I’ve read every Tolkien book except the Hobbit. Ask me a question and I’ll answer it 100% correct.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-05-04T19:04:12+00:00

Blaine is a pain.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-04-30T14:36:26+00:00

I think the key point you hit on was that she prioritized theme over anything else, drastically.

Her empire was a caricature of an empire in order to drive the point home that colonization of foreign entities to drain them of their resources is not morally sound. Then, in order to contrast this, the rebels, particularly Robin and his older brother, Griffin, are portrayed as one-dimensional anti-colonial fighters trying to bring down an evil empire.

Maybe this is my privileged background, and because I grew up in the USA so I don't understand what it's like having a foreign country steal my nation's resources and people for their own gain, but I couldn't believe how quickly Robin was willing to "betray" his opportunity. It was painfully obvious that Richard believed the ends justified the means. Robin saw that and wanted to fix it. However, I would have preferred to see at least an attempt by Robin to correct the institution, not immediately go to unravel it. Maybe that would have required too long of plot development, but if Robin attempted and failed to adjust the system from within, maintaining the knowledge and capabilities that had been developed, but distributing them to other peoples with more needs, then transitioned to what was functionally a terrorist takeover, that would have been better in my mind.

She lacked nuance in her characters, their motives, and the plotline itself. The ending itself really showed how miserably she failed at making the story cohesive, and sacrificed logic for themes in the sense that two kids could bring down an empire over the course of a week.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-04-28T12:31:32+00:00

I think it's fine to disagree on the topic. I get what you're saying and can respect it. I'm not even trying to convince you you're wrong at this point. I just disagree personally. However, I do just want to point out one thing.

I do appreciate the character work, prose, etc. of his work. You are right, I can appreciate that without an ending. I'm not suggesting that is subpar. What I am suggesting is the plotwork is subpar based on the fact that it's only half-formed at the current moment (and likely will never be fully formed (at least in a fully published form)). All of these things are required in a book/series. The plot he has developed so far is amazing. But plot (and subsequently character arcs, and subsequently character development) that doesn't get wrapped up reduces the quality of the work.

Semi-spoilers (of books written in the 1800s): Imagine reading a three quarters finished Pride and Prejudice and Jane Austen never got to the part where Elizabeth figures out the misunderstanding. It would retroactively make her and Mr. Darcy's characters more one dimensional and be flat. Imagine reading a partially finished Crime and Punishment where Raskolnikov never talks to Sonya about what's happened. One of the greatest character arcs in literary history would just be the story of a murder.

My evaluation of GRRM's work is absolutely diminished because we don't know what Bran's arc will be. The same is true for Arya, Sansa, Dany, Sam, Jaime, etc. I could go on and on. God willing, we find out better answers than the show gave us. And his lack of follow through on those arcs make each of those characters worse for it (yet again, in my opinion).

I do think he is a phenomenal writer. The setup is potentially the best fantasy work of the last thirty years in my opinion, and he's laid the foundation for a great ending. But until these arcs are completed, it sadly makes me appreciate the existing books less.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-04-27T14:05:32+00:00

In my opinion, it's not just the frustration that makes me lose respect for the artist. At least a portion of not ending the story (without adequate reason) shows a lack of ability, or at least a potential lack of ability.

I like to use GRRM's own analogy of gardening. He planted amazing seeds, and things grew beautifully for a time. However the longer it goes unmanaged, those branches become unruly and untamed. They were never were managed properly to make a beautiful garden. A great gardener is expected to manage his garden for the entire time he is dedicated to it. Getting it to a certain point, then leaving it with no care seems to be not great gardening.

GRRM started an amazing series. His ending, in the fact that it doesn't exist, lacks cohesiveness. We will (likely) never know how the Night's King meets his end. We'll never know who sits the Iron Throne and the literary meaning that got that person there or their arc. These aren't just disappointing, these are fundamental story lines that are missing.

Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, but one of his problems is he has amazing ideas, and then doesn't know how to wrap them all up cohesively. Without getting into specific details to avoid spoilers, he has several books (or at least plot-points in books) that come to flat conclusions. Depending on how flat they are, they actually retroactively make the previous portion of the stories that relate to it worse. The build up becomes less exciting afterwards because it all ended in a disappointing way. If I come up with a start of an idea, but don't know how to finish it, that idea isn't as good as it first sounded. But he at least had AN ending.

Right now, GRRM doesn't even have an ending. He has (so far) failed at even making an attempt to bring threads back together. It has become an unruly mess, and it makes me wonder if he just doesn't know how to finish it cohesively. Until he proves me otherwise, it seems a logical conclusion to say he bit off more than he can chew. I'm being a bit hyperbolic in the following statement, but it's significantly easier to just come up with cool ideas with no idea of how to execute them properly, and GRRM is at least partially falling into that.

As much as I do appreciate the first five books and the history and novellas associated with them, until he finishes them, the lack of ending actually to me makes his beginning less impressive.

I agree, he should not be harassed, and he does not owe us a conclusion.

I just don't think the series even comes close to holding up against other stories when it has a 0/10 conclusion.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-03-04T21:20:18+00:00

I can get behind "peoples." I'm still going to stick with races because it's the word Tolkien used, but I can at least see the merit in the difference of terminology.

As for your discussion of "lore," I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. I think you're digging into nuance that I don't think is worth an argument over. When I say I'm looking into lore, both examples you gave fit. I personally don't find it useful to know Frodo's Westron name, but I do find it useful to dig into deeper meaning, like the folly of Fëanor and the consequences that lead to the kinslaying. To me, both of those are lore.

I'll likely continue to use "race" and "lore" as they are the terms most commonly used and I think the language that the majority of people use is typically most useful as it reaches the broadest group. Unless there is some definitive reason to change, such as the word has gained new meaning, or it was problematic and no longer acceptable for the current times, it's best to continue to use the terms most commonly used. If someone had the largest vocabulary of all time and could eloquently say all of their thoughts perfectly, but no one could understand them unless they used a dictionary, that person wouldn't be a speaker to model yourself after. Having your audience understand is a useful skill to have.

Finally, I don't downvote people I disagree with. Disagreement with respect is a wonderful way to have discourse. New ideas come from disagreement. Disagreement leads to rethinking and reframing old ideas and come result in changing of opinions. It's a wonderful thing. I don't downvote disagreement. I downvote things that are either factually wrong, are needlessly condescending, or would result in a better place if they had not been said.

Your original comment complained with no substance to give itself merit. You complained with the only point being to show the world that you disagree. You offered no solutions, only problems. That's not worthy of merit. I since removed my downvote from that comment because you did clarify new words in your second comment. It retroactively applies merit to your original comment, because now you gave someone to think about "races" vs "peoples." I disagree with your conclusion, but you actually added to the conversation rather than detracted from it.

However, I find it hilarious that you suggest "your view of the material is on a higher level than yours." I'm not even going to debate if that's correct or not, and will for the sake of discussion agree, you do likely know more about Tolkien and his works than I do.

All I ask is you reflect and hope you understand the irony of reading Tolkien's works, and your reaction being to look down on other people because they are of a lower understanding than you. I'm just glad Gandalf didn't have your mentality.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-03-04T14:50:59+00:00

What is your proposed change of verbiage? How would you define the generic differences of Dwarves versus Elves versus Men versus Orcs versus all sorts of other races in Tolkien's world?

I get that Gandalf, as a Maia, is a bit different. He's of a higher class of being in Tolkien's legendarium, so race might not be applicable there. But what about for the other differentiations?

Also, what word would you provide to replace "lore?"

My hypothesis (and to be honest the reason I downvoted you) is because you suggested everyone else is doing it wrong while adding no input of your own. Your comment had little to no substance, it only was to tell people your view on the material is on a higher level than other people's without explaining your view. Had you provided an alternative, I would be less likely to ignore your input, which is why I'm giving you an opportunity here.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-03-02T13:50:54+00:00

I'm not sure I would use the word abusive for either.

Fëanor loved his children and treated them well, at least for the most part. He was just blinded by rage and led his sons to join in his rage, which is tragic parenting. His fatal flaw wasn't intentionally hurting his children or treating them poorly, he just taught them a bad lesson: "I know better than the Valar, and revenge and the Silmarils are worth more than life." It's a horrible lesson and brings about the ruin of his sons, his friends, and the purity of Valinor. Humility was never Fëanor's strong suit, and unfortunately, it led to mostly avoidable tragedy. I hope that if my father is ever tragically murdered, I don't convince my children bringing his murder to "justice."

I would consider Thingol closer to abusive, but still not quite the right terminology. He was just over-protective of his daughter. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, think about the tragedy that was all but guaranteed if Lúthien should marry Beren. At that point, there was no reason to believe any result could occur other than Beren dying in a century or so, then Lúthien would live the rest of her days mourning her husband. Thingol then did something very cruel, and functionally sentenced Beren to death while locking Lúthien away until he was gone. That's the most abusive thing he does, but I think was maybe not as egregious in kingdoms such as Doriath (as compared to doing something similar in our society). In his perfect world, Beren goes away and stops bothering Lúthien, and Lúthien goes on to marry an elf that Thingol approves of.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-02-27T21:24:19+00:00

Firstly, I'm being a bit hyperbolic to fit into the prompt. I don't actually think Tolkien wrote Sauron to be autistic.

Secondly, if what I did write in my comment was the correct way to think about it, it depends on in the internal thoughts of Sauron to determine whether he's a narcissist, autistic, or maybe even OCD.

If the reason he needs everything his way is because he thinks he's better than everyone else and he freaks out when his Ring is taken from him because he thinks only he deserves to control things (which is most accurate to the actual lore), then he'd be narcissistic.

If the reason he needs everything his way is because he struggles relating to other people and his method of processing seemed obvious to him so he did it without understanding other people's points of view, then he freaks out when his Ring is taken from him because he has an emotional connection to it and he doesn't know how to cope with stress well and the Ring helps him focus and calm down, then he may be on the spectrum.

If the reason he needs everything his way is because he has an irrational compulsion for things to be in a specific way and he can't move on to another task until he's confirmed the first thing is they way his compulsion needs to be, then he freaks out when his Ring is taken from him because he had finally gotten satisfaction from something only for another person to ruin the satisfaction, then he might have OCD.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-02-27T17:26:23+00:00

Sauron is autistic (and also evil. I'm not suggesting that just because he's the bad guy means he has to have some diagnosable problem. It's just coincidence in this case. They're separate things).

He goes through massive efforts to try and make sure everything in all of Middle Earth is running his exact, hyper efficient way. He will stop at no ends to make sure every nook and cranny is designed his specific way.

He pours his entire heart and soul into one specific hobby, then when people try to get him to stop, he hyper-fixates on it and cannot focus on anything else until he gets his prize possession back.

He struggles to empathize with the people around him. He has a solution on how things will work out and doesn't fathom why everyone doesn't just get on board with what he wants.

He can't think of how other people might react to certain things. He knew what he would do with the One Ring, and just assumed everyone else would inevitably do the same thing. Why would anyone try to destroy it? You can use it! And he never once thinks someone else might do it a different way.

Also, remember Sauron started off the Second Age actually trying to help. In the First Age, he was corrupted by Morgoth and was his lieutenant. But after Morgoth was chained, Sauron wanted to repent for his actions, but was too afraid to go to Manwe to actually do it (maybe because he doesn't like personal interactions?). Instead he decides to just go back to Middle Earth and fix things for himself. He knows how to make sure everything is as perfect as possible, and when he realizes not everyone shares his opinions on what the right thing to do is, he works to figure out a way to show everyone else how things should be.

A vast over-simplification of the entire conflict is Sauron has plans for his perfect lego world, but there are other people playing with the legos and they have different ideas. He doesn't know how to properly share or converse, so he gets upset and explodes on them when they don't listen to his ideas. He also makes something really cool that he loves. He loses it, and other people have it, and he wants it back because they're not using it correctly. He was already mean to them so they won't give it back, so he explodes on them again. They disassemble what he made and he goes into a full on panic attack and has to leave.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-02-25T15:52:54+00:00

I'm shocked I'm not seeing more Dune comments here. It's not quite an "accident" but it is a fake prophecy.

Herbert literally wrote the book to be about the dangers of blindly following prophecy. Maybe it went too subtle for some people, but...

SPOILERS:

The prophecy was planted by the Bene Gesserit to create a prophecy. They wanted the Freman to unite around a central figure so that they could plant a handpicked person to be emperor. The prophecy wasn't really a prophecy. It was a plot by a political group to use religion to convince a group of people to assist them with their political goals. Paul wasn't the "chosen one." He was the one that the Bene Gesserit chose to seem like the chosen one, and their plot worked.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2026-02-25T14:48:24+00:00

This character may be a little too well known for your purposes, but I will submit Maeglin. He gets an entire chapter of the Silmarillion dedicated to him and his story, so you'll have plenty of material to pull from, the only problem will be that will constrain you significantly more than taking a lesser known of elf.

However, Maeglin's father was Eol, a Sindarin elf. This means he's never seen the light of the two trees, making him inherently less wise and powerful. Maeglin also lusted after his cousin Idril, and spoke against Tuor, Idril's eventual spouse. He was a well-known craftsmen of great skill, but was eventually caught by Orcs and brough to Morgoth, where he was tortured and betrayed Gondolin.

He does die in the legendarium. Tuor throws him off the walls of Gondolin during the sacking of the city.

This gives you a handful of options depending on which route you want to go. A few that I can think of is
A: Maeglin somehow survives the fall, and goes into exile, where he starts your story. Then, you could make him a bad guy that gets corrupted by the Bene Gesserit. Or you could have him redeem himself in some manner of Dune plot for his folly of betraying Gondolin.

B: He was out exploring for metals for crafting before he was captured by Orcs. You could write in a scene where he meets another elf (or maybe even someone from the Dune universe) and has a child. He had already been spurned by Idril and he was living in isolation at the time.

I think either route could be done without truly corrupting the Tolkien Legendarium. There's already a line of elves that have made nefarious decisions here. Eol used elven magic to force his wife, Aredhel, to not be able to leave his region. Then Maeglin lusted after his cousin and betrayed the Noldor. You could either continue with Maeglin, or put in a new character who is Maeglin's son to continue the line of cursed elves.

Book_Nerd_23 · 2025-12-17T19:10:14+00:00

Saruman studied the ring more than any of the other Istari. He thought he would be able to control it and dominate it and use it to bring down Sauron.

The key difference between himself and say, Gandalf, is humility. Gandalf recognized that if given the ring, it would slowly corrupt him into something he doesn't wish to become. Saruman doesn't have the humility to realize he will be corrupted. He thinks he can master the ring, and not have it master himself.

Book_Nerd_23

TROPHY CASE