Gen Z is fucked because they don’t consider actions to be inherently evil but only evil within the context of people they deem “deserving” of punishment, so now everyone’s a psychopathic little busybody with a hero complex thinking they can play judge, jury and executioner.
Remember those two ladies at Disneyworld who somebody said “looked racist”? They weren’t wearing Confederate flags or Neonazi symbols on their clothes, they were just a couple of fat older women dressed in t-shirts and board shorts. So someone on Instagram deemed it perfectly acceptable to mock them for being fat and unattractive, because they were assumed to have been “deserving” of it.
The same mentality is used to mock poor people in the South. Again, because everyone in the South must be a racist redneck. So suddenly it’s fine to sneer at them having poor living conditions, their political needs not being listened to by the Democratic party, for natural disasters to ravage their homes etc. Because they’re obviously all racist, so it’s okay that they’re poor and suffering. They “deserve” it.
Do you understand why this whole “It’s okay if I do this to the right people” mentality is totally fucked up? You’re acting bigoted to people and justifying it by associating them with a negative trait. Which is exactly what racists do. What homophobes do. Literally the actions of the people you think deserve every kind of misery, you are doing that yourselves.
I have no patience for negativity toward "boomers" anymore.
Almost everybody doing the work to restore ecosystems, grow native plants, and preserve rare species is 50 or older
The people I work with IRL have told me that my presence is encouraging because it means "the younger generation is getting involved with this stuff too." There's really not very many people my age
Who do you think was fighting this fight in the 1970's
I'm saying this as a Gen Z who is woefully lacking in these skills
Social media and the internet have really decimated my generation's ability to network and organize with people IRL
Not in the sense that That Damn Phone causes your skills to atrophy, but rather, Gen Z has no idea how people organized before social media, and no idea what anyone over 40 is doing for good in the world
The vast majority of local native plant, wildlife, and gardening organizations have NO social media presence
I could never have understood this until I started working IRL with people who are absolute powerhouses of knowledge, resources, and action about plants, animals, ecosystems, and conservation...who simply, barely know how to email
It can link you to a few resources, but it is ultimately a complicated device to make you Buy Product
Google will not even show you the best websites out there for learning about the ecosystem. At all. Google recognizes few possible interpretations of your query other than "Google, show me a bunch of advertisements for [thing] so I can Buy Product." If your research doesn't end in Buy Product, Google has no interest in helping you.
Many people think that the way of finding things out before Google was books
But that's more wrong than right.
The way of finding things out before Google was community.
Because there's some old lady in your community who has been gardening and observing wildlife for 40 years who is somehow running a sprawling native plant gardening organization and providing everyone else in your town with seeds and random produce, and she has a library's worth of knowledge absorbed from reading every book and talking to every guy who has any experience about plants, and this old lady has 87 close friends who are somehow involved in every local governmental department and private organization and business, and if she can't answer your question herself, she will be able to hand you a little scrap of note paper with the name of the exact person you need to talk to. She doesn't have an email address
Gen Z seems to regard "having connections" as a bad thing and a way of cheating your way into opportunities that you don't deserve
In reality, it's "opportunities" and "deserve" that indicates something deeply wrong and dysfunctional with our society. Outside of the numerous artificial competitive scenarios we are placed in where we strive against others to perform the ideal persona of worthiness as a human being, "having connections" is just how things get done.
Same with "being a Karen." Taking out your petty frustrations on a powerless retail worker is one thing, summoning every ounce of Upstanding Member Of Society in your middle aged white woman body to rend asunder the guy who approved of bulldozing a wetland is another
@false-binaries I mean honestly that's not far off
1. go to physical place that seems closest to the thing you want to learn about (community garden is great, nature center or farmer's market is also great)
2. observe a person that seems open to chatting with others
3. ask something along the lines of "Hi, I've been trying to learn about [thing], but I'm pretty new to it, do you happen to know anything about it?" Express curiosity about the work done by the place you are in
4. If you manage to hit it off with someone, just kinda hang out. Other people will show up to chat with the person you are talking to. You are now talking to those people as well.
to be fair this works very well for me partly because it's the south and people will talk for 30 minutes after meeting in the middle of the grocery store. but we need to normalize community
Libraries are great for this! Also, just hang around places you know there's people interested in what you're interested in.
I used to participate in a knitting circle at my library. Met all sorts of people there without a email or any social media. At the aquarium I volunteer at, there's an old dude who is very passionate about whales and he sits in front of the beluga exhibit every Thursday. He knows everything about local ocean conservation and collaborates with the local river keepers. Again, no social media and only has a joint email with his wife.
Thing to keep in mind is these people love to talk about their interests so you'll get lots of info. You can also check local news papers as many people put community events in there!
In that evil time Finwë was slain by the Marrer himself, and his body was burned as by lightning stroke and was destroyed. Then Míriel and Finwë met again in Mandos and lo! Míriel was glad of the meeting, and her sadness was lightened; and the will in which she had been set was released.
And when she learned of Finwë all that had befallen since her departure (for she had given no heed to it, nor asked tidings, until then) she was greatly moved; and she said to Finwë in her thought: 'I erred in leaving thee and our son, or at the least in not returning after brief repose; for had I done so he might have grown wiser. But the children of Indis shall redress his errors and therefore I am glad they should have being, and Indis hath my love. How should I bear grudge against one who received what I rejected and cherished what I abandoned. Would that I might set all the Tale of our people and of thee and thy children in a tapestry of many colours, as a memorial brighter than memory! For though I am cut off now from the world, and I accept that Doom as just, I would still watch and record all that befalls those dear to me, and their offspring also. [Added: I feel again the call of my body and its skills.']
History of Middle-earth Vol. X: Morgoth's Ring, The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II), 'Laws and Customs Among the Eldar', Text A.
Hey, so, I really like your re-read project! And because I was trying to remember something about Sansa/Alayne's chapters I re-read all your analysis of Sansa/Alayne chapters in the Vale. And re-reading them, made question another thing: I absolutely agree with you that Littlefinger don't really plans in marrying Sansa to Harry, because this freak wants her for himself, and in your analysis you point this many times. But at the same time, why would him poison Sweetrobin? Because, until the boy is under 16, he can act as the Lord of the Vale, and Sansa can be Harry's betrothed, and not necessarily get married with him. So it's not really beneficial for him to kill Sweetrobin right now. Because if he dies, than Harry will be the new Lord of the Vale, and he just could break his betrothal with Alayne, because she's a Littlefinger's bastard. Or if Alayne get married with him before Sweetrobin dies, she will probably no longer be a maid, Harry will bed her and he probably won't like Littlefinger's influence on her. So, I don't know if my rant made sense lol, but I'm quite confused.
Thank you, sweet anon. I agree with everything you said.
One of the many reasons I believe Littlefinger is one of the most inconsistent and poorly written characters in the story.
Many may disagree, but Littlefinger's decision to interfere with Sansa's betrothal to Willas didn't make sense because he had already planned to abduct her before she could reach Highgarden. How is being married off to Tyrion the better alternative? What if Tyrion had consummated the marriage? What if Sansa had become pregnant? What if Littlefinger and Sansa were stuck idling in the Vale, waiting for Tyrion to die? Oh right, that's where things stand. It's a good thing he stopped the betrothal, though.
It was also illogical for Littlefinger to give Jeyne to the Boltons, as it only served to strengthen their hold on the north. There is no way in which Littlefinger can utilize Jeyne's true identity to sabotage the Boltons' position without compromising himself, and exposing his own involvement.
Littlefinger wanting Sweetrobin dead and Harry to succeed him is not rational. He either wants both characters dead, or the author is being silly again.
I’ve got no insight as to why Littlefinger wants Sweetrobin dead - I’m as befuddled as anyone about what he’s supposedly up to there.
But I always thought that he interfered with Sansa’s betrothal to Willas because Willas was young and gentle - and possibly good looking - so he might be someone Sansa would actually fall for. If Sansa ever got to Highgarden she wouldn’t want to leave. Littlefinger’s desire is for Sansa to be completely his - body and heart - and Willas could have been competition. But Littlefinger had no such qualms about Tyrion, or Sansa’s eagerness to escape the Lannisters. In fact, if Littlefinger had gotten his hands on Sansa only after Tyrion had consummated the marriage, he could be pretty confident that she’d be disgusted by forced intimacy with Tyrion and would view herself as degraded by it. Then she’d be ripe for Littlefinger’s blandishments and would consider herself lucky to have him interested in her, despite her being “spoiled goods.” Littlefinger would prefer to have Sansa come to him a maiden, but if Tyrion had consummated the marriage Littlefinger would have used it as an opportunity to get Sansa more firmly under his thumb. He doesn’t just want to possess her, he wants her to want him, to choose him, as Cat did not. He’s perfectly happy to manipulate her into believing he’s the best she can hope for.
Littlefinger is very good at deception. So good, in fact, that he’s deceived himself into believing that, despite all he’s done to harm the Starks, he can nevertheless win the heart of a Stark girl literally young enough to be his daughter by isolating her and convincing her that he’s her only friend. He is his own dupe.
hey folks, i know things are shit and getting worse but please for the love of god turn on timestamps in dashboard settings.
i feel like the fact that there are lots of posts floating around with, to be sure negative news, but from years ago and with no visible date on the post/screenshot might just add to the collective anxiety we share on this website that can be slightly lessened or at the very least, directed appropriately.
everything is terrible but there's not point in having a meltdown over a news story from the trump administration.
Even though D&D made Sansa into a "brat" in season one, I feel like that was only the first season though. It's like after that GRRM probably told them not to do that so they made her more accurate to her book counterpart in season two. You could see her kinder qualities then.
Hi! Sorry it took me a bit to see this and reply.
I think that the show writers viewed Sansa as a character of secondary importance for the story they were telling, and particularly in the first few seasons they wrote her as a framing device for other characters - those they wanted the audience to love (Arya) and those the audience loved to hate (Joffrey, Cersei). Their choices in how Sansa was depicted in the first season were informed by how they wanted to present Arya, whose status as “underdog tomboy” fed into a popular trope.
Once Arya was off adventuring away from King’s Landing, Sansa no longer needed to serve as her Mean Girl foil, and so Sansa’s depiction shifted to instead highlight the Lannisters’ depravity and cruelty, and the Tyrell’s savvy cunning. Sophie Turner was too young at the time to be dressed in super sexy outfits, so instead they gave her clothing that was pretty but not quite cut to flatter, and very dull/plain hairstyles so that she never drew eyes away from Lena Heady or Natalie Dormer. Once they didn’t need to depict Sansa as “mean” to bolster Arya’s depiction, they could allow her to behave kindly to other characters — her small acts of kindness didn’t detract from the depictions of the characters she was meant to highlight. But somehow the show managed to present Sansa’ furtive acts of kindness and bravery as sometimes insipid and generally not very important. My take is that GRRM was a full participant in this initial demotion of Sansa and muting of her qualities because he figured that disguising Sansa’s abilities and fine character early on would pay off later when she emerged as a strong leader. I think he failed to recognize that the showrunners didn’t think they were disguising Sansa as negligible, they actually thought she was. Just my take of course.
How many words do you have published on ao3 but it’s for the writers specifically. I saw this poll but “0” was one of the options and it was absolutely dominating so I want to see results without it.
I don't think GRRM explores the flaws in Arya's characterisation rather he explores how the world is unfair to her. Whenever I read Jon, Sansa, Dany , Robb and Bran, I feel they behave as their age requires them to be. They show capabilities yet are not exempted from bad choices which a character at their age can easily commit. With Arya, sometimes it feels like I am not reading a 11 year old kid but a grown up 25 year old woman who never messes up things or has any characterisation flaws which are not inherent within like the other child characters but those failings are primarily influenced by the society.
Hello Anon,
I have to agree and disagree with you.
I agree with that Martin writes Jon, Sansa and Dany better- MUCH BETTER.
I am obviously not a Daenerys fan but I enjoyed her character more than I did with Arya. I said it many times but I am going to say it again: Daenerys is the best written character in the series. She is much more interesting villain than man-pain Tyrion [looking at you Martin.. really, Tyrion?].
Objectively I find her character well written and interesting. But my problem with her is that her cult like fans who completely ignore her true position and characterization in the books. Hopefully in the future people will enjoy Dany character for the right reasons.
I felt like I need to explain my thoughts about Dany first to show my problems with the way of Arya was written by the author.
Arya is the WORST written main character. TRULY. Everything about her is so FAKE/FORCED/CLICHE/UNREALISTIC…
Author says that Arya is the underdog/outcast of the family. Does the writing show this?
NO!
She is literally her father's favorite child. We see Ned constantly favoring her, letting her do what she likes, he never scolds her, he makes time to talk with her about her traumas like losing a friend, he fcking finds a Water Dancer for her [but not a harp teacher for Sansa]. I have a great dad but jeez, even he never showed me this kind of devotion.
Catelyn seems like she knows her daughter well… we don’t see her abusing or ignoring her. She even acknowledges her struggles.
Her siblings love her. Even Sansa tries to keep include her into her own circle to enjoy things together, she covers for her against Septa Mordane.
As we can see, she seems doing fine as a tomboy girl in the family of 5 men/boys and 2 women/girls.
BUT SHE COULDN’T SEW SO SHE WAS BEING ABUSED.
Really? Wow she must be the only special snowflake who wasn’t good at sewing. I am sure rest of the girls in North were all experts. Arya is the only one who lacks some skill people and it made her super sad.
Fans tried to paint this as some "omg anti-feminism/sexism in society" thing and it feels absurd because Arya was bad at history and heraldy too..
A tomboy is not good at some female-coded skill is so fcking cliche for character building and I am not buying it. And this is BAD/LAZY WRITING.
Did Martin try to make her look like an underdog with this??
Well Sansa is not good at math? I am sure she had bad days because of this too but we didn’t read it. If you ask me Sansa (girly girl) being bad at math (male-coded subject) was more sexist than sewing and Arya thing [considering Sansa was good at music and playing instruments which require math but whatever.]
Arya is an outcast because she is not like other girls… WOW, it has never been written before, how did George come up with this idea? Meanwhile we have girls like Mormont girls so obviously she is not the only "NOT LIKE OTHER GIRLS MARY SUE".
Evil Mordane bullied poor Arya. Mordane is totally not good for her BUT Arya literally never listens HER TEACHER. I am not talking about her lack of skill in sewing. Arya simply NEVER listens anyone. She disobeys her septa, she declines QUEEN’s invitations rudely, she talks sh*t about CROWN PRINCE while princess is next to them.
Girly lessons like sewing weren’t the only lessons she was not into it…
Sansa would have known who he was, and the fat one too, but Arya had never taken much interest in titles and sigils. Whenever Septa Mordane had gone on about the history of this house and that house, she was inclined to drift and dream and wonder when the lesson would be done.
[ACOK; Arya VII]
She simply never cares about any lessons and she simply refuses to learn basic DECORUM. Yeah I am sorry that she had to learn things she didn’t want to but welcome to real world.
MY POINT IS: all these are so weak points to make her look like an outcast/underdog.
Don’t even let me start with Jeyne Poole calling her HORSERACE nonsense. I said it before so I repeat it: This feels so forced in the story considering Arya is the daughter of Warden of the North and Jeyne is some simple daughter of a simple man who works for Starks.
This is what author himself says about class system:
Q: What was the hardest thing in writing about such an alien world?
GRRM: The vast majority of fantasy is middle agey time wise, and he himself finds the period fascinating; glad to adopt it for novel writing - likes knights and castles and such. He objects to bad fantasy practice which adopts a time setting without accepting the culture - imposing 20th century values like the cheeky stableboy telling off the princess (in reality cheeky stableboy would lose his tongue - look what happend to Mycah); the class system was not just and ornament and these people truly belived in blood, and the rank and priviledge that came with "good" blood. [2006]
But Jeyne somehow had no fear when she was “bullying” a princess. Does this make sense to you or does it feel forced to make Arya look like a victim. And this bad writing keeps repeating itself while author writes Arya and when you realize this pattern you can’t unsee it and it ruins the books a little.
I wrote all these to explain what is ACTUALLY wrong with Arya as a character. I don’t blame Arya for the bad writing, I blame the author.
And I disagree with you a little when you said: "With Arya, sometimes it feels like I am not reading a 11 year old kid but a grown up 25 year old woman who never messes up things or has any characterisation flaws which are not inherent within like the other child characters but those failings are primarily influenced by the society.”
[I explained the her failings in society’s eyes part already.. that thing is a cliche and unrealistic writing]
I don’t agree with that reading Arya feels like reading an older woman. No it feels like reading a VERY UNREALISTIC AND DISTURBING CHILD. She totally makes mistakes:
Talking bad about prince in a room full of people, declining Queen’s invitations, not listening her septa and Sansa, making prince angry, hiding for 4 days while she should have gone to her father to deal with the mess so maybe Mycah and Lady wouldn’t be dead, attacking her sister, killing a stableboy, killing many other people, joining a assassin cult, killing a Black brother because she thinks she has the right etc..
She makes mistakes but we didn’t see her face any consequences. Will we see her face them?? When it comes to Arya I don’t trust GRRM. GRRM covers for her all the time. GRRM = Ned Stark. He favors her. I mean look at this:
Sansa saves Dontos who later molests her and he works for Baeslish who also molests her.
Arya saves Jaqen H’ghar and he turns out to be a Faceless Man who kills THREE people for her.
Sandor sexually assaults Sansa but not Arya [I am not saying he should!! But why is it always Sansa? Does the author punish Sansa for her beauty… ANSWER IS YES because I am done!]
Sansa trusts Joffrey and Cersei ends up the most hated character in the books [even author says she had a part in her father’s death and he is ok with fans hating her]
Meanwhile Arya’s spider senses tell her to not trust Roose Bolton or anyone etc.
Arya runs into people like Yoren or Harwin meanwhile Sansa… you got it.
Basically this is a simple case of author favoring a character and it happens in all books.
The only thing that indicates author knows she is not perfect is that him calling her a “psycho” or not disagreeing when fans call her a psycho [I know I usually make fun of this but actually this is not some good take about a child character especially if you say Starks- including Arya- are the heroes]
In conclusion: I think she is written terribly, she is the weakest part in the story and character building. I simply hate the way author deals with her character. I think she is not interesting. She turned out to be a very dark and disturbing child character and I have no idea what is GRRM trying to tell with her.
"it sucks that the most visible women with political power in the last century have almost all been right wing/conservatives" babe theres a reason for that 💗
Me: Stop describe Melkor and Sauron as edgy gothic misunderstood heavy metal singer dressed in black they are none of that and it’s an insult to any artists who are edgy/gothic/misunderstood/heavy metal/singer/dressed in black! (Okay I know Tolkien probably disliked them he could have his canon)
(I am completely not serious in the use of “insult” here. I consume sexy leather Angbang and love it.
(I enjoy all those artwork and fictions but I also think those are ooc and ooc is great I do ooc all the time, no disrespect)
——————–
We need more “they are evil they are fucking pure evil they are the opposite of creativity.”
Melkor wanted to destroy other people’s artwork. He wanted to destroy them and call the action his art; he built his art over the destruction of other people’s art. That’s not fucking art; that’s the opposite of art. That’s not creativity that’s anti-creativity.
Sauron wanted to control other people’s artwork. He was the fucker who see an artist and think about “so how can I use this one’s work to benefit my own purpose.” He was the fucking embodiment of propaganda and censorship (including the totalitarian & capitalism subtypes). Propaganda and censorship hurt creativity and at the end of it Sauron served Melkor’s goals.
(Somehow I have this rather stubborn headcanon that Sauron had his own Department of Truth.)
——————–
If anything, Melkor and Sauron would fucking HATE all the edgy artists.
Melkor would hate them because their chaos tended to be completely different with his own chaos, and they just kept. doing. their. brand. of. chaos no matter how many got killed.
Sauron would hate them the way all the totalitarian governments hated indie rock bands. Here are the little singers chanting their songs of freedom and they just refused. to. be. used. by. you.
Melkor created discord, but his brand of discord was making/forcing everyone else follow his idea. That’s very extremely not the way an artist think. I mean, yes, many artists want to be worshipped like god at least at some moments of weakness. However, SERIOUSLY, no artist wants a world that they are the only one who makes art. That would be fucking BORING. Also almost guarantees you will fall right into some horrible artist block and there is no outside inspiration to take you out so you just suffer forever. (I think that’s what happened to Morgoth at the end and that was why the Valar could push him into the Void because he basically became Nothing.)
I am still upset at Tolkien for associating dark with evil. If anything, evil should be the Spiders? Void was a neutral place, but Spiders were the Void that actually wanted to eat you. I still think Ungoliant is the ultimate purest evil. Something that only wanted to consume and never created; something that was so hungry and hungry all the time; something that poisoned you and immobilized you and surrounded you with meaningless and then drank you alive leaving a husk behind. It was not surprising Morgoth was so scared. My personal theory is at that moment he looked at Ungoliant and felt like he was looking into a mirror and realized that this, this was what he would turn into eventually and there was no way back.
Okay okay okay so I am rewatching the show and like yeah
Maybe Sauron was trying to repent. Maybe he at least thought he was.
But if that is the case, it seems disingenuous for him to be carrying around the sigil of a lost royal bloodline that would eventually get noticed by someone.
Maybe he was keeping it just in case, while he played at finding redemption? In which case, it's not really repenting if you're keeping a backup plan on your person just in case of what? You get bored? Redemption doesn't work out? Having a backup plan doesn't exactly scream "I'm genuine."
Or maybe he was hoping to play the long game with it?
Either way, someone Galadriel came along and forced his hand sooner than he anticipated.
You can't say there wasn't thought put into hanging onto that sigil. Like, come on. It's Sauron, lol.
I just think it is super sus that he had that sigil to begin with if all he wanted was to try be Just A Guy™, you know?
mcu has done IRREPERABLE damage to the public view of superheroes and im not even kidding. so many people (especially in leftist spaces!) when they think superhero think "soulless profit-driven husk of vaguely liberal ideologies". i am begging and pleading and screaming and throwing up and jumping onto spikes please read a green arrow comic or doom patrol or anything please i promise you superheroes have merit and worth i promise you the mcu is lying to you and superheroes have so much more potential than disney allows them to experience PLEASE *foam dripping from lips*
IM NOT SAYING SUPERHEROES ARE A REVOLUTIONARY LEFTIST MEDIUM IM SAYING THAT THEY WERE CREATED AS JEWISH POWER FANTASIES IN THE WAKE OF WWII AND GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HOPE AND WONDER AND PEOPLE ESPECIALLY MARGINALIZED KIDS DESERVE TO SEE THEMSELVES REPRESENTED AS HEROES AND PEOPLE WHO CAN DO AMAZING THINGS
Was never that into superheroes even though I had the advantage of coming of age before the bazillion interpretations of Batman started to be a relentless presence in theaters, which seemed to open the floodgates for the (IMHO) drivel we’ve been subjected to for the last however many years. So generally not a fan of superhero stuff (notable exception: Watchmen), but I do wholeheartedly recommend this book.
“This book is fast, furious, compelling, and angry as hell." -- Seanan McGuire, New York Times bestselling author The Boys meets My Year of
Hello I’m here to talk about an opinion that isn’t so much unpopular because people don’t like it, but because it is splitting hairs and basically an argument based in semantics that sane people reasonably do not waste their time caring about it.
I am neither sane nor reasonable and therefore think about this a lot, and get ready to pull out a soapbox and type the Text Wall of China any time I hear people offhandedly contradict this opinion, and so I have come here today to die on this molehill, and write the over-long post of my dreams, because fuck it, it’s my blog.
Drumroll please:
Sauron is not The Lord of the Rings
The Lord of the Rings is the main antagonist though, so furthermore,
Sauron is not the main antagonist of The Lord of the Rings
I internally go insane every time someone says “Sauron, the eponymous Lord of the Rings” or “The antagonist never actually appears in Lord of the Rings” or uses Lord of the Rings as an penultimate example of having a flat ‘evil for evil’s sake’ villain. This is mostly in YouTube videos so I’m not calling out anyone here.
So who is the Lord of the Rings? Where do I get this shit? Why should anyone care?
I will tell you in far too much detail under this cut, because I told you I was gonna be extra about it and this is already long enough to inflict on my followers without their consent.
First and foremost, Frodo is not the Lord of the Rings either. Let’s get that out of the way. Gandalf explicitly tells us that in Many Meetings (the first chapter in Rivendell in Fellowship), when Pippin greets a newly awakened Frodo with quintessential Fool of a Took™️ swagger.
‘Hurray!’ cried Pippin, springing up. ‘Here is our noble cousin! Make way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!’
‘Hush!’ Said Gandalf from the shadows at the back of the porch. ‘Evil things do not come into this valley; but all the same we should not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world! We are sitting in a fortress. Outside it is getting dark.’
So that’s my theory busted right off the bat! Gandalf straight up tells us the Lord of the Ring is Sauron (‘the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor’ which is Sauron).
But I already told you, this is a hair-splitting semantics-based theory! He said Sauron was the Lord of the Ring. Not the Lord of the RingS. Yes, this whole theory revolves around a single letter difference between the title of the series and Gandalf’s statement, WHAT OF IT?
But in all seriousness. Tolkien was a linguist. There was no way this choice was not deliberate, not on something so important to the narrative. And there is a very important difference between what he is referring to when he uses ‘The Ring” singular, and “The Rings” plural. The Ring that Frodo carried to Mordor has it’s singular nature highly emphasized by the language that surrounds it. THE definite article Ring, the ONE Ring. Just the One. Singular Singular Singular.
The Rings (plural) refers to the rings of power which Celebrimbor wrought, with Sauron’s help, but Sauron is objectively not the Lord of those rings. Not the three Elven ones at least, which he never touched and only suspects the location of. Without his One Ring he has no power over the Three, and a big problem with him regaining his Ring is that he would gain power over those rings, the ringbearers, and the safe realms that had been wrought with them, basically crippling those with the power to resist him.
Him NOT having the Ring, and therefore NOT having lordship over all the rings, is a pretty major plot point. Like, it’s not a reach to say Sauron not having the Ring is what drives the entire story. And he is NOT the Lord of the Rings without it.
And he never gains it, so is the whole series named after Sauron’s aspirations, that the main characters are trying to prevent? I mean, from an angle yes. But also no.
Because while Pippin and Gandalf’s exchange is the closest we come in the text to seeing the title, let me show you the only place within the covers that “The Lord of the Rings” is presented, at least in my beat up third hand 70’s edition. It may not be formatted like this in other editions, but I still think it says something about how we are supposed to read the title:
[Image ID: Masking tape can clearly be seen holding together my poor abused copy of Fellowship, open to the title page. THE LORD OF THE RINGS is written across the top of the page in all caps, directly below it is the Ring Poem, as if The Lord of the Rings is a the title not only of the series but of the poem. /.End ID]
The One Ring is the Lord of the Rings, not Sauron, who is the Lord of the Ring.
“What?” Say imaginary naysayers in my head, “How can a Ring be a Lord? And why does this matter, if Sauron is the Lord of the Ring, doesn’t that make him the Lord of the Rings by proxy? Why are you wasting your and my time making an argument about this?”
I’m glad you asked imaginary naysayer, let me speak to your first point. How can a ring be a Lord? Well, like any good first time speechwriter, I’ve turned to Miriam Webster, and asked it to define a word we already know, in this case ‘lord.’
[Image ID: Screenshot of the Miriam Webster definition of ‘lord.’ The ones that are relevant are 1: One having power and authority over others. 1a: A ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due. And 1f: One that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area /.End ID]
In the poem, it is the Ring that is spoken of as ruling, not Sauron. Sauron is actually listed in the same position as all the others who receive rings, “The Dark Lord on his Dark Throne” occupying the same place in the sentence structure as the “the Elven-kings under the sky” and “the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone” and “Mortal Men doomed to die.” It is the One Ring, not Sauron, who rules them all, fulfilling our first definition “A ruler by hereditary right or preeminence.” In this case it would be by right of preeminence, or superiority. The One Ring outclasses the other rings and thus dominates them, binding them to obedience and service. Gandalf calls it “the Master-Ring” when it is first revealed for what it is in Bag-End with the words appearing from the flame.
The Ring has it’s own will too. It’s repeatedly stated to be in control of Gollum when Gandalf is first telling us about it. I’m literally so spoiled for quotes about this that I was paralyzed with indecisiveness over what to use but let’s keep it simple with this one. It’s from Gandalf explaining why Gollum didn’t have the Ring allowing Bilbo to come upon it in the chapter “Shadows of the Past” from Fellowship:
‘It was not Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring left him.’
So if Sauron is the Lord of the Ring, and the Ring is the Lord of the Rings, isn’t he Lord of the Rings by proxy? Yes, when he has the Ring. But also being the ruler of a lord doesn’t make the title of that lord your title, if that makes sense. People don’t call Aragorn the Prince of Ithilien, that’s Faramir’s title, Aragorn is King of the Reunited Kingdoms, he rules Ithilien, sure, but by proxy. Ithilien reports to Faramir who reports to Aragorn (I should be calling him Elessar since I’m talking about him as king, but whatever). If Aragorn lost the ability to contact Faramir or Ithilian, he would still theoretically be king there but he would have no practical control, just like Sauron with the Rings of Power.
Why does this matter? It mostly doesn’t. It does not change anything practically in the story at all.
But it matters to me, because it might help change perspective on the antagonist of LotR. It’s the Ring. Sauron is a force in the world, one the Ring is closely allied with, and from whom many of the obstacles come, but the entity that our protagonist is really fighting on every page is the Ring.
If Gandalf were the main character, or Aragorn, or almost anyone else on Middle Earth, Sauron would be the Primary Antagonist. But they are not. Frodo is the Primary Protagonist, and his struggle is NOT against Sauron, it is against the Ring.
If destroying the Ring had not destroyed Sauron, would Frodo have kept fighting in this war? NO! He had his task, and once it was done he was done, even if the world ended afterwards. Everything is driven by the Ring. The threat to the Shire comes from the presence of the Ring, so Frodo takes the Ring to Rivendell. The danger of the Ring is not neutralized by it being brought to Rivendell, so he continues his journey to destroy it once and for all. He doesn’t fight Sauron, he fights the Ring. He fights with himself to keep going in spite of the despair it levels on him, the poisonous words it whispers in his ear, the physical toll it takes on his body. He fights Boromir and Sam (not to the extent he does in the movie, but still a bit) and Gollum over the Ring. He negotiates with Faramir over the Ring.
And the Ring is SUCH a more interesting and nuanced villain to struggle with than Sauron. Sauron is representative of a force in the world. He controls events but never appears, because he acts as the source of all evil, it’s representation on earth (at least now Melkor is in the Void), but it is far more interesting to watch the effect he has on others than deal directly with a character that is so obviously in the wrong in every way. Making Sauron a physical character in LotR is like making the Devil a present character in basically any piece of media that deals with evil.
Evil at its purest isn’t that interesting, because it contains no conflict. Leaving Sauron as an offscreen player leaves us to see characters that are not pure evil struggle with that conflict.
The fascinating thing about the Ring is that it has no power outside of what you give it. But given enough time even the best people, like Frodo, will end up losing themselves to it, as it whispers in your ear with your own voice.
I want to go ballistic when people point to LotR and say it has a one dimensional villain. EVERYONE’S OWN VIOLENCE, DESPAIR AND THIRST FOR POWER IS THE VILLAIN OF LORD OF THE RINGS! Brought to the fore by a small unassuming golden trinket which just happens to also be the titular Lord of the Rings.
Honestly “The Ring is the Villain of LotR change my mind” should be its own big long post with lots of quotes and shit, the fact that the Ring is The Lord of the Rings just being a small point in it.
But unless you are a specific type of interested in story structure and stuff none of this is at all meaningful and it really, really doesn’t matter, so I’m gonna go.
As promised, I have written down all of my ideas about Halbrand’s narrative arc for all five seasons of Rings of Power, and oooh baby have I spiraled out of control!
Have I read any of the books? Sort of…like over a decade ago. But I have watched the original trilogy more times than any other movie in my life and love to microdose Wikipedia (i.e. being the ADHD partner to a man with ADD).
At the same time, I have been doing a deep-dive into story-breaking podcasts, shows and articles to prep for NaNoWriMo. This has been wildly fun, but has also cursed me to look at every story from a 30,000 foot view and examine it for narrative structure, character arc and thematic elements.
(I am literally begging my brain to enjoy things normally).
Yesterday, my partner and I rewatched Fellowship of the Ring. In the evening, we began discussing Rings of Power and theorizing the directions it could take – not only for the last two episodes in the season, but for the following four seasons (given that this will be a five season story) and how it would align with the prologue in Fellowship. And honestly, I think we cracked it.
But, so much of it hinges on the ongoing Halbrand debate – is he Sauron? Is he a Nazgûl? Is he the Dead King who betrays Isildur and ultimately fulfills the oath to Gondor for Aragorn? Is he the progenitor of Rohan? What’s this guy’s fucking deal?? – that it feels impossible to separate the two.
With every new episode, I find the argument that Halbrand is Sauron to grow weaker. I admittedly have no knowledge of the wider Book!Lore so my entrypoint here is limited, and I’ve read some good theories on it, so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it happened…I just think it doesn’t narratively make sense.
Tldr; Halbrand is not the rightful king of the Southlands, but he killed the rightful king under the enemy’s orders. We will learn at least part of this during the final two episodes of season one and he will spend a majority of season two seeking atonement for his actions and lies. He will ultimately assume some form of responsibility/leadership over the people he’s betrayed before falling sway to the rings of power and becoming a Nazgûl.
