 |
they made him publish them that way...he didn't want to. And they're still labeled Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, and so on. But yes, they are published as a trilogy.
|
|
|
The Hobbit isn't part of the Lord of the Rings...and I knew he didn't want them published as the three books that were published because I've read the intro to LotR and The Books of Lost Tales, and he and his son both say that he specifically wrote them to be 6 books.
I don't know maybe I imagined it all...no one else seems to agree with me. Sorry. |
 |
|
|
The point is not what he wanted, but the outcome, which seemed the most appropriate resolution in this context.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see people are finally disagreeing with me in a non-idiotic manner. *<~approval* |
|
|
you're right...no matter what he wanted, they were still published as a trilogy. And it makes sense that they were, because otherwise they would have been some really short books. XD
But I still just can't see the Hobbit as a part of the trilogy. I know that Tokien called the entire LotR the "sequel" to the Hobbit, but to me, they seem like two different worlds. |
|
|
|
I do have to correct something, though. Tolkien actually wanted to publish LotR with all six "books" in one volume, but his publishers didn't think anyone would buy a book that long, so they split it into three volumes, with 2 "books" in each one.
Anyway, now I'm tired lol. |
|
|
Interesting discussion about an originally planned 6 books. I've never heard that before.
LOTR was what initially got me inspired to start writing my own book. It's been through several revamps and rewrites, and I like where it is now, but I'm still rather stuck anyway. It's also a sword and sorcery fantasy, although i'm planning on encorporating a few steampunk elements in it. The very first story I ever wrote was a LOTR fanfic, also. |
|
|
|
i luv the trilogy!!
 |
|
|
I catch myself thinking about it a lot to be honest. confused
I can't wait until The Hobbit movie comes out, I've been waiting over a year already and it's not coming out for another two years (well, just under)! I really need to re-read The Hobbit though, I can't remember it at all. |
|
|
|
chalikun Interesting discussion about an originally planned 6 books. I've never heard that before. LOTR was what initially got me inspired to start writing my own book. It's been through several revamps and rewrites, and I like where it is now, but I'm still rather stuck anyway. It's also a sword and sorcery fantasy, although i'm planning on encorporating a few steampunk elements in it. The very first story I ever wrote was a LOTR fanfic, also. Just don't make it a trilogy. No one's known what a trilogy is after the Lord of the Ring was mistakenly labeled one, (except a few people in this topic and some universities etc.) and that hasn't stopped everyone and their nephew from trying to write one in their spare time, preferably in the fantasy genre. Making trilogies for the sake of making trilogies is a curse on the Fantasy genre. Stories get stretched longer to fill three books, or clipped shorter to not become four, by people who should know better. And it's because trilogies sell. Most of the ones that sell aren't really trilogies. Sensible writers refuse to have the word trilogy on their covers even when they've really written one, just in case they'll feel like adding a fourth volume later in their career. Series sounds cheap, I know... but you can stretch a series for ever, and for most trilogies it would be a more accurate term. Butterfly number three. Only Galad knows what I'm talking about. |
|
|
Laura Vandemar Just don't make it a trilogy. No one's known what a trilogy is after the Lord of the Ring was mistakenly labeled one, (except a few people in this topic and some universities etc.) and that hasn't stopped everyone and their nephew from trying to write one in their spare time, preferably in the fantasy genre. Making trilogies for the sake of making trilogies is a curse on the Fantasy genre. Stories get stretched longer to fill three books, or clipped shorter to not become four, by people who should know better. And it's because trilogies sell. Most of the ones that sell aren't really trilogies. Sensible writers refuse to have the word trilogy on their covers even when they've really written one, just in case they'll feel like adding a fourth volume later in their career. Series sounds cheap, I know... but you can stretch a series for ever, and for most trilogies it would be a more accurate term. Butterfly number three. Only Galad knows what I'm talking about. Before I say anything, I would like to apologize if it makes me sound pissy and rude; I don't mean it that way, I really don't. I'm just giving you my point of view. Your opinion is still just as valid as mine. While I think I understand what you're saying, I can never be sure over the internet, so if I say something and it offends you, I'm sorry. Are you telling me that I shouldn't write a trilogy, or that I simply shouldn't label it as a trilogy? I wasn't even planning on calling it a trilogy in the first place, although since I scrapped my original idea for a title I don't know what I'm going to call them as of now. I think the term 'trilogy' just sounds too bland and common, and I'd prefer using a different term, like how the Magic the Gathering books usually use the term 'cycle.' If it's the trilogy you're advising against writing in general, then how do you suggest I go about it then? Should I go with the idea of a two-parter, even though that seems too short? Or should I go right for the four-parter, even though that feels too long, and I would have to come up with the material to fill up the fourth book? To me, stories are like letters; they have a beginning, a middle, and an end. In a trilogy, the first book is the beginning, where you're introduced to the characters, the problems, and most of the background information (you can't reveal everything right away). The middle is, obviously, the middle book, where we learn more about the history, and where the bulk of the action and problem-solving happens. The conclusion is the final book, where everything is wrapped up and all loose ends are tied. To tack on a fourth book after this is to pretty much start a whole new series, even if it involves the same characters. The books in the series follow one storyline, and any subsequent books that are not part of this series do not belong in that particular series. I'm in a 4-year college and I've been writing since I was about 10 or 12, so I believe I would know this sort of thing. Yes, in a 'trilogy' there has to be enough to go on to a third book, and that tends to complicate things, but isn't just writing the book in general pretty complicated? First you have characters who have to be well-rounded, not two-dimensional, and each have their own distinct personality and characteristics. Also, you have setting, history, remaining consistent with knowledge of the time, technology available to them, remaining consistent with the laws of reality and physics that you've chosen to apply to your story, and even magic if you've chosen to use it. There's the central plot, but there's also a number of sub-plots to add flavor to the story and enlighten us about the characters, history of the land you've created, and other things. While yes, you're right that some people aren't as able to fulfill the requirements for a bona fide trilogy, that doesn't mean that nobody can do it. Just because Tolkien's books were meant to be divided up more than they were doesn't mean that all trilogies are poorly written. |
|
|
|
Geez. I don't know you, and I haven't read your manuscript. It might be the best trilogy ever written.
I shall assume that is the case. Even so, my advice is, do not label it a trilogy. I know very well you didn't say you were going to label it a trilogy, but you didn't say you weren't, so I thought I'd give some free advice. No reason to be offended on behalf of all trilogies everywhere. My grudge is with the editors, publishers, agents and writers who put 'trilogy' on the cover of something that isn't really a trilogy, just because it will sell better. Whether the book is good or not has nothing to do with this: 'the Earthsea trilogy' is very well written, but Le Guin added a fourth volume, and now it's 'the Earthsea Quartet', and the quality of the fourth volume ruined the whole world for many faithful readers. And then I think there was a fifth volume or something, and a book of short stories. I just want terms to be used correctly. Don't take anything I say personally, I'm a hate machine even when I'm trying to not bite anyone's head off. I don't know you, I haven't read your book, and I'm glad you weren't planning of calling it a trilogy. I don't mind people writing trilogies, if they do it correctly and creatively. I have nothing against you or your book, and when my library buys it, I'll read it. I'd buy it, but by the time you're done writing I'll be out of shelf space, table space, and any other space I could possibly use to store books in. Unless I discover L-space. I've been looking for it a while now... |
|
Kazu Azambuja rolled 10 20-sided dice:
6, 3, 1, 19, 7, 11, 3, 13, 20, 6
Total: 89 (20-200)
|
in my opinion the lord of the rins movies are one of the greatest movies
|
|
|
