What Makes Klayley Different From Other Series Ships For You?

for context, @rosabell14 is referring to tags on this post.

ok we're going off-road w this one

generally speaking, i like the concept of "some things aren't meant to be controlled," which annabeth says to percy after he controls the poison. this is said and then immediately forgotten abt, however, this could be another angle of change, a reoccurring theme in hoo, as well as a continued theme from pjo.

obviously, from pjo, the change is addressed w the myths, the theme of yielding, and w the conclusion of the story:

hoo continues this concept of change w the percy-jason switch, the greek-roman conflict, the idea of what an identity is and how to change it, etc. there's a lot of individual character work w this idea, but there's less of a mythological concept attached to it. gaea is a static and flatly written antagonist, octavian becomes incredibly flat as a character and his development into this sort of fanatical antagonist that is never explored, there's a lot of teeth-gritting abt how the gods are gods and they never change and everyone just has to accept it, the myths aren't challenged in the same way they were in pjo, etc. there's a few major exceptions, i'll get to that.

this is a glaring issue i have w hoo. it wouldn't be as bad as a standalone, but hoo makes the entirety of the previous series meaningless. in tlo, percy asks for kids to get claimed and be trained so when (or if) they have to go on dangerous quests/fight monsters/etc they're both older and more experienced. this is the conclusion to the war and how the status quo is changed (disability accommodations expanded to reach more ppl and work more effectively).

hoo, however, does not do this. camp jupiter infamously has a child army while the adults are retired, all of the new characters are younger than percy (who is still 16), and only two of them have spent a long period of time training, although hazel's isn't formal/in a camp (and piper doesn't even learn how to fight until book four ffs). this sort of immediately bastardizes pjo in a way that is never acknowledge by the series and makes it, and anything after it, a failure as a continuation of pjo.

and that's where this theme could've come in. when bob is remembering who he is, him and percy have this back-and-forth abt identity. percy relates to bob bc he, too, just had his memory erased and that vulnerability exploited (annabeth's perspective in this conversation is very different bc she doesn't have this same experience nor does she understand percy's feelings abt it. a good way to build tension using different povs, but, once again, doesn't get fully utilized). in the conclusion that conversation, there's an interesting moment:

this is that idea again, "some things aren't meant to be controlled," like fate, like identity. titans are meant to "be the same...forever." and here percy is, not only as the catalyst for change by throwing bob into the river lethe, but also by encouraging him to commit to this change once bob should know better. this was percy's role in the previous series, as well, where he constantly challenges the perspective of other characters to be more quote human unquote.

afterwards, annabeth has a similar moment w damasen:

i also think these are very funny to have side-by-side, just as character analysis, bc percy is very much both insecure and empathetic like u can choose ur future, it's up to u, etc, whereas annabeth is like i am right, listen to me.

anyway, both of these moments repeat the idea from pjo/tlo: immortals can't change. but they are changing. and they will change. the rules of the world are malleable (i also think hazel's monologue abt seeing the minotaur as a victim would be another aspect of this to explore). what abt traditions? what abt camp jupiter's child army? how should these change? going back to the og thought, tho, what shouldn't change? what are the "some things" that aren't meant to be controlled? how do you balance traditions and reform (great opportunity to use octavian btw!)? why can't a god be human, act human? why are the ancient rules important? that's an important discussion to have if we're growing this universe.

i don't particularly like that hoo immediately reverts back w the premise of the story, like i was talking abt earlier, nor do i think these characters were introduced or used well in canon, but using these characters, these moments, these conversations, rick could've salvaged this mess by embracing change isn't a static thing. he doesn't, tho, so it's all lost potential.

separately, something i've always liked abt the akhlys fight is that percy wins the literal, physical fight against her, but loses the metaphorical fight. he gets to walk away, but he walks away miserable. and this is bc the gods aren't ppl, they're physical representations of concepts. and percy has this thought abt tartarus and gaea while in tartarus, and i believe it's brought up in boo, but it's barely relevant. it's something i wish was explored more.

now onto specific characters. i talk abt my general idea here, ie this moment in tartarus is forcing percy and annabeth to confront their worst-case scenarios.

for annabeth, i've repeatedly gone on record to say i hate the way annabeth is written in hoo, here is an example, ie her fatal flaw does not come thru in her character (i also think she and percy switched characterizations from pjo to hoo, but...). separate issue is that annabeth's character revolves around percy a lot. so there are two issues i would focus on, largely bc she's not written well and doesn't have established unique conflicts. like,

this is a big revelation at the end of hoh, that she has to "step back" and she can't "protect everyone she love[s]." except it doesn't make any sense. tlo ended w annabeth telling percy to give luke her knife which luke uses to kill himself. not to mention, thalia's sacrifice on hbh. ALSO. percy accepting the prophecy and "taking the brunt of the danger"! and finally. annabeth has been at camp for 7-8 years. 1) she should have relationships w these ppl and 2) she should care that some of the ogs died in the previous war (which would also require rick to figure out who died lol). but the point is, this isn't a new conflict for annabeth!

the thought she had in moa abt having to accept she's not always the best person for the job:

this is not built up nor is it delivered on, but would be interesting, given that she demanded to be on the quest and if there was an actual power struggle instead of writing her as the de facto leader. this would be a better conflict than accepting that "she couldn't protect everyone she loved" when she has historically not been able to protect everyone she loved.

anyway, back on topic.

first, this moment exists to challenge her perception of percy, which is important to challenge bc she quite frankly has an unhealthy attachment to him. other ppl have said this better than i, so here's a post abt codependency and p*rcabeth and here's another one i rbed a while ago.

tldr; rick treats annabeth's abandonment issues/possessiveness/codependency as like. cute, peak romance. and he's been doing this since pjo, right, like annabeth's abandonment issues and possessiveness didn't matter when it was thalia joining the hunters,—bc there's no romance trope here w thalia—but gods forbid percy speak to rachel.

and this doesn't change in hoo. in fact, it's worse. like,

i'm going to [statement redacted] rick for this. what part of this is cute??? i'm killing it with fire.

so anyway, i want to treat annabeth's possessiveness/etc as an actual, consistent, character flaw, that she can grow out of, even. maybe even connect it to her hubris or her rsd. explore her feelings abt luke now that we have her pov to do it in. the fallout from this moment w akhlys is a great way to begin delving into that bc it's a shocking moment for her.

second, and going back to the theme of change, annabeth is different from percy in the sense that she has a different relationship to the gods than him (which i'm comparing bc i think rick (and fandom) has a hard time giving these two consistent and separate personalities/beliefs post pjo). the two times she has rebelled against the gods directly were bc of percy's influence (again, this is percy's role in pjo), 1) in the zoo truck, a scene that only takes place bc percy challenged her view of the poseidon-athena rivalry and their place in it, and 2) w hera where the first words out of annabeth's mouth are literally "percy is right."

i find this interesting especially bc her fatal flaw is hubris, which is common in mythology and frequently ends up fatal bc ppl challenge the gods. so, annabeth using the gods and these stories to keep her hubris in check makes complete sense.

and it seems like this is the same approach she's using w percy:

percy is directly challenging a god for power, and more than that, he's challenging a domain he's not supposed to have control of at all.

very interesting! does not get explored. such is common for hoo.

for percy, this scene is part of a long-running conversation of his powers (which is a huge part of his disability coding!!!!!). and it doesn't go anywhere.

percy has established anger issues and implied emotional dysregulation. this has been a thing since the beginning, literally chapter one of tlt! punishing percy for this when he's clearly not getting the support he needs is. a choice. also there's the issue that hoo kinda. erases this aspect of percy's character until the confrontation w akhlys, which is a separate but related issue.

there really should've been more buildup to this outburst (eg: in son percy punches a shelf in the library and immediately feels guilty bc he scares frank and hazel. percy is in an incredibly stressful situation; this should've happened more), but that would mean rick would treat it and the disability conversation seriously (which falls flat after son) and do less teeth-gritting abt the whole gods thing.

so, to go back on my "using the different povs to build tension was wildly underutilized" train, a featured part of almost everyone's pov is that percy is very kind, and gentle, and forgiving. i discuss a moment w frank being impressed w percy's selflessness here and he also says that he would follow percy anywhere, jason says percy is "a nice guy" after like 2 days, nico has his whole thing, hazel says "percy was a child of poseidon’s better nature," going on to describe him as gentle, etc.

and all of this praise goes nowhere and kinda just becomes percy is so awesome...and then turns into everything is percy's fault in boo...it's bad writing.

but it's an interesting opportunity to play w perspective. percy in pjo is dehumanized in that he is both villainized and idolized, and obviously hoo is continuing the trend w idolization. rick sets up a great plotline w this in moa:

and this doesn't go anywhere bc apparently percy's problem is that he needs to learn to step back. which. part of this is bc rick recycled plotlines from percy and gave them to other characters, which means that percy cannot be in character anymore without making themlook bad (the recycled plotlines i'm talking abt are the idolization, imposter syndrome, wanting to step back but constantly pushed into the spotlight, being seen as different/elevated status bc of ur parentage, struggling to connect to who your parent is, even the dehumanization as a weapon is straight out of percy's writing in pjo). this is a big problem w hoo in general ie characters becoming ooc by necessity (see: bad writing). the other part to blame is that rick is literally trying to redo tlo what w the whole "you are not the hero." it's all the same from pjo except written worse. it's a running theme of hoo (and a bonus). bad writing all the way down!

ANYWAY. so pjo ends w percy at an elevated status bc he 1) survived an unsurvivable prophecy, 2) was offered godhood, and 3) turned down godhood to improve the lives of the demigods while all the demigods watched. and he has the curse of achilles but. we all know how that went. the point is, all of this puts percy on a pedestal. i like to think it's the biggest reason hera kidnapped percy: if he said no, if he refused, she would've lost the support of almost all the demigods at chb (also the metaphor for the audience lol). i think making percy go on the quest, or at least to new rome, is the only good bit of world building rick did between books.

the problem is, rick is kinda all over the place w how percy is perceived and misses both the point of percy's character (callback to what i said abt his disability) and the world building of the previous series (what happened to power-scaling, narrative consequence, etc fr). that's what creates the flip-flopping "percy is perfect" and "everything is percy's fault," and neither are particularly good reads.

going back to annabeth, i don't think she's an exception in idolizing percy. she has no reason to see percy's vindictive side bc he works hard to hide it. even w crusty, annabeth is preoccupied. annabeth is smart, she's not omniscient. instead, there's the famous "percy is too nice" from som. i also like to think this is why she keeps trying to talk to percy abt luke as if luke is a good person who didn't try to kill percy. she doesn't understand that percy would hate luke for betraying him bc why would he? percy is a good person.

(for the record, i think the exceptions are: 1) grover, who chooses not to bring it up w the exception of his nemesis comment in tlt, 2) rachel, who made a painting where percy's "expression in the picture was fierce—disturbing, even—so it was hard to tell if I was the good guy or the bad guy" and simply said that's how he looked, and 3) arguably nico—considering percy has attacked him before—but i do think "very [dangerous]. to his enemies." does a good job of capturing that, it just doesn't go anywhere).

so, to condense all of this, ppl are idolizing percy in terms of both strength and morals and percy feels stifled by this knowing that he is not as strong or good as ppl think (and also by the fault that he was demonized prior and has corresponding low self-esteem bc of that lol). keep this in mind, i'm changing the topic.

in botl, percy's torture scene is used primarily to set up how powerful he is. he can cause an eruption that necessitates the evacuation of thousands of ppl and wake the biggest threat in greek mythos, but he would never know that if he wasn't back into a corner. bc that's not who he is. he shies away from power and titles. he wins his fights w strategy and very rarely relies on his powers to overpower his opponents.

just to clarify, i categorize percy's powers in two sorts of ways: involuntary and voluntary. involuntary is like speaking to sea creatures, healing in water, things that don't require a lot of energy/effort/focus. he's not scared of this. he's wary of the voluntary, powerful explosions, the things that set him apart from his peers. that's what i'm referring to in this section.

so, percy has to come to terms w the fact that he 1) blew up a mountain, 2) survived blowing up a mountain, and 3) woke typhon. and what does he say immediately after that?

he immediately deflects! he wasn't in control, it wasn't him that's powerful, it was an accident, and besides, he can't do it again bc he almost died. and what's even more interesting is the only time he uses his powers after this (in botl) is when grover asks him to stop the fire in the woods.

so, what lesson did percy actually take from mt saint helens? that he's dangerous. very interesting to use this teaching moment and have the protagonist come to the quote wrong unquote conclusion.

in hoh, we don't have a purpose for the torture scene. there's no significance to confronting how powerful percy is. percy is not addressing his self-sacrificing tendencies nor his propensity for bottling his emotions up. there's no questioning of p*rcabeth's relationship. there's no questioning of the gods. it's a cool scene w no narrative purpose.

so, take two. what is percy supposed to be learning from akhlys? how do we relate this to percy taking the wrong lesson from mt st helens?

at the end of botl, nico comes up w the river styx plan and percy takes almost a full year to agree to it. how much further ahead in the war would they have been if percy had accepted the curse sooner? how many fights could percy have won faster if he used his powers? if he trained his powers? if he trusted his powers?

there's a really interesting comparison w phorcys and akhyls where percy doesn't attempt to fight phorcys bc he assumes he won't be able to overpower him,

but w akhyls he tries anyway,

bc he's backed against a corner. and he succeeds.

percy is a character who very much embodies duality. i've talked abt this before wrt his loyalty being both his greatest strength and greatest weakness and how it clashes w his desire for freedom, but it's true for almost every trait. he's honest and manipulative. he's ruthless and merciful. he's kind and violent. he's looked up to and looked down upon. he's the saint and the scapegoat. etc etc. and percy responds to this by frequently trying to deny his quote worse unquote traits until they eventually bubble up and explode out of him. this is part of why juno calls him a loose-canon (which btw, i love. everyone has been treating him as a loose canon and no one on this side has the balls to say it until then, seven books in).

all this to say, *ethan voice* it's abt balance! this moment should've been abt percy confronting his unfair treatment! the idolization from his peers! the demonization of his flaws/disability!

thanks for coming to my tedtalk.

Yes, absolutely yes. Gaea is literally the first of the Primordials. Dragging her into anything, be it major or minor, makes most plots baseless or completely entirely unrealistic even by fictional standards. Unless it's a war between primordials or divinities themselves.

Even in core Greek myths, Gaea or most primordials have extremely limited appearances, and Rick has no basis nor nuance for Gaea to appear or for it to be reasonable enough.

It should have been Greco-Roman conflict, which should have culminated with both camps teaming up against Giants [not Gaia, just the Giants] and which would have hopefully ended in changing the rigid ways of Camp Jupiter and certain problematic aspects of Camp Halfblood. That would have been so much better and with less plotholes.

Hot take I think hoo should’ve had NOTHING to do with Gaia and should’ve been completely about the war between the Roman’s and the Greek’s

Why does everyone have to take a shot at Percy? Nico stans come up with nonexistent flaws for him to put him down and literally criticize him for self defense against Nico after he literally betrayed Percy, Jason fans desperately want to prove that Jason is stronger than Percy and a better leader than Percy so much so they try and downgrade Percy's feats even when he is literally a strategical genius and an absolute beast of a fighter and the rest of the fandom along with Annabeth stans go on about some delusional and untrue dumb!Percy takes. I swear our fandom has the first top tier and absolutely phenomenal character, if not the best main character ever and suddenly everyone has a problem with it and Rick being Rick eats up whatever the majority of the fandom agrees on as new canon. I understand Jason fans are furious with the whole Jason is boring stuff, which I also heavily disagree with, but come on, Jason was barely fleshed out through the series. He has the most tragic backstory, and yet we see no great change in him due to it, nor do we get much of a solid plot line around him. You are always free to make headcanons, but don't drag other characters down for it.

hmmmmm not to be back on my jason grace agenda but something about percy, thalia, and nico facing iapetus and barely winning. (between titans curse & battle of the labyrinth, setting percy’s age at 14-15). and jason defeating krios, alone. hand-to-hand combat, aged 15. something about how in the house of hades we even hear that iapetus is, in fact, weaker than krios. this guy is so metal actually

In case we all need another bullet point for why Percy Jackson is the strongest.

If Riordan refuses to let Percy go could he at least write him like he did in the Son of Sobek

i feel like we don’t talk about this scene from the titan’s curse enough, because i think about this a lot. like… a lot. the way he was just like ‘oh i can move faster than bullets, that’s cool’, and then immediately moved on and never thought about it again?? i mean, i knew he could SWIM at mach 5, which is…. hypersonic speed, and equivalent to 3836 miles per hour. and i know all demigods are naturally a bit faster than humans. but like… he can move faster than bullets?

i guess i just wasn’t expecting perseus to go all spider-man on me, that’s all

What do you think about Perclarisse?

Perclarisee has been getting a lot of popularity recently. It's not a bad pairing, but i don't think it's best for the both of them given their nature's.

Percy is the child made and matured by war, while Clarisse is the child of war, seeking and living by its principles.

Clarisse probably is the person who most understands what the war has done to Percy and Percy is the person who most understands Clarisse's need for violence and how Ares's hypocrisy affects her so greatly.

They both, despite not seeing eye to eye, mostly have a great respect for each other.

But we come back to the point of healing from their traumas and insecurities. Percy and Clarisse talk in violence and in sparring. They need someone who would keep their pride aside and listen to their problems attentively without calling them out for their misgivings repeatedly.

Moreover Clarisse and Percy have a very distinctly different mindset.

As much as war plagues Percy he is no fan of it. He make not like war but the war likes him and it drives Percy insane.

There will never be a day he will get along with War Gods (but strangely, he is the only one who can say that he understands war more than anyone else) .

If it were upto Percy he would choose to talk his way out of everything because he knows if he fights he will leave nothing but pure destruction in its wake.

Clarisse on the other hand is a child of war. She lives and thrives on it. Violence is her language. She would resort to it each and every time.

She needs someone who makes her want to talk and bask in peace, not someone who keeps feeding into her violence hungry tendencies. (Chris has been perfect in that way. Both he and Silena have shown Clarisse how to manage her endless rage) .

But of course in some strange way if they did become a thing it would be interesting to see how they both change to understand the other and make an effort at changing their ways.

Percy needs to be more upfront about his rage instead of suppressing it while Clarisse needs to put a healthy bind on it and in that way I think they would be the perfect person to teach the other (if they stop to talk and don't just end up throwing hands).

The absolute highlight, however, would be Ares's reaction. Oh, Percy's going to have a blast annoying him. Imagine if Aphrodite and other Olympians join in. (I think Percy would do it just to spite Ares if he could lol aside from the respect he has for Clarisse).

It's a fun pairing, but I think it mostly works as close friends.

Not this again. Where are the Percabeth stans finding their audacity?

How insecure, jobless, and incorrectly wired must you be to go around looking in other people's business and then have the gall to invalidate the value of life by saying this over a fucking fictional ship opinion? And then double down on it by saying you mean it literally?

I find it funny that Percabeth stans do all this in the name of defending their ship but are instead further debasing its already heavily diminished value by engaging in such disgusting actions.

You did NOT just compare Annabeth and Gabe to each other.

I swear to god you anti Percabeths are the dumbest, most incomprehent people I've ever met. I seriously think you should just kys honestly the world would be a better place off without you.

No I don't think it's wrong you're anti Percabeth so yeah

I did, in fact, compare Annabeth to Gabe!

I don't think that Annabeth is as bad as Gabe (nope nope nope) but I do think that she's very toxic and that she hurts Percy. I think that they need to break up and heal alone. Her lack of character growth is very frustrating.

The lack of specificity in your death threat is annoying. If you do want me to kill myself, you're going to have to be more particular-the necessary tools, how long it'll take, how painful it'll be, etc. I take painless methods only.

I do think that not much would be changed in the world if I killed myself, but it would probably be a somewhat worse off place without me because I have people who love and care for me and I'm not doing anything bad to the world, so there's that.

When I came into this fandom, people told me that Percabeth stans would be rabid and hateful, and I don't think that's the case for the majority of them, seeing as that period already passed and they seem more mature now (or maybe it's just Tumblr) but you seem to be an exception. I wonder if you're the same anon as last time? I'll never know.

In any case, I'd like to thank you for your use of better grammar than the last one, though your not adding a period at the end of the last sentence irks me. I'd also prefer it if you didn't use the abbreviation of kys and said kill yourself. I dislike it when people use bad grammar, though that's just a personal preference.

Your morality is interesting-I forget the exact term for it, but you think it's bad to tell your side to kill themselves but have no problem telling the opposite side to kill themselves just because..............they're your enemies. Which is a terrible reason. Not surprising from a Percabeth stan, though.

I don't tend to think of people whom I disagree with as automatically bad people-that is a very harmful mentality to have. I have fought with some people, but they're not bad people-we just disagree on certain things and I know that they produce great content and have good morals just like me. Please adopt this mentality and the world will be slightly better, because every change is a change, no matter how big or small.

Anyway, I will be the bigger person and I hope that you sleep well tonight! Au revoir!

Top 5 powerful Percy moments

1. when percy cuts the williamsburg bridge in half with a scream as everyone watches. we love a dramatic king who shows off<3

2. the cleaning the stables scene, but more so because this is when he gets scared of what he’s capable of; he didn’t want to stop, and the man eating horses were genuinely terrified of his power because of this.

3. mount saint helens explosion. of course. i mean, c’mon, this is when he uses the max amount of his power, literally turning into water (this is just a theory of mine but yeah. he turned into water when the explosion happened and the strain of it was why he lost so much weight when he landed on ogygia)

4. him creating a hurricane as he fights hyperion!!!! king shit for real!!!! and i also love it because everyone gets to watch<3

5. this is a tie between when he raised the river lethe so he and thalia and nico could pass to the other side, while he was mortally wounded, to when he tortured aklyss (i think that’s how u spell her name). literally when he raised that underworld river thalia and nico thought him incapable because it was just that impossible, but he! proved! them! wrong!!! this is similar to the torture of misery, since he controlled other liquids that weren’t actual water in both scenes. anyway he should’ve killed that goddess i’m just saying 🤌

Do you know something that I find really curious?

Is that in Ancient Greek, Greek Mythology, and Hellenic Polytheism, even tho we don't actually have the idea of "sin" there are a few things they and therefore, hellenic polytheistics shouldn't do, but interestingly enough the only thing that is likely, highly not encouraged to do, and mostly unforgiving in Hellenism, is Húbris.

I find it really interesting and curious, because I bet Rick knew about it when he wrote PJO and still decided to give Annabeth, one of his main characters, a fatal flaw that was the closest thing of what could be considered a "sin" in Ancient Greece (the society he was basing his story on).

I'm not saying "whoa, he wanted to make something." My personal opinion is that he just doesn't care, just like he doesn't care to make a better adaptation of the Gods, but I still find it interesting enough to rant about it.

+ it is really concerning see people treating her fatal flaw as something positive and to be cheered on, even in the literal book narrative, when in fact, It is not.

Excessive pride can be a sign of a narcissist behavior, what can lead to dangerous situations or to toxic relationships. And I see Rick playing too much with this edge in Perccabeth dynamics.

(I'm not saying she is narcissist, tho. I believe I have to make this as clear as possible here. There is a difference of having a trace of narcissism, and be diagnosticaded with it.)

Just to finish my thoughts, when I realized Perccabeth lost all the sparkle for me was when I've read one meta about someone who didn't like Annabeth's behavior towards Percy a long time ago. At that time I was an avid Perccabeth shipper, but I basically sat and tought about it, and made a mental exercise: If Percy was a woman, and Annabeth was a man, would their interactions still be considered cute and perfect in a relationship?

That was when I realized, no, it wouldn't be. And that was it for me.

No, I completely get it. I myself was a Percabeth shipper, I think everyone was at one point as most of us read these books at a young age. I am glad that all of us are seeing massive problems with the many canon relationships and other aspects of Riordan's terrible writing.

You give Rick Riordan too much credit. If you have checked out any recent pjo books, you can see how terrible the continuity is and how one dimensional the characters are becoming. So he certainly did not take into account the gravity of Annabeth's fatal flaw, it's repercussions or even it’s connotations in Greek myths.

Annabeth is, as I have said before, a character that always devolves through the lack of change in her attitude and the behavioral inconsistencies. She admits to her fatal flaw and how it endangers her in some instances but then never brings it up again. Doesn't do anything to actively improve on it either.

Her overall attitude remains condescending, judgemental, and heavily hypocritical. And that is putting it mildly.

The fact that she made Percy apologize for getting kidnapped against his will and then having his memory wiped out.

She repeatedly made negative or demeaning comments on his intelligence.

This should be enough of a giveaway in the first place.

Not to mention her horrifying treatment of Rachel and lack of remorse for it. Not a single apology made for it either. Or to Percy for acting as if she owned him.

Furthermore, her consistently violent actions. Now, even if they don't hurt Percy, it's still an extremely unhealthy manner of expressing her emotions.

Her repeated defense of Luke despite him putting Percy in mortal danger and attempting to kill Percy each time. Before anyone quotes they had a bond, they were family, I know, I do but by that time she had seen him do so multiple times and Thalia was family too, she understood right away that Luke was too far gone.

I also dislike the tendency of Rick and, therefore, the fandom to put Annabeth on a pedestal of she can do wrong. I have made multiple posts highlighting how Percy is canonically a better strategist than Annabeth and how Annabeth is certainly not the smartest demigod. Most knowledgeable, perhaps, but not the smartest.

To all the shippers, everyone agrees that the closest we get to absolutely perfect characterization of Percy is in Son of Neptune and Son of Sobek and the short story The Stolen Chariot. And the most obvious common thing between all these is the lack of Annabeth.

I am not saying Annabeth would ruin the book, but she does ruin Percy's character. Rick is so busy hyping her up for no absolute reason that it ends up demeaning Percy irrationally and illogically. And it happens every time.

Even if you blame later book characterizations of Annabeth on Rick Riordan's terrible writing, her early characterization had the same flaws. They are just now overtly apparent in the most recent books.

If the genders were reversed, this would be the paragon of a toxic relationship. I understand that there are excruciatingly few balanced heterosexual relationships that actually do it right and that the extreme nostalgia makes it hard for us to acknowledge any flaws on it but that's no reason to falsely advertise it as the perfect relationship. Not even close.

Not just due to these reasons but also because they have nothing in common nor do their goals align, and it's also a bit of a case of trauma bonding. Again, I have made individual posts on almost all these points

I don't think there's anything more that needs to be said on this matter, really, but feel free to ask.

Does Percy ever have any trauma from Gabe?

I mean, in Tartarus, he says it smells like Gabe and I cannot fail to acknowledge his self-esteem issues which Gabe contributed to, but I mean more specific trauma like hating beer and gambling, etc. Something like that?

Percy has suffered due to Gabe for a long time, which contributes quite a lot to his trauma. You see, Rirodan was writing a children's book, and he didn't want to go down too many uncomfortable details, but the signs were there. A lot of them. And despite the canon's inconsistencies, Gabe is at least mentioned in accurate context every small time that he is referenced.

Rick, however, just to be safe, makes Percy's personality so that Percy avoids thinking of Gabe, and rightfully so. Let's take this slow. Because two important things, Percy's situation in the first book and all his issues are due to Gabe and, of course, he carries forward trauma from those situations, so what are they?

1.

Physical abuse is a part that is usually glossed over by the readers to some extent, even though it's in the first book. What I am trying to say is it is always acknowledged that Percy was abused, but rarely does the fandom go down the rabbit hole of specifics. If you see it once, you won't stop seeing it.

Gabe has both verbally and physically abused Percy so much that he has an extreme amount of self-esteem issues and a self-depreciating personality.

Not only did Gabe abuse Percy, but he also made Percy work part-time jobs or side hustles just to get extra money from Percy. Mind you, Percy was barely 12 in the first book, probably still 11, and this had been going for a while.

2.

If that wasn't enough Gabe controlled the budget of the family, not allowing Sally to spend more than he allowed and he splurged most money gambling so Percy grew up in very poor conditions but was sent to boarding schools with rich people which led to a lot of bullying from their end. Since Percy fought back, he somehow earned the per usual misnomer of being a troubled kid.

Cue all his expulsions. Some may be due to monster business, but most were definitely due to Percy fighting against bullies. Why is that notable? This is the start of Percy's anger issues. Percy has a lot of repressed anger from home due to Gabe and not being able to fight him (he hasn't tapped into his power yet, at least not enough of it). Plus, the bullies and horrible living conditions all contribute to Percy's attitude.

3.

Now, if you remember, in Book 1, Gabe threatens Percy severely so that he won't harm his car. But Percy was 12, and he himself says he wasn't going to be driving, but that wouldn't stop Gabe from blaming him. This means Gabe blamed Percy for everything, relevant or otherwise. We can see this in Percy's behavior when he immediately correlates every mistake as his fault and is always reflexively seen taking the blame for everything, even those that weren't his fault.

This scene actually creates a nice parallel against that scene in Book 5 where Percy is on a drive with Rachel in Paul's car and he is very suprised that Paul himself offered the car to him and didn't even impose any rules on Percy. He is however very worried when Blackjack dents the car because even though Paul is not Gabe, Percy has this natural fear against him at least subconsciously but is also very suprised when Paul doesn't get at all angry over the dent. It's such a sweet moment for Percy; he gets to learn how good fathers are.

3.

You mentioned gambling and drinking. Percy shows great dislike for the game in book 1, but he is forced to play cause of Dionysus. He's relatively good at it but doesn't play because he associates the game with Gabe. Same for alcohol. There's a line in the book where Percy says he knows how to recognize when others have been drinking or, as Percy calls it, hitting the happy juice. Obviously, alcohol makes Percy uncomfortable in itself, and he immediately dislikes Dionysus because he is a drunkard and a poker player along with a build similar to Gabe, which makes Percy naturally dislike him greatly. It doesn't help that Dionysus is a complete asshole but his initial natural dislike of Mr. D is due to Gabe.

4.

We all joke about how Percy is a fugitive and known terrorist in tons of states. This is all Gabe's fault. Percy gets in such problems with the law all due to Gabe and how he set literally every police department possible on Percy's trail. Now Percy, being Percy, he manipulates the officers to get on their good side, but he obviously still has problems with the law due to this entire fiasco.

The fandom likes to say that Percy got all his dark aura after Tartarus, but Percy has literally had killing intent since he was 12. One of his first lines in the book is "I am going to kill her" in reference to Nancy Bobofit. He gets gut punched by the realization that Gabe has been hitting his Mom. Gabe literally raised his hand against Sally in front of Percy in book 1. You can't tell me Percy recovered from that. He thinks then too of pulling Riptide and killing Gabe but realizes it wouldn't work on Gabe. Now Percy, who almost always means exactly what he says when talking to people, calls Gabe 'human by the loosest definition.' A 12 year old thinks that you can imagine how bad the situation was.

After Book 1, Rick heavily avoids mentioning abuse in his book cause he is trying to write for kids, but it shows.

Percy thinks of Gabe when he first accidentally iris messages in on one of his Mom's and Paul's dates. Percy is immediately suspicious, which is obviously why Sally hadn't told him anything before this. She wasn't completely sure about Paul, and she also didn't want Percy to worry. When Percy sees her laugh with Paul, he thinks of how much trouble his Mom went through with Gabe.

This is important because after Book 1 when Percy finally learns why Sally kept Gabe around in his head he twists the narrative as his Mom suffered Gabe, not that both he and Sally but only Sally suffered Gabe and why? To protect him. He BLAMES himself for something that's obviously completely not his fault. But in his head, he ends up masking his own pain and considering only Sally's pain valid. This is why Percy doesn't talk to anyone about Gabe and also why everyone thinks Gabe was a bit of a jerk but not an abuser. We literally see PERCY DO THIS TO HIMSELF. Same thing in The Last Olympian. Same thing in Mark of Athena. He talks about how his Mom suffered by staying in the awful marriage, not about himself.

5.

Now the famous House of Hades scene. See Tartarus draws out negative emotions and experiences and worst nightmares of a person to feast on. This is very telling because despite the endless life-death situations Percy has been in ,he thinks of Gabe. Because to Percy, self suffering is no suffering at all. But his Mom suffering is the worst of all. Now Annabeth obviously doesn't get the cue because she has no idea about how Percy lived in his past. While it is true that Annabeth cannot be held responsible for not getting why Percy brought up Gabe in Tartarus and took it as Percy making a joke; a case can be made against Annabeth's lack of initiative to learn more about Percy's life before all this. I digress as that's a completely different discussion. Point stands is that Percy is so unbelievably broken yet loyal that he doesn't even consider his own pain valid.

The next mention of Gabe is directly in Chalice of the Gods. Percy rather openly thinks how much he hated family dinners with Gabe. Also, he has a very nice conversation with Sally soon after he recovers from being turned into a child, where he talks about how powerless being a child felt and how afraid he was. I am certain that the implications indicate at both monsters and Gabe and how a young Percy had been very afraid of both situations but more of Gabe than monsters. Go figure.

It's plenty clear how much trauma Percy has from Gabe and how much he has trained his mind to either avoid it or redirect it elsewhere lest he regress into bitterness and anger issues.

It's probably longer than you expected, but I like systematic exploration of points, hence the long rant. I have done my best to break it down, so it's easier to follow. Also, I am very, very happy for this ask as I really love to explore Percy's personality and Percy's powers. Feel free to send me more along this line of thought.

@fourcornersofcreation ,@hermesmyplatonicbeloved, @helenofsparta2 , @ogjacksonsimp, and @berrybore have all also made posts exploring some of Percy's trauma and they will probably have things to add as well. So please check their posts on this topic as well in case I missed anything.