# Is LOTR a trilogy?



## Ingwë (Mar 22, 2009)

This is something I've recently discussed with friends, so I was wondering what you guys would say. 
The book is published into three volumes: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King. However, The Lord of the Rings originally consists of 6 books which don't have titles.

So, what would you say about that?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 22, 2009)

Here are some excerpts from _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_:



> _Letter 136_
> P.S. I have given some thought to the matter of sub-titles for the volumes, which you thought were desirable. But I do not find it easy, as the 'books', though they must be grouped in pairs, are not really paired; and the middle pair (III/IV) are not really related.
> Would it not do if the 'book-titles' were used: e.g. The Lord of the Rings: Vol. I The Ring Sets out and The Ring Goes South; Vol. II The Treason of Isengard, and The Ring goes East; Vol. III The War of the Ring, and The End of the Third Age'?1
> If not, I can at the moment think of nothing better than : I The Shadow Grows II The Ring in the Shadow III The War of the Ring or The Return of the King. JRRT.






> _Letter 149_
> The (unavoidable) disadvantage of issuing in three pans has been shown in the 'shapelessness' that several readers have found, since that is true if one volume is supposed to stand alone. 'Trilogy', which is not really accurate, is partly to blame. There is too much 'hobbitry' in Vol. I taken by itself; and several critics have obviously not got far beyond Chapter I.





> _Letter 165_
> P.S. The book is not of course a 'trilogy'. That and the titles of the volumes was a fudge thought necessary for publication, owing to length and cost. There is no real division into 3, nor is any one pan intelligible alone. The story was conceived and written as a whole and the only natural divisions are the 'books' I-VI (which originally had titles).


----------



## Ingwë (Mar 22, 2009)

My thought goes with yours and actually those are the quotes I provided in the little argument with my friends 
For me those quotes are enough to prove that LOTR is hexalogy confused or at least not a trilogy  However, they weren't enough for my opponent, probably because they're just stubborn and can't accept that they're wrong. 

Well, anyone who disagrees with the quotes and Tolkien himself?


----------



## The Tall Hobbit (Mar 22, 2009)

I would agree that LOTR is not a trilogy.

I would call it a single long novel presented in the form of a hexalogy (plus Prologue and Apendicies).

Of course, the argument could be made that LOTR (taken as a whole) is itself part of a larger trilogy consisting of: The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 23, 2009)

Ingwë said:


> This is something I've recently discussed with friends, so I was wondering what you guys would say.
> The book is published into three volumes: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King. However, The Lord of the Rings originally consists of 6 books which don't have titles.
> 
> So, what would you say about that?



It's not really a trilogy, it's one continuous saga. It was published that way for reasons having to do with business and profits.

Barley


----------



## Bucky (Jun 12, 2009)

As Tolkien himself says in in that Letter #165, it is of course one book forced to be divided into 3 by the publishers due to cost.....

I do wish he'd held out for 'The War of the Ring' for volume three because ROTK basically gives away the end of the story. 
(as Tolkien once stated himself)

At leasst they didn't call volume three 'The Ring Destroyed'


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 12, 2009)

The Tall Hobbit said:


> Of course, the argument could be made that LOTR (taken as a whole) is itself part of a larger trilogy consisting of: The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion.


I don't think LOTR, The Hobbit and The Sil can be described as a trilogy. They're completely different. The Silmarillion is a tale of the First age while The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit report the events of the Third age and the War of the Ring. If we had a book about the Second age, maybe I would call them a quadrology, but we have only a few tales about Numenor. Technically LOTR is a sequel of The Hobbit, though I'd rather take The Hobbit as a prequel to LOTR. So to me the books concerning the Third age are almost like one book, they're bounded. There is almost no connection between The Silmarillion (especially _Quenta Silmarillion_) and the War Of The Ring.



Bucky said:


> I do wish he'd held out for 'The War of the Ring' for volume three because ROTK basically gives away the end of the story.
> (as Tolkien once stated himself)


Hm, The War of the Ring sounds like a nice overall title for the book, but I guess The Lord of the Rings sells better, because The War of the Ring sounds more like a historical novel


----------



## Bucky (Jun 12, 2009)

Ingwë said:


> Hm, The War of the Ring sounds like a nice overall title for the book, but I guess The Lord of the Rings sells better, because The War of the Ring sounds more like a historical novel



*You lost me there...

I was comparing 'The War of the Ring' to 'The Return of the King', not 'The Lord of the Rings'.
*


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 13, 2009)

Bucky said:


> *You lost me there...
> 
> I was comparing 'The War of the Ring' to 'The Return of the King', not 'The Lord of the Rings'.
> *


I know, I know. I have read "The Letters Of Tolkien". And I mean that The War of the Ring would have been a nice overall title and not a good title for the last part of the tale simply because the War of the Ring itself includes more events than those in books 5 & 6.


----------



## The Tall Hobbit (Jun 17, 2009)

Ingwë said:


> There is almost no connection between The Silmarillion (especially _Quenta Silmarillion_) and the War Of The Ring.


From _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ -- Letter #126:

I had in my letter made a strong point that the Silmarillion etc. and The Lord of the Rings went together, as one long Saga of the Jewels and the Rings, and that I was resolved to treat them as one thing, however they might formally be issued.


----------

