# It's a SIX part



## Curufinwe (Nov 16, 2002)

Doesn't it agitate you when people are reffering to Lord of the rings as a trilogy when really it is one book which was intended by Tolkien to be 6 novels plus an appendices? All these movie critics think the know something about Middle earth at the moment and keep reffering to it as a trilogy and I find that really aggravating, does this anger come to you aswell?


----------



## Confusticated (Nov 16, 2002)

I wouldn't say that it angers me. That word is a bit strong for how I feel about it. People reffering to the books as a trilogy does get on my nerves though. I thought it was a trilogy until I was neaaring the end of The Fellowship of the Ring!
One of the first things I thought was: "What about all these people who see the movie? It must be ending in the middle of the story!"
As far as the movie, I haven't watched the second two, so I couldn't really judge how incorrect it would be to say that PJ's adaption is NOT a trilogy, though I doubt that it is. it's really one big story, and in my opinion his first movie does not stand alone!


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 16, 2002)

I think people who call the LotR a trilogy have a warped definition of the term. A trilogy is a set of three books, all of which happen in the same physical setting but which are all separated by a certain amount of time between each other. The LotR is not a trilogy, because it is just tidyly cut up into three parts, each of them into two parts, but the story is constant and does not end at any point before the end of the book.
Another thing that rather annoys me is that people use the term 'trilogy' for book series' that have six or even nine parts! Wouldn't that be a sexology, or a nonology??


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 29, 2002)

I always thought it had seven parts. 
IMO the appendices must be seen as an integral part of the book. It gives a lot of background. But on the other hand, I might be a little more obsessed with Tolkien than the average reader???


----------



## Anamatar IV (Nov 29, 2002)

Ive always called it a trilogy because it was published as three different novels (I say novels because each one has 2/3 books). I like to think of LotR as a trilogy because trilogies always have the nice 3 part rolleyes: ) story. The beginning where the fellowship sets out, the middle where the fellowship goes their own seperate ways, the end when they all collaborate in winning.


----------



## Galdor (Nov 30, 2002)

Common, it is a trilogy, just because each book has two parts to it doesn't mean it's not a trilogy. Have any of you guys read any Redwall books? In each book there are three sections just like each of the LOTR books have two sections, but that doesn't mean that each of the Redwall books are really three books! LOTR was published into three different books, which means it a trilogy. And Lantarion according to your definition of "trilogy," LOTR is only one book. My copy of LOTR is divided up into seven books, (including the appendix) but I have always called it a trilogy and can't imagine why anyone wouldn't. But that of course, is only my humble opinion.


----------



## Ceorl (Nov 30, 2002)

> Common, it is a trilogy, just because each book has two parts to it doesn't mean it's not a trilogy. Have any of you guys read any Redwall books? In each book there are three sections just like each of the LOTR books have two sections, but that doesn't mean that each of the Redwall books are really three books! LOTR was published into three different books, which means it a trilogy. And Lantarion according to your definition of "trilogy," LOTR is only one book. My copy of LOTR is divided up into seven books, (including the appendix) but I have always called it a trilogy and can't imagine why anyone wouldn't. But that of course, is only my humble opinion.



I have a very good reason why not to call it a trilogy; Tolkien said it isn't, I think he would know. 



> The lord of the rings is often erroneously caled a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus appendices, sometimes published in three volumes.



I think the problem here is a persons understanding of the words, trilogy, book, and novel.

The Lord of the Rings is one novel(story) which is divided into 6 books, and also at times into three *volumes*.


----------



## Anamatar IV (Nov 30, 2002)

it all depends on which published book you have. There are *3* novels each with a different story and each published seperatly. STAR WARS was just 1 story divided into 3 films yet it was a trilogy. If you have the huge book with all the lotr books in it well good for you, you dont have a trilogy on your hands.


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 30, 2002)

Look, the way I see it is that a 'trilogy' is a set of three (or more, seemingly) books, whose stories are linked but are separated by a noticable gap in time. This is just my view, and if it's wrong please correct me.
And if this interpretation is correct, then the LotR would not be a trilogy because it does not hop back or forth in time at all, in any part of the *book*.


----------

