Please could anyone explain or comment on the argument that Amanda Craig makes in the Times today about the value of the third person in giving a greater readership?

By narrating his story in the first person, the engaging 12-year-old Percy limits his potential audience to present-day children and teenagers. Rowling was always careful to show us only what Harry saw and felt, but the flatness of her prose allowed adults, and children, to put themselves in his place.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article7016845.ece

I'm so undecided about whether to use first or third person for my WIP and I would really like to understand what Amanda Craig is getting at here.

It's a daft argument as noone could hope to emulate the Harry Potter series. There isn't one thing you could point to, such as Rowlings choice of 3rd person limited, and say 'it's because of that'.
However, maybe she has a point that first person 'voice' does limit the readership to the original target readership. eg, the Twilight series is most popular with young girls who empathise with the main character and share her 'voice'. While, Pullan's His Dark Materials and Rowling's Harry Potter series rely more on plotting, which suits a wider readership.
At the end of the day go with whatever suits your novel, be that 1st person or 3rd person limited, or even multi-povs.

That's got to be the most moronic argument ever. I guess only paedophilic men can be the audience for Lolita then. Or autistic teenage boys for Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. Duh.

With all due respect the entire article is tosh. The Percy Jackson books are great. They are not HP. I don't think they are trying to be HP. Amanda Craig writes as if there is no other YA fantasy series but HP - what about Garth Nix and the Morrow days series - Flora Segunda - Steve Feasey's Changeling - Darran Shan - Shapeshifter - The Bartimaeus Trilogy - - Artemis Fowl - HIVE - The Mortal Instruments - and that is just for starters.

Rick Riordan does a lot of very interesting things in the Percy Jackson books. His 'adult' god characters are every bit as irresponsible, deceitful, playful, malicious, selfish and capricious as the original Olympians - which I think is great.

It may go against received wisdom to show that adults can be unreliable and are not always pillars of rectitude - but how much more true to life?

And Voldemort - captivating?

Just wanted to add the lovely Temeraire series to your list. And every time I've encountered this idea in the media, this supposed plagiarism of HP in the Percy Jackson series, I really have to laugh. What? Because HP was so original? I think not.

The 'flatness of prose' I agree on.

JB

Temeraire of course

Is it 'flatness of prose', or is it 'invisible writing'? Rowling is a jobbing writer, she doesn't aim to be the next <insert name of fancy prose writer here>. As Dan Brown and Rowling have shown a good plot, conveyed by invisible writing, is all one needs to create a bestseller.

With the greatest respect, shouldn't that be a stolen plot?

JB

<Added>

But I take your point about flat prose being necessary to the successful mainstream novel, where things are a lot more immediate than literary ones.

Thanks for the helpful thoughts and replies. I think I found Naomi's thoughts about the issue being more about plot for HP and Dark Materials, vs empathising with a first person POV in Percy Jackson/Twilight a more convincing argument than Amanda Craig's.

I do like Amanda Craig's articles and I don't think she was deliberately leaving out all those other wonderful series. She is writing in the context of the first of the Percy Jackson films being released next week (and my son won't let me forget it), and the speculation as to how it will fare compared to the HP series.

Cathy

Having read both series, I'd say Harry Potter has wider appeal because the world of Hogwarts and wizarding is just plain cooler. Adult or kid, who wouldn't want to spend some time in Hogwarts? I never got that feeling with Percy Jackson. I don't think it has much at all to do with plot or POV. Rowling has built in all kinds of cool little details that make the world rich and enticing. None of the other books mentioned have that. I wouldn't want to go to Lyra's Oxford or Camp Halfblood or Forks. Not in the same way.

Well, it all comes down to personal taste, I think, rather than whether or not this or that series is better. For instance, some people love all the detail that you mention, while others are bored silly by it. Others don't like HDM, but no one can say judging by success that either series are 'bad', per se. Myself included.

JB

I appreciate it is a short article - it just seems a pity that there is no nod to all that came before HP and all that came after.

I believe that AC was one of the first to give critical recognition to Rowling and Pullman and I suppose that it is natural and inevitable that HP should be seen as the most popular and general point of comparison - but as children's book critic to a national broadsheet it seems a pity that the scope of the article is so narrow.

And why the comparison anyway?

We're all looking forward to Percy Jackson in this house - it's entirely probable that my teen daughter will see it twice - once with us and once with her friends

I can't resist the notion of Sean Bean as Zeus

And Apollo - 'I feel a haiku coming on!'

Sarah

I think it must be obvious that neither first nor third person are 'better' than each other. But I do see what Amanda Craig means. Writing in first feels a little too easy whenever I do it. I get much more satisfaction out of a well-crafted third. I think there is a universality to third person, which works really well for children's fantasy. It shows you a world you can step into, rather than the relatively narrow view out of one set of eyes.
Children love to escape into books, and they love to put themselves into the character's shoes. So for me, the 'placeholder' character in children's literature is very important. I mean characters like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, or Tommy and Annika in Pippi Longstocking. They are not the most interesting characters, they are bland enough for the reader to be able to imagine themselves in their place, to think I could be Dorothy, or I could be Moomintroll. Percy Jackson's voice and character and approach to the world is very much of his time and place, more so than Harry Potter's.
I'm not sure 'flat' is the right word, though. JK's style was jumping with humour right from the first line, and that's what made it stand out.

Rowling does a very good job of putting 'voice' into 3rd person limited.

There is a lot of humour in the HP books, I agree.

And why the comparison anyway?

To be honest, I think it's mainly down to the title. Harry Potter and the/Percy Jackson and the. When both are presented as children's series, and so close to each other in genre and time, I can understand why some might draw parallels. On the surface, PJ does seem a little like the American HP. Most of us will just have to wait until the film comes out.

JB