Founded in 2005, the Silmarillion Writers' Guild exists for discussions of and creative fanworks based on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion and related texts. We are a positive-focused and open-minded space that welcomes fans from all over the world and with all levels of experience with Tolkien's works. Whether you are picking up Tolkien's books for the first time or have been a fan for decades, we welcome you to join us!
New Challenge: Scavenger Hunt In this Matryoshka-with-a-twist, you will solve clues that point you to the challenge prompts.
Sign-Up to Hand Out Scavenger Hunt Prompts Our May challenge will be a Matryoshka built around a scavenger hunt. If you'd like to hand out prompts (and receive comments on your work for doing so!), you can sign up to do so.
New Challenge: Everyman Create a fanwork about an ordinary character in the legendarium using a quote about an unnamed character as inspiration.
Cultus Dispatches: Fanworks, AI, and Resistance by Dawn and Grundy The fan studies column Cultus Dispatches returns with a history of how Tolkien fanworks fandom has reacted and resisted generative AI by drawing strong boundaries in a way that is not typical for the fandom.
The story diverges from canon at the beginning of the Second Age (SA 600). In this alternate timeline, Sauron does not adopt the guise of Annatar to deceive the Elves of Eregion. Instead, he pursues a different path of dominion - one that threatens the very foundations of Arda itself.
She is one and many, the heroine and the victim, the courageous and the victim, the dead and the living, her feelings and sufferings are felt and shared together, and no justice, divine or earthly could mend her pain in the aftermath.
Fëanor shrugged, studying the contents of his wine glass. “Something must be done about that house. It will fall down eventually.” “It does not follow that it must be you that tears it down single-handedly. Are you sure you do not want help?” “It’s not as though I…
The thing about forgiveness, he thought, was that it was so much easier when the object of it was far away—or dead. It was so much easier to let it all go when those responsible were far away and unable to do any more harm.
Inspired by collecting the prompts for the Everyman challenge, this essay considers how ordinary people are subsumed and silenced in The Silmarillion, which begins a three-book arc that ends with the rise of the humble and ordinary.
Cheesy Corn Chips
Celebrate the corny and the cheesy, the sappy and sweet and schmaltzy and saccharine in popular culture by choosing from our collection of corny, sentimental, and heartstring-rending prompts. Read more ...
By definition, fanworks fandom does not draw a lot of boundaries, but community archives and events have taken a strong stance against AI-generated fanworks due to ethical considerations and member input.
In a book as full of death as the Quenta Silmarillion, grief and mourning are surprisingly absent. The characters who receive grief and mourning—and those who don't—appear to do so due to narrative bias. Grief and mourning (or a lack of them) serve to draw attention toward and away from objectionable actions committed by characters.
This presentation for Mereth Aderthad 2025 discusses the parallels between the concept of abnegation in the scientific work surrounding the atomic bomb and in The Silmarillion. The relinquishment of self-interest in favor of the interests of others, abnegation was identified by Tolkien as a powerful act of spirit and reason. The legendarium has many examples of the complexities of abnegation, which parallel similar discussions held by physicists during and after World War II.
Bilbo, the strange old hobbit with the wandering feet, senses something special in young Frodo the first time he sees the lad; as they become close, they find in each other a cameraderie not well understood by other hobbits. Five poignant moments between Bilbo and Frodo Baggins over the course…
It is not only important what we criticize, but how we phrase a critique. It is very important that our critiques are not only nitpicky, accurate and comprehensive, but that they are
thoughtful,
tactful and
polite.
We have to remember that if we want to give constructive criticism, our comments have to reach the author. No matter how right we are about a misplaced comma, about misspelled Sindarin, about vague characterizations or "purple prose", if the author feels threatened and insulted by our comments, she won't listen to us, she won't change a thing about her story, but instead she will only get into our faces about "flaming" her.
Based on "The Diplomatic Critiquer" by Alan Burt, I have composed a list that contains suggestions which may be helpful to engage in a constructive and effective process of communication between critiquer and author. It should be taken as a reminder of how problems of communication and other obstacles that can be overcome to ensure a smooth and successful review process.
When we write a review:
We should remember that there is no perfect writing. And if we happen to be writers , too, we need to remember that our writing is not perfect, either. There is a reason why professional writers have editors and why even novels by "Pulitzer Prize" winners get bad reviews in the press.
We ought to obey the "Golden Rule": Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For example, most people don't like to be patronized. Therefore we should be careful not patronize the author we want to help! No one enjoys feeling insulted and belittled. Therefore we should choose no phrases for our critiques that we would not want to read in a review about one of our own stories.
If we feel like doing a really thorough review, we might keep in mind that it can be a good idea to ask the author if she is interested in that kind of feedback at all. If that is not the case, the time and effort spent on a comprehensive critique would be completely wasted.
We should always critique the story and not the person. Personal remarks like: "I assume this is a first story...", "As you are not a native speaker you naturally make more mistakes...", "I think that as a teenager you don't have the experience to...", are not helpful, no matter if they are true or not. Those remarks are often unnecessarily hurtful. Moreover, there is little the author can do about many of those facts. Those remarks also don't improve the story or the relationship between the writer and the critiquer.
However, it is very useful to have a look at the author's profile before we start writing our critique. With a little bit of information about the author we can adjust our style of reviewing so that the author will understand us easier. If a reviewing process is established between us and the author, it is also good to ask questions, before we make assumptions about the author and her background.
We ought to address the author by name and as "you". We have to remember that we are not an authority and that we are not the author's teacher. We are not in any way superior to the author. To find the right tone it may helpful to imagine that we are sitting in one room with the author and that we are actually talking to the author about the story in question.
We should always write in complete sentences, and try to use correct grammar and spelling -- especially if we criticize the author's grammar and spelling.
We should give reasons for our criticism. "I don't like this" or "This is confusing" is not helpful. Most authors are not mind-readers. We have to explain to them why something did not work for us or why we think certain aspects of a story could be improved. Therefore it is good to use the word "because" or phrases such as "I would like to explain why I think this could be changed..."
No matter what we may have been taught at school or university about saying "I think" or "In my opinion", and words like "maybe" or "perhaps": using those words and phrases is very helpful if we want to reach the author.
Why? Because all of us are much more likely to accept polite suggestions than to simply obey to any "ultimate truths about writing" we get beaten over the head with. Therefore the punctuation mark of choice in a critique is the question mark and not the exclamation mark.
We should also remember that giving feedback, criticizing a story, is not about changing the author's style or her narrative voice. Our critique is supposed to help that voice to ring true.
We ought to be careful about quoting rules and authorities. There are no firm rules for writing. Languages change. "Authorities" make mistakes, too. Instead of stating anything about writing as if it was a law of nature, we should prefer using expressions like "Most of the time, people…" (start a new paragraph when a new person starts speaking; use commas when...) or "Of course measures may vary, but if you go by the Chicago Manual of Style (Merriam-Webster etc.)".
We shouldn't just tell the author "This is wrong." We should always make concrete suggestions for improvements. We should also try to use examples to illustrate our point so that the author can understand easily what we want to say. The rule of "Show, don't tell" is true for the art of critiquing, too!
We should always assume that the author knows what she was doing in her story. She worked out the plot and the characters and wrote the story. It is very likely that she gave some thought to the story. And even if the author has no clue about grammar or characterization, making her feel like an idiot to begin with, is probably not going to improve the story.
We should not assume that what we think is correct. Before we criticize spelling or grammar, it does make sense to consult a dictionary. Before criticizing canon errors it does make sense to look up the "facts". If a story is labelled as AU ("Alternative Universe") criticizing canon mistakes usually does not make any sense. At all.
And last but not least, we should remember that "I don't like this" and "This is bad" are not one and the same thing.