#anti Luke Castellan

[freddie-77-ao3]

[punkeropercyjackson]

Luke Castellan is not queer-coded,i think you just hate black women

[bugwolfsstuff]

I will never like or forgive Luke mostly because he is the reason Castor is never gonna see their dad again

Like its assumed that Dionysus had a good relationship with his kids.

And yeah Castor will have Pollux in the future but they're never gonna see their dad again.

They're dead and Dionysus is deathless

They're dead and never gets to see the parent they loved because Luke hated his parent

[perseas-wellyboots]

The Luke Castellan problem in PJO books and Fandom

I just finished rereading the pjo series for the dozenth time and I have so many thoughts about Luke and how the fandom woobified him.

Like no Luke did not have the right idea and executed it in the wrong way. He wasn't a misguided victim, although there is no doubt Kronos manipulated him. But him being manipulated does not absolve him of his wrongdoings. Hurt people can still hurt people, you can be abused and still become an abuser.

Most of Fandom's idea of Luke being a 'hero' because he did the right thing in the end is extremely doozy like ok he killed himself to stop Kronos but that does not absolve him the blame of killing innocent people.

While Luke's main goal was the destruction of Gods, that was not because he wanted the demigods to have better lives. He actively killed demigods.

In the Sea of Monsters, when Percy, Annabeth and Tyson snuck into Princess Andromeda; they saw 12 year olds being trained how to kill a 'dummy in camp half blood tshirts'. He was actively exploiting children and manipulating them into killing other children and saw nothing wrong with it.

He only considered deflecting from Kronos when he found out that he was going to be possessed by him.

He only worked and cared for him, he was so lost into power and revenge that HE became a monster.

"Oh but he cared for Thalia and Annabeth!!" I'll get into that later too

I think Luke's fatal flaw contrary to the opinion of fandom is The Urge to Prove Himself.

He had one conversation with Hermes which made him angry and bitter and Thalia even notes that after that conversation Luke got into more and more fights with monsters like he had something to prove which Annabeth didnt seem to see as a problem since he was her hero. They got into more skirmishes because of his recklessness, fighting more monsters since Luke wanted to pick a fight with each one he came across.

(Conversation from PJO, The Last Olympian)

His fatal flaw being to Prove Himself would explain why he took the failure of his quest so hard that the night he returned from the quest was the same night Kronos started speaking to him for the first time. It didn't help that when he returned from his failed quest, the campers treated him with pity.

He wanted to pull Olympus down stone by stone because He failed his quest that he didn't want to do because it was already done by Hercules once. 🥴

His endgame has nothing to do with wanting to help ANYBODY. He wanted to take down gods because he had a grudge against them and wanted to Prove that he could do it. Everything else comes secondary if it fits his agenda.

This is one of the reasons why it bothers me so much when people say that Luke had the right idea or that Percy would have joined Kronos if Sally had died like you fundamentally misunderstood the character of Percy if you think he would have joined Kronos.

He talks about "driving humanity back into caves, all except the strongest - who would serve him" THIS IS LITERALLY FASCISM???

(According to Merriam-Webster, Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression)

Now onto the topic of Thalia, Annabeth and Luke

First of all, I absolutely hate that 'Thalia and Luke had a thing before she got turned into a tree bit' because Thalia was 12 and Luke was 14 when they met and Thalia was 15 and Luke was 20-21ish when they meet again in TTC ugh hate that.

Now TTC, where to begin, here I used to believe Luke had already bathed in river Styx as there are some narrations where Percy notes that Luke looked worse and like his scar was reopened and would certainly explain how he survived the cliff fall but on my rereading I realised that Thalia and Luke fought when Percy was holding the sky and Thalia injured Luke so nvm then.

It is however in this book that Luke began to realise Kronos's plan for him as it is implied by the General and he starts to fear for his life.

Mind you, what did Luke think would happen if Thalia did agree to join Kronos when he knew Kronos was looking for a host of body...

Luke is many things, he is cunning, manipulative, a great swordsman but what he is not is stupid. If Thalia would have agreed then Kronos would have used Thalia as a vessel 😬

And oh boy the can of worms that is Luke and Annabeth. I've seen many Luke fans/apologists deny that there is no canon evidence of Luke being romantically interested in Annabeth BUT THERE IS?? they refuse to believe and call Annabeth an unreliable narrator because otherwise their uwu white boy would be a Pedophile. Even if he wasn't a Pedo, he manipulated Annabeth so many times to make her sympathise with her and use her emotions against her.

(excerpts from various books: TLO, TLO, BoTL, MoA annabeth's pov)

^ Annabeth was 15 almost 16 or already 16 I believe when Luke asked her to run away with him in a romantic sense and he was 21-22.

also another evidence adding to the theory of his fatal flaw having proving himself.

Now, onto the topic of CHB and Luke:

Luke being hesitant to attack camp half blood in BotL has less to do with him suddenly growing a spine (as some fans suggest) and more to do with the inevitable possession.

When Kronos informs that he will himself lead the attack, Luke advises to use Hyperion instead because he knows for Kronos to attack it in person, he would finally possess Luke.

(first one is from TTC, the other two from BoTL)

One of the last things I wanna talk about is Silena Beauregard & Luke and Luke's portrayal in the new Percy Jackson series:

Luke was 17 when Kronos started speaking to him and 19 when he left the camp. Silena was 17-18 when she died which makes her 13-14 when Luke left the camp in TLT and 11-12 when Kronos first started talking to him. Adult Luke charmed an underage girl, and promised her that she was helping the demigods and then when she tried to stop, he started blackmailing her. [excerpts from TLO]

According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children UK, Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. The relationship a groomer builds can take different forms. This could be: a romantic relationship, as a mentor, an authority figure, a dominant and persistent figure. They might use blackmail to make a child feel guilt and shame or introduce the idea of 'secrets' to control, frighten and intimidate.

So canonically, Book!Luke is a fascist groomer pedophile.

Now on the new Disney+ Percy Jackson show, it seems that Rick Riordan is subtly rewriting the character of Luke and removing the more problematic aspect of him (pedophile and grooming). Let me explain why I think that:

Even though in TLT the book, Luke describes Annabeth as his little sister we know how well that lasted but I don't think they are keeping Annabeth's crush on him on the show from what I've seen (though I could be wrong).

Secondly, the casting of Dior Goodjohn as Clarisse puts Clarisse on the same age range as Luke, maybe a year or two younger but in the first book Clarisse was 13-14 and she was 17 in TLO, so they have aged her up. It is my assumption that they will also age Silena by casting a 17-19 yr old actress as her.

And they have made Luke far more sympathetic in the show than the books (him not calling a hellhound during capture the flag and no pit scorpions in the finale), but we wouldn't know how sympathetic or villainous they are making him until season 2 comes out. Charlie Bushnell gives an excellent performance imo

Though this again reflects the double standards it comes to PJO, they have given much grace and praise for the changes made to Luke's character and little to no complaint for ageing up Clarisse but the hate Walker and especially Leah are given is so cruel. Leah has been so much racially targeted though I think she's an excellent Annabeth, just something to think about.

Also, before I forget-

We don't give enough flack to Rick Riordan for writing two weird age dynamics without recognising as grooming and pedophilic nature. (Lukabeth and Caleo/Capercy)

The characters are never made to realise (especially Annabeth) that an older person having feelings for them as a minor is not a normal behaviour.

Especially in regards to Calypso who may take the form of a 15 year old but is actually more than 4612 (according to the riordan wiki) and her having a crush on 14 year old Percy and 15-16 yr old Leo Valdez, not to mention how rudely she treated Leo. Also her cursing Annabeth because Percy left her. Not only is it plain nasty but she's never called out. Its actually so disgusting🤕.

Anyways this turned into a long rant but I would love to read your opinions, especially on Luke's fatal flaw.

I know for some people it may seem like I'm too hard on him but this is just my opinion.

IMO I have no problem if you like a morally bad or gray person, an antihero or a villain as long as their bad deeds aren't swept under the rug and pretend they never happened or glorify their good deeds.

I actually think villian's bad things make them more interesting.

Luke is an antagonist and a villain of the PJO series and a part of being a villain is that some people are going to hate you and that's ok.

Me personally, I was never a fan of his and that's ok.

I know some people are going to bring up the fact that Percy in MoA sympathises but the PJO characters are complicated and Luke was very skilled at making others think of his reason to destroy the Gods the way they would sympathise the most and we see that multiple times.

[wanderingmind867]

Listen. I'm not saying Rick Riordan is biased towards Luke Castellan (and biased against Octavian), but i'm not not saying that either. I mean...it seems clear that there's something going on here. Luke wanted to raise Kronos and destroy Olympus. He wanted to bring us all back to the dark ages! But his goals were always described in such a sympathetic way. Luke gets to go to Elysium in the end. Percy never managed to bring himself to hate Luke. Everyone acts like Luke's some poor baby, when he was definitely in control of most of his actions during those books. Age as going to forget how we treated his men? It wasn't great. And yet still, luke was treated like a sad and tragic figure (despite his clearly horrendous goals).

Now, let's compare this to rick's treatment of Octavian. Octavian is called so many different names throughout these books. Anemic Loser. Horrible Roman Child. That Creature. Barbarian. Dirt Wipe. He was even described as looking like a Scarecrow a few times, which feels a little insulting. Then Rick also has his protagonists say they want to launch him out of a catapult, and then he actually dies being launched out of a catapult! Octavian probably doesn't go to Elysium, because Rick Riordan doesn't like this kid, and he makes that painfully obvious.

So...you tell me. Is Rick Riordan biased towards Luke, or am I just misremembering things? Because it sure feels to me like he's biased towards Luke. And by proxy, biased towards the Greeks. Because with the exception of Reyna, Jason, Frank and Hazel, how many good romans do we really meet? In the books, there's pretty much 0. Which screams that Rick Riordan has some weird blind spot towards greece, and some huge hatred of rome. I don't get it, but his biases have only had the opposite effect on me. I hate Luke but love Octavian. So somehow i've drawn the exact opposite of the conclusions he seemed to want me to draw.

[shiftingwithmars]

Luke: *Gr00ms and kills literal children* The fandom: He’s just misunderstood🥺

Annabeth: *Is a complex teenage girl* The fandom: She’s toxic and deserves to die

[pain-is-too-tired]

This scene makes me sick to my stomach actually-

"Perrrrcy!" Grover bleated.

I rolled again as Luke's sword slashed the deck chair in half, metal pipes and all. I clawed toward the swimming pool, trying not to black out. I'd never make it. Luke knew it, too. He advanced slowly, smiling. The edge of his sword was tinged with red. "One thing I want you to watch before you die, Percy." He looked at the bear-man Oreius, who was still holding Annabeth and Grover by the necks. "You can eat your dinner now, Oreius. Bon appetit" "He-he He-he!" The bear-man lifted my friends and bared his teeth.

Like, this isn't just him trying to kill Percy because he's against him and he feels he has to do it or whatever. This is Luke taking joy in not only killing a 13 yr old boy. But making him watch his friends be eaten before he does.

Not just that. One of said friends being the girl that he supposedly sees as a sister. But yeah,sure he's fine with her being eaten alive.

The difference between how Luke acts and how Kronos in Luke's body acts is really not that different. Like wtf 😭

He's like 20 yrs old here too btw. Why is a 20 yr old taking joy in torturing a 13 YR OLD BOY WITH THE DEATH OF HIS FRIENDS BEFORE KILLING HIM.

The fact that they tried to make us feel he was redeemable is insane.

No Rick! I don't think the man who tried to kill a young boy and feed his "sister" to a bear-man is all that redeemable just cause he maytred himself. I just- why???

And that's just one thing he's done.

Idk if they'll keep this in the show or not. But if they do? My gods...it's gonna be so hard trying to act chill with my mom why watching it.

[refrigeratedboombursts]

So brave of the Percy Jackson series to have cult leader representation completely divorced from the literal gods that do exist!

[shattered-glasswork]

I was scrolling Tumblr and saw a post about L*ke claiming he was a hero in the end but... Did we read the same books? L*ke was a monster who led tons of children into their deaths, betrayed almost all of his friends and tried to kill percy multiple times. I get that he like stabbed himself in the end but I don't think that cancels out the wrong that he did, L*ke c@st3ll@n was a traitor and he died a traitor.

[freddie-77-ao3]

Octavian started another war where he was willing and eager to firebomb a camp full of children so he could reap the glory of victory. I'd say his villainization by the fandom is very well-earned, especially since he had none of Luke's more sympathetic traits.

feel like you missed my whole point but okay.

Um. I mean if we consider Luke's sympathetic traits to be he was actually treated as a human with a backstory, sure, Octavian deserves to be villainized more but uh, I'd consider Octavian's reasons for waging war a lot more legitimate than Luke's tbh?

Like. Luke's boiled down to daddy issues. He was upset his father wasn't there, and decided to make that everyone else's problem. Sure, if it wasn't Luke, it would be someone else, but Luke's the figurehead here. Luke, who was actually treated pretty well by Hermes all things considered.

And yes, May Castellan would have been terrifying, and shouldn't have been Luke's caregiver but...

Having a difficult parental situation absolutely does not give you the right to take your pain out on others. And that's what Luke did.

And yes, Luke absolutely was manipulated. Kronos manipulated him.

Now let's consider Octavian's motivation to "firebomb a camp full of children" as you put it.

Number one: Octavian was also manipulated. Gaea did manipulate him. He thought he was listening to Apollo-- a god who, to him, was good. Should be respected.

Number two: he didn't start the war. No, really. The greeks, from his point of view, brought a warship over the city and started firing. They damaged homes, likely hurt people, all within what was MEANT to be a safe place.

Leo might have been possessed but that was never communicated to Octavian. So no, he didn't start a war.

Gaea forced Leo to start a war. Either way, the Greeks started the war in his eyes.

Also the fact you take such offense to Octavian waging war on children... did you somehow think that Luke was only waging war on the adults? Because I can tell you, most people consider a twelve year old a child, and Luke did in fact try to kill one of those. You know, Percy.

Also victims of Luke: Silena, actively groomed by Luke. Yeah she committed suicide, but she wouldn't have if Luke hadn't done that. Also, grooming is in fact also a crime.

And, you know, all the other casualties from that war. Because there were. Castor, Lee, Bianca, Zoë, Michael, Beckendorf, the other 15 campers dead from the battle of manhattan, and all the other casualties.

Also he did send Chris into the labyrinth, and didn't particularly seem to care that he was driven mad?

Not to mention the PTSD he inflicted on a bunch of kids.

So yes, you're right, Octavian did bad shit. But he also had his reasons for said bad shit. Reasons that I, personally, find a lot more compelling than Luke's.

Plenty of people have daddy issues, anon. Not many of them try to end the world.

[punkeropercyjackson]

Rick Riordan tried to write Luke and Percy as 'Luke didn't have it as good as Percy so that's why he turned out worse' but then wrote Luke as a blonde blue eyed conventionally attractive white man worshipped by everyone at the literal fantasy land he grew up sheltered in and got one bad encounter with the gods after never interacting with him outside of it and Percy as a lifelong bullying victim with an abusive stepdad that got profield for 'looking wrong' and was suicidal by age 12 so he grew up in the real world in the most straightup definition possible and is even the eternally damned yet boundlessly heroic and saviour of other demigods martyr of the gods Luke claims he was.Bro tried so hard to try 'The Radical' trope he circled right back around to writing a cryptofascist antagonist and an autistic black-latino anarchist protagonist

[comfortabletogether]

I LOVE ETHAN TOO BUT I CAN NEVER FIND CONTENT OF HIM THAT'S NOT FUCKING L*ke so spare hcs????

YES SIR!! I am not a fan of Puke in this household. Even as a stupid little kid I thought that Luke was weird as hell.

Ethan has constant headaches and dizziness due to only having one eye. Typically if not in the middle of planned combat he has a big ass water bottle hooked onto the loops of his jeans.

Chronic blue jean wearer. To the point where most people think that he just doesn’t own a pair of pants that aren’t jeans. On top of that he doesn’t put them in the washer machine but instead he puts them in the freezer for a day or so.

Ethan struggles to fight in dark places. And it’s a severe struggle for him. Because everything is so much darker when you only are using one eye.

He has an unnaturally high metabolism and they don’t feed him exactly enough in the Titan Army. That caused him and Chris to sneak out in the middle of the night to go steal slushies from 7-11’s.

Ethan thinks exclusively in words. I don’t think he is an artistic person either. But he lives off of logic puzzles and if he could he would play the New York Times games every day (wordle, connections, crossword strands, etc).

When he lived in Camp Half Blood he was a quiet kid back then and was rarely acknowledged by those around him. But he would end up hanging out/find himself trailing behind Clairess, Silena, Chris, Charles and Lee.

People (in universe) easily mistake him for being extremely obedient and will always fall into line no matter what. Which is what ended up making him Kronos’ top general. But he does have his own strict sets of morals he has for himself, and one’s that he would never cross.

He works himself up thinking about equality issues and is extremely adamant about them and people respect other’s identities.

Is a cat person and his father always owns four cats at all times. On that topic dad was a lawyer that focused on family and divorce cases.

[wanderingmind867]

Percy should never have compared Octavian to Luke, because Luke is far worse. Luke worked with monsters, yet belittled them constantly. He wanted to tear down Olympus and leave every man to fend for themselves (thereby sending us back to the dark days when survival of the fittest, eugenics and natural selection ruled all). Luke sucks.

By comparison, Octavian is just a man doing what he thinks is best for his people. He's a leader, trying to save New Rome from the perceived menace of the Greeks. You could definitely argue Octavian is a zealot with a history of ignorance and prejudice, but you can't say he didn't legitimately mean everything he said he wanted. You can't tell me he wasn't at least trying in his own way to be a good leader for the people of New Rome.

I don't know if i put up the best defense here, but I just really don't think he's a bad guy. I like him, and I think he deserves more respect than Luke. At least Octavian didn't constantly belittle his own soldiers (that i can remember). At least you can say he tried to be a good leader.

[pain-is-too-tired]

Leeluke to me is less "aw they be cute together" and more "Idk if they were married but they are definitely divorced" fgxdc

Like Krisnix in Ace Attorney

Lee being a very bitter ex who's so done with Luke and Luke just not getting it is so funny to me.

Lee had to help care for a nearly dead 12 year old boy that Luke just left to deal with a pit scorpion on his own for and immediately filed the divorce papers.

Luke @ Kronos: my wife's leaving me and he's taking the kids :(

Kronos: What kids??? What wife???

Cut to Lee with the Stolls dhdh

Lee also took the brain cell in the divorce/j

Reason of divorce in the papers is just "He tried to kill one kid three fucking times in one summer. Wtf." Dhdhh

[newlyfoundwren]

The only reason the gods let Luke in Elysium was so that the demigods that died in the second titanomachy can use him as a punching bag

[shiftingwithmars]

Stop making up excuses for assholes.

“Oh but he was abused—“ First of all that’s fanon, second of all it doesn’t give him the right to be racist.

“Oh he was raised by horrible parents—“ That doesn’t give him the right to be an asshole.

“Oh he was trying to fight the gods and make them do better—“ That doesn’t change the fact that he was in the wrong.

There’s a difference between understanding a character and their backstory versus making up excuses for them and defending them.

“Regulus changed his mind—“ First of all, no he didn’t. He only betrayed Voldemort because Voldemort promised he’d advocate for Purebloods but in reality he just wanted power. And just because he “changed his mind” (he didn’t), that doesn’t change nor excuse the fact that up until that point he was a piece of absolute shit. And he STILL was a piece of shit, just one that died trying to be “effective” (he wasn’t).

Yes, Draco was raised by horrible parents, but that doesn’t change nor excuse the fact that he was a racist piece of shit. And you can’t use the excuse of “Draco had no one to tell him right from wrong—“ yes, he did. He chose the wrong crowd, that’s on him. He had multiple adults to advocate for him, if he wasn’t such an asshole the Golden Trio would’ve been happy to be friends with him.

Yes, Luke was trying to get the gods to do better and pay attention to their children, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that he literally gr00med multiple children and is responsible for the death of hundreds of others. It doesn’t change the fact that he betrayed his best friend and protector, it doesn’t excuse the fact that he tried to kill Annabeth and Percy multiple times, it doesn’t excuse the fact that he helped an evil titan resurrect.

Stop making excuses for assholes and learn to leave flawed characters flawed.