But what do you have to say against the point Jyn made? Which I would point out, does not fit your dichotomy.
Jyn has actually contradicted herself here… a couple of months ago when we chatted she made a few different points against this… We mostly spoke of how Solangelo could use a lot more work then it had, OBVIOUSLY, but that we could see the benefits of it. I'm surprised she'd say what she did because I wouldn't believe it to be true personally… In any case, as the newer books come out the ship will progress further no doubt. Thoughts?
The thing I have the most problem with is Riordan screaming diVeRSItY out of the pages of the book. I have nothing against true diversity. What I have a loathing for is the Token _____ Character. And that’s what this was. And it wasn’t even done well!
That is what pisses me off. Not diversity. But using gay/black/Muslim/etc. people as a device to make money off of. Plus the terrible quality of the story, especially because it pushes ideals so over the top it blocks the story. I feel he wants diverse characters that is great. He’s probably only caving to social pressures at the moment. But if he truly wanted them without the movements supporting him I would be much happier about it. Look at Spiderverse. There was some well-done diversity. And one of the reasons it was so good was that they didn’t make a big deal out of it. Spider-Man is now black. Nobody questioned it. He speaks Spanish because of his mother. No comment. And that’s what makes it so good. That is the real diversity we want. No shoving it in our faces but making a narrative where your diversity doesn’t matter because it is completely unquestioned and not an issue. And Riordan failed that. Hard.
The points you make are valid concerning diversity and the way spider-verse handled it. However, for someone to completely dismiss the ideal and ability to write RR holds is totally uncalled for and offensive. He does seem to push the ideas of diversity incredibly (if not too far), but the whole point is that mythology is diverse. His books are diverse and therefore so are his characters. Wrong or right this was his aim and in no hate did he do this, his aim was never to offend people but empower YOUNG people. His writing is no Shakespeare nor the plot of Steven King but he had a purpose and he fulfilled it. Nico di Angelo was powerful. That is absolute. Alex in Magnus Chase was a strong character and not a representation of Gender-Fluid today but a relation of the original HISTORICAL facts from Scandinavia.
This is all completely beside the point. To call any writing without purpose and "of terrible quality" is simply incorrect. The point is, different writers, aim for different readers, it seems that you were not for him.
I do justify any of his shitty writings but I do not stand for such a shitty close-minded opinion either.