The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

Saapanael said:
I'm introducing myself to the LotR trilogy right now.
Click to expand...
1364104958130.jpg
 
Forostar said:
I think there were definitely thriller, or even horror moments in the book in Mirkwood. Tense, uncertain moments, which were both shortened and exaggerated in the film. I was disappointed on how the suspense was made to a minimum. The chapter itself was made ridiculously short in the film. I rather had seen a lengthier scene. So in this case I am pretty sure that this chapter of the book will be better than the film to people who will read it (that is: if they can enjoy tension other then the purely visual. Also: the book featured more suspense in the escape: people did not see that they escaped, they were in closed barrels; the feeling of being seen/caught can be quite haunting, and I prefer Tolkien's writing over 100.000 action moves although there was a lot of humour in the fighting.
Click to expand...

I also thought that of Mirkwood in the film, the book was much more creepy and long, it was kind of the feeling that they gave in the film but it works better in the space of time that Tolkien used in the book... But I think that the Extended Edition will have much more scenes of Mirkwood
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Since they weren't originally published as one volume, no.
Click to expand...
The Lord of the Rings was published in three volumes over the course of a year from 29 July 1954 to 20 October 1955. How is that not a trilogy?

A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected, and that can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works. I know Tolkien didn't see it as a trilogy ...

Tolkien regarded it as a single work and divided it into a prologue, six books, and five appendices. Because of post-World War II paper shortages, it was originally published in three volumes. It is still most commonly sold as three volumes, but has also been published in one-volume and seven-volume editions (six books and the appendices).

... but others certainly can.

Oxford dictionary:
noun (plural trilogies)
  • a group of three related novels, plays, films, etc.: J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy trilogy, The Lord of the Rings
  • (in ancient Greece) a series of three tragedies performed one after the other: the Aeschylean trilogy
  • a group of three related things:a trilogy of cases reflected this development
 
Last edited:
I'm fully aware of the publishing Hx Foro. The publishing of the book in three volumes was an economic decision, not a literary one. I'm afraid what the author, Tolkien, regarded the work as, is of paramount importance; not what choices Allen & Unwin made in the early 1950's. LotRs is not "three related novels" in any sense; therefore it is not a trilogy. It was not written as three separate, but related, works. An ironic quote nonetheless, what with Tolkien having worked on the OED.

In 1952 Allen & Unwin declined the idea, that Tolkien had proposed, of publishing LotRs and "the Silmarillion" material (as it then stood) together. They decided to publish LotRs alone. The printing of the entire work in one volume was estimated at over £3, which was too expensive. GA&U explored the possibility of publishing it in two volumes, but eventually settled on three. The very fact that Tolkien had to come up with the names for these three volumes says everything, not simply about "how he saw it", but about the reality of what the work was/is. One work.
 
Yeah, but it's important to remember that when it comes to publishing decisions, the publisher has final say. It's unfortunate that the book wasn't sent out as Tolkien wanted, but in the end, a trilogy was created - even if it was against the will of Tolkien. The end result is what matters, not the author's original decision. And that goes for a ton of famous book series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top