rainwaterspark (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rainwaterspark) wrote2012-10-14 10:03 am
rainwaterspark) wrote2012-10-14 10:03 am
Review - The Mark of Athena
I finished this book last week, but it occurred to me that I didn't write a review for it. So here it is.
The Mark of Athena by Rick Riordan
The third entry in the Heroes of Olympus series, whose first book I loved and second book I loved less.
Anything by Rick Riordan is still miles ahead of 90% of all other YA fantasy on the market, and The Mark of Athena was fresh, hilarious, and entertaining. (Team Leo for the win!)
But.
Because Rick Riordan in general sets the bar so high, I found this book to be a bit less than par for his usual standard. For one, I felt that this book suffered a bit from what I call Throne of Fire Syndrome (after the second book in the Kane Chronicles), meaning that there was a lot of action, but it also felt like a lot of unnecessarily random events that weren't critical for the plot.
Examples:
- Atlanta, meeting Aphrodite and then hightailing it to Fort Sumter: felt a bit redundant to me. Why that Aphrodite meeting? Aphrodite was portrayed relatively positively in The Lost Hero, so why is she back to a shallow girly-girl goddess?
- The "Camp Fish-Blood" underwater: yes, it was cool, but did we really need that to slow down the seven's journey to Rome even further?
- The Hercules scene: I actually thought this was a bit unnecessary, especially considering that they run into ANOTHER obstacle literally as soon as they leave Hercules's island. Also, I still don't understand the whole "son of Zeus/Jupiter" schtick the book was trying to get at with Hercules.
- In Rome: Everything except Annabeth's quest and facing the giants seemed rather unnecessary.
Considering this book is the longest yet for a Rick Riordan book (600 pages), I think a lot of this stuff could've been cut without negatively impacting the plot. It's not terrible, but it just wasn't necessary.
Other things: I actually thought the writing in this book was less engaging than Riordan's usual, and I don't really know why. The descriptions felt less vivid, the story seemed somewhat slow despite its urgency (possibly because of the random/unnecessary scenes throughout).
Also, ANGST. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH ANGST IN THIS BOOK. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. And why the bizarre not-love-triangle between Hazel, Leo, and Frank? Just, why???
So in conclusion, a good book, but not the best for Riordan.
The Mark of Athena by Rick Riordan
The third entry in the Heroes of Olympus series, whose first book I loved and second book I loved less.
Anything by Rick Riordan is still miles ahead of 90% of all other YA fantasy on the market, and The Mark of Athena was fresh, hilarious, and entertaining. (Team Leo for the win!)
But.
Because Rick Riordan in general sets the bar so high, I found this book to be a bit less than par for his usual standard. For one, I felt that this book suffered a bit from what I call Throne of Fire Syndrome (after the second book in the Kane Chronicles), meaning that there was a lot of action, but it also felt like a lot of unnecessarily random events that weren't critical for the plot.
Examples:
- Atlanta, meeting Aphrodite and then hightailing it to Fort Sumter: felt a bit redundant to me. Why that Aphrodite meeting? Aphrodite was portrayed relatively positively in The Lost Hero, so why is she back to a shallow girly-girl goddess?
- The "Camp Fish-Blood" underwater: yes, it was cool, but did we really need that to slow down the seven's journey to Rome even further?
- The Hercules scene: I actually thought this was a bit unnecessary, especially considering that they run into ANOTHER obstacle literally as soon as they leave Hercules's island. Also, I still don't understand the whole "son of Zeus/Jupiter" schtick the book was trying to get at with Hercules.
- In Rome: Everything except Annabeth's quest and facing the giants seemed rather unnecessary.
Considering this book is the longest yet for a Rick Riordan book (600 pages), I think a lot of this stuff could've been cut without negatively impacting the plot. It's not terrible, but it just wasn't necessary.
Other things: I actually thought the writing in this book was less engaging than Riordan's usual, and I don't really know why. The descriptions felt less vivid, the story seemed somewhat slow despite its urgency (possibly because of the random/unnecessary scenes throughout).
Also, ANGST. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH ANGST IN THIS BOOK. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. And why the bizarre not-love-triangle between Hazel, Leo, and Frank? Just, why???
So in conclusion, a good book, but not the best for Riordan.