LOTR reads like a classical history book, sometimes literally. Everything is true, everything is tied together. The narrator disappears for omniscience.

Name of the Wind is an obvious post-modern slant with an unreliable narrator. The story Kvothe himself tells obviously makes him seem like a superhero and Rothfuss manages to (whether intentional or not) tell a story about a story that doesn't all add up. I can't say it's my favorite book. But, reading it against LOTR was fascinating.

I liked Name of the Wind for the most part but some of the characters were flatter than pancakes. That bad guy student (Ambrose?) has no motivation beyond just being a deliberate antagonist

Ambrose is a bully. You've never met a bully?

"The researchers found that children who bullied were often motivated by a desire to increase their popularity and that they chose generally unpopular victims to avoid losing social status... Bullies tend to be aware of the social hierarchy within the class and are seeking the admiration of specific people." [0]

Amrbose (unknowingly) thwarts Kvothes QUEST as part of a petty prank to put him in his place. Kvothe fights back. Once that antagonistic relationship is established, it gets out of hand and there is plenty of motivation to keep it going.

[0] https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20100325/what-motivates...

Then, a few episodes in, you meet his parents.

At first.

It's far more than your typical fish-out-of-water setup.

Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy.

Worth reading for the landscape descriptions alone, McCarthy transforms the American west into a hellscape of inhuman violence, savagery, and evil; and yet, it's a beautiful descent into madness.

His character of the Judge is as captivating as he is horrifying. Some choice quotes from him:

> "Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent."

> "War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god."

> "Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test. A man falling dead in a duel is not thought thereby to be proven in error as to his views. His very involvement in such a trial gives evidence of a new and broader view."

> "The freedom of birds is an insult to me. I'd have them all in zoos."

> "All progressions from a higher to a lower order are marked by ruins and mystery and a residue of nameless rage."

Just be prepared for McCarthy's writing style if you decide to read him. He uses long sentences for effect; the long sentences where words seem to tumble over one another in an endless rush evokes movement and the distant horizon of the open desert as well as traditional oral ways of storytelling. His diction is also...archaic.

Unlike a lot of scifi it doesn't shy away from getting deep into technical details. But unlike most writers he doesn't get tech concepts wrong or use jagon in awkward, non-standard ways. It's obvious that computer tech is is native to him.