WHy TOLKIEN and LOTR is overrated!!!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Some of us are genuinely knowledgeable (e.g. HarryT). Others fake it through google (e.g. me).

Nonsense! Google is merely an extension of your memory. You could consider Google to be a part of your brain...It's so good, it helps you remember things you didn't even know!

I use Google all the time in these discussions. Usually I have a foothold on the subject, and googling helps me to amplify or fill out my thoughts. I can verify things I think I know. I can find out things that I believe are pertinent to the topic, but don't have specific knowledge about. I can learn that my memory is sometimes so good, I remember things that aren't even true!

In a way, the stuff in the wet matter inside your skull is just the OS. Google is the storage.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Wagner's Ring cycle deals with different (and perhaps more intense) themes - it has sex, and in particular incest, Wotan kills his child, none of the characters are really that admirable, and just about everybody dies.

Well, of course. It's opera. And this allows me to say "kill the wabbit!"

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's based largely on the German epic poem, the Niebelungenlied.

See? Even Harry googles.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by astra

It doesn't matter how it was published, it is a 6 books saga. Just because it is being published as Single volume it doesn't make it a single book.

What it is NOT is a trilogy. As for whether it is a single book or six books, it all depends on your definition of "is''...no, wait..."book."

As between 3 and 6, I would say that the story is six books, not a trilogy, which would make it a <check Google> a hexology.

But it seems to me that Tolkien used the word "book" within LotR as being closer in meaning to "chapter" than to a book as most of us tend to use the word. Tolkien's usage verges on being an archaic one - as suits the story.

So on the whole, I think it is one book, to rule them all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

See? Even Harry googles.

No, I actually knew that one, being a big Wagner fan. I did have to look up the "Gandalf" one - although I knew it was from one of the Norse epics, I didn't recall the name of it.

[astra]

Originally Posted by bertold

Which part of that article makes you think you and Tolkien think alike on this?

Before you quote the obvious sentence, do note the words "at this point"
in it.

That's is what it is. From the point of view of Tolkien on the Lord of the Rings it was a collection of 6 separate books. Middlemen, i.e. publishers, not Tolkien have decided to publish it as a trilogy, then as a single book then as milenium edition. However only they way Tolkien himself invisioned the story is counted as a valid point. Publishers make as few/many volumes as they think will fill their pockets better regardless of the story line.

For example:
The same can be said about Terry Brooks and his Shanara series.

The Heritage of Shannara - 4 books.
1. The Scions of Shannara
2. The Druid of Shannara
3. The Elf Queen of Shannara
4. The Talismans of Shannara

Just because someone decided to publish it as a single volume omnibus The Heritage of Shannara
It doesn't make the series one book - The Heritage of Shannara. It is still only a name of 4 books saga and it is still 4 books saga, not a single book called The Heritage of Shannara.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by astra

That's is what it is. From the point of view of Tolkien on the Lord of the Rings it was a collection of 6 separate books.

With the very greatest respect, astra, that is totally untrue. Tolkien always saw it as a single book. Read his letters and you'll see numerous references to that. I could give you some quotes, but you're better off reading it for yourself if the subject interests you.

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the very greatest respect, astra, that is totally untrue. Tolkien always saw it as a single book. Read his letters and you'll see numerous references to that. I could give you some quotes, but you're better off reading it for yourself if the subject interests you.

Different sources - different quotes.
The source I mentioned says 6 books. Although, his letters would lend more credibility.
Even if I am wrong, and it is one book, it is still not a trilogy as it was told in previous posts.

My point is Tolkien never saw it as a trilogy. If you are right, then it is not trilogy

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by astra

Different sources - different quotes.
The source I mentioned says 6 books. Although, his letters would lend more credibility.
Even if I am wrong, and it is one book, it is still not a trilogy as it was told in previous posts.

My point is Tolkien never saw it as a trilogy. If you are right, then it is not trilogy

Like Harry said, they were afraid of running out of paper:

For publication, due largely to post-war paper shortages, but also to keep the price down, the book was divided into three volumes: The Fellowship of the Ring (Books I, The Ring Sets Out, and II, The Ring Goes South,) The Two Towers (Books III, The Treason of Isengard, and IV, The Ring Goes East,), and The Return of the King (Books V, The War of the Ring, and VI, The End of the Third Age, plus six appendices). Delays in producing appendices, maps and especially indices led to the volumes being published later than originally hoped — on 21 July 1954, on 11 November 1954 and on 20 October 1955 respectively in the United Kingdom, and slightly later in the United States. The Return of the King was especially delayed. Tolkien, moreover, did not especially like the title The Return of the King, believing it gave away too much of the storyline. He had originally suggested The War of the Ring, which was dismissed by his publishers

[Patricia]

Perhaps it is like the Bible, which can bee seen as one book, or as a collection of many books.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Perhaps it is like the Bible, which can bee seen as one book, or as a collection of many books.

Nah, LotR was definitely conceived of as a whole.

[GeoffC]

1 book, 6 books -
what the heck -

it's one story .....

[astra]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Perhaps it is like the Bible, which can bee seen as one book, or as a collection of many books.

I disagree.
I could be wrong about 6 books, 3 books or 1 book. but I am sure it was up to Tolkien to decide. How publishers published it, it didn't/doesn't matter.

[Abelturd]

I'm growing tired of this. As GeoffC so pregnantly put it -- what the heck - it's one story.

[Harmon]

What we need is even more angels on this pin:

"The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy: by the time it was being prepared for publication in 1950, Tolkien was thinking of it as a duology: a book of two parts, the other being The Silmarillion - a work concieved of as being of equal size to The Lord of the Rings (Letter 126 to Milton Waldon, 10/3/1950)."
http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/tale.html