaches the age of 16, not about babies.Once again the prophecy idea, is not original and unique. Harry Potter didn't invent prophecies. Other stories allowed to use them, without being accused of copying.Similarity number ten:Broke: Catching the flag, which is played by the different cabins in camp half-blood, is the same as quidditch which is played by different houses in hogwarts. Both main characters are good at this.Woke: This is one of the more stupid ones I've seen. I guess no one can write sports and games in a story anymore. Catching the flag and quidditch couldn't be more different from each other if you tried, I'm not even going to explain that one. Also in hogwarts it's house against house, in camp half-blood, different cabins make alliances with each other and two big groups are formed who compete. Harry has talent in flying and being a seeker. Percy's first game was him just standing around guarding a flag and fighting against some kids who ambush him, I don't see this being classified as him being good at the game, the way Harry obviously is.It's not an unique and original idea to have an institution of some sort have its pupils play sports. That's not a similarity between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. That's like complaining that the sky is blue in both worlds, it's ridiculous.Similarity number 11:Broke: Both have an enemy that starts off as weak and defeated, but who grows in strength throughout the series.Woke: There aren't that many options when it comes to villains. Either you make them strong from the beginning or they grow in strength throughout the story, or they lose strength throughout the story. Considering our villain is Kronos who was defeated by the gods thousands of years earlier in Greek mythology, it makes sense to go for the second option.Literally every book ever in fantasy does this. Lord of the rings did the second option too, does that mean Harry Potter copied it?Similarity number 12:Broke: Camp half-blood and Hogwarts both have a magical border as protection.Woke: Pretty much all fantasy worlds use magical borders to prevent humans from entering the magical place. This is not an unique concept. Harry Potter is not the first story to use this idea. This isn't even a similarity, unless we're going to compare every single fantasy story.For now I'm gonna stop, cus this was a lot. might add more later.

Marianne Moore's "Poetry" is widely anthologized and often cited, and it shouldn't be a mystery as to why this poem among the hundreds she wrote is the one that an otherwise indifferent audience remembers: it's a poem about poetry. She rather handily summarizes an array of clichés, stereotypes and received misgivings about poetry a literalistic readership might have ,feigns empathy with the complaints, and then introduces one crafty oh-by-the-way after another until the opposite is better presented than the resolution under discussion. This is not a subject I warm up to in most circumstances--poets, of their accord, have demonstrated the sort of self-infatuation that many of them, left to their means-to-an-end, would remove themselves from the human scale and assume the ranks of the divine, the oracular, the life giving, IE, develop themselves into a priesthood, the guardians of perception. Moore's poem, though, presents itself as a contracting string of epigrams that seem to quarrel, a disagreement between head and mind, body and spirit, and a larger part of her lines, as they seemingly across the page away from the statements preceding the line before it, is that no really knows what to make of poetry as a form, as a means of communication, as a way of identifying oneself in the world. It frustrates the fast answer, it squelches the obvious point, and poetry adds ambiguity that would rile many because of lines that start off making obvious sense but which leave the reader in a space that isn't so cocksure. Little of the world seems definite anymore once a poem has passed through it, and the reconfiguring of imagination , the retrenching, the retooling of perception a required of the reader to understand a bit of the verse (the alternative being merely to quit and admit defeat) is bound to give a resentment.Moore's poem seems to be a response to Dorothy Parker's ironic declaration "I hate writing. I love having written". The reader may hate not understanding what they've read, but love the rewards of sussing through a poem's blind alleys and distracting side streets.POETRY /Marianne MooreI, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond all this fiddle.Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers init, after all, a place for the genuine.Hands that can grasp, eyesthat can dilate, hair that can riseif it must, these things are important not because ahigh-sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because they areuseful. When they become so derivative as to become unintelligible,the same thing may be said for all of us, that wedo not admire whatwe cannot understand: the batholding on upside down or in quest of something toeat, elephants pushing, a wild horse taking a roll, a tireless wolf undera tree, the immovable critic twitching his skin like a horse that feels a flea, the base-ball fan, the statistician—nor is it validto discriminate against "business documents andschool-books"; all these phenomena are important. One must make a distinctionhowever: when dragged into prominence by half poets, the result is not poetry,nor till the poets among us can be"literalists ofthe imagination"—aboveinsolence and triviality and can presentfor inspection, "imaginary gardens with real toads in them," shall we haveit. In the meantime, if you demand on the one hand,the raw material of poetry inall its rawness andthat which is on the other handgenuine, you are interested in poetry.The agony, the contradictions, the dishonest sleights of hand that deceive you in the service of delivering a surprise, an irony, an unexpected image, all of this is worth resentments a reader suffers through. One is, after all, made better, made stronger by the exercise of the will to read and confront the poem on its own terms. Moore is a shrewd rhetorician as well as gracefully subtle poet. Clever, witty, sharp and acidic when she needs me, Moore is clever at playing the Devil's Advocate in nominally negative guise, saying she dislikes it but mounting one exception to the rule after another until we have an overwhelming tide of reasons about why we as citizens can't exist without its application.It works as polemic, indeed, crafted as she alone knows how, and it adds yet another well-phrased set of stanzas that want to turn poets into more than mortal artists, but into a priesthood, a race of scribes attuned to secret meanings of invisible movements within human existence. It sort of stops being a poet after the first jagged stanza, not unlike all those pledge breaks on PBS that tirelessly affirm that network's quality programming while showing little of it during their pleas for viewer money. It's not that I would argue too dramatically against the notion that poets and artists in general are those who've the sensitivity and the skills to turn perception at an instinctual level into a material form through which what was formally unaddressable can now find a shared vocabulary in the world-- egalitarian though I am, there are geniuses in the world , and those who are smarter and more adept than others in various occupations and callings--but I do argue against the self-flattery that poems like Moore's promotes and propagates.I wouldn't regard this as a polemic of any sort, nor a manifesto as to what the writer ought to do or what the reader should demand. Reading it over again and again after that makes me think that Moore was addressing her own ambivalence toward the form. After one finishes some stanzas and feels contented that they've done justice to their object of concentration, some lines appear contrived, other words are dull and dead sounding aligned with more colorful, more chiming ones,Poetry that however grand , beautiful and insightful the resulting poems are in a host of poetic attempts to resolve the problem the distance between the thing perceived and the thing itself, we still have only poems, words arranged to produce effects that would appeal to our senses that are aligned with this world and not the invisible republic just beyond our senses. Poetry is a frustrating and irritating process because it no matter how close one thinks they've come to a breakthrough, there is the eventual realization of far one remains from it. Poetry as Sisyphean task; one is compelled to repeat the effort, and not without the feeling that they've done this before.The commotion of the animals, the pushing elephants, the rolling horses, the tireless yet immobile Wolf, seem like analogues to restless mind Moore at one time might have desired to have calmed by the writing of poetry. There is the prevailing myth, still fixed in a good number of people who go through various self help groups, that the writing of things down--poetry, journaling, blogging, writing plays or memoirs--is a process that, in itself , will reveal truthful things one needs to know and thereby settle the issues. Writing, though, doesn't "settle", finalize or cement anything in place, it does to set the world straight , nor does it resolve anything it was addressing once the writing is done with. It is, though, a useful process, a tool, one may use as a means to get one out of the chair, away from the keyboard, and become proactive in some positive way.The expectations of what poetry was supposed to do--create something about the world that is permanent, everlasting, reveal a truth who's veracity does not pale with time, whether a century or hour-- are crushed and a resentment when realizes that the world they're attempting to conquer, in a manner of speaking , will not bow to one's perception, one's carefully constructed stage set where the material things of this earth are props to be arranged on a whim, and that the mind that creates the metaphors, the similes, the skilled couplets and ingenious rhyme strategies is not calmed, soothed, serene.The world continues to move and change, language itself changes the meaning of the words it contains, the mind continues to tick away, untrammeled. Moore's animals, in the restless paradise, are themselves restless, non contemplative, instinct driven toward species behavior that is about propagation and survival, creatures distinct from the contemplative conceit of the poet who thinks he or she is able to sift through the underbrush for secret significance. I've always heard a weary tone in Moore's poem; a mind that in turn wrestles with matters where poetry doesn't reveal what's disguised but only what the poet can never get to. Her poem echoes Macbeth's famous speech rather nicelyShe should have died hereafter;There would have been a time for such a word.To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,Creeps in this petty pace from day to dayTo the last syllable of recorded time,And all our yesterdays have lighted foolsThe way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!Life's but a walking shadow, a poor playerThat struts and frets his hour upon the stageAnd then is heard no more: it is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing.She seems not a little dismayed that poetry is only part of our restless species behavior and that the language we write and expound to bring coherence to the waking life are only more sounds being made in an already noisy existence.