A Question

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm afraid, Peat, that you've got the origin of the word fantasy quite wrong. It derives from a word that involves imagination and appearance, dreams, phantasms, and the like, making the products of imagination visible. Nothing to do with fairy tales.

As to a definition that "everyone gets": the problem is that there is a difference between a trilogy and what Tolkien wrote. They are, in fact, very different things. It seems that people who uses the word interchangeably for the one thing and the other fail to "get" that difference and that is unfortunate.

Here I will introduce a personal note: when my first series of books was released it was called (and is still called) The Green Lion Trilogy, even though I knew full well that what I had written was a three-volume novel. But, my gosh, a major publisher wanted to publish my story; that is pretty heady stuff for a first time writer, wouldn't you say? Did I care if they wanted to call it a trilogy even though I knew that it wasn't? Of course not. I was just thrilled that the project was going forward. (Ironically, fantasy novels have since grown so long, and the books I wrote were really rather short, that if it were being published for the first time now, The Green Lion might well have been released as a single volume.)

But the difference is that we are not talking about my story. We are talking about Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. And the fact is that he did care. Insisting on calling it a trilogy despite knowing that makes me think of the uncle that one always hates to see turn up for the holidays, the jovial fellow who insists on calling one by a diminutive , a nickname one never liked or used oneself, and would have long outgrown by now in any case. It was Tolkien's book. Is there really any vital reason for calling it anything different from what he says it was? To me, it seems less a matter of right or wrong than of courtesy versus discourtesy.

 

[Extollager]

I agree with Teresa, particularly about the relevance of Professor Tolkien's own statement on the matter.

Yes, language changes, everyone knows that. That doesn't mean all change is good. Nor does it mean that change that has occurred in one direction, can't be changed again -- cf. Confucius's "rectification of names."

Also, just because a lot of people (mis)use "trilogy" to refer to the single story of The Lord of the Rings doesn't mean one has to fall in with that slack usage. I haven't heard yet an argument about what the gain (if there is a gain) is supposed to be, when "trilogy" is used thus, that presumably outweighs the loss that certainly comes when the more exact meaning is lost (i.e. three self-contained but related works, as in Robertson Davies's Deptford trilogy).

It seems to me a shame when people succumb to the pressure that's always unconsciously exerted on words to make their meanings fuzzy, as in the other example I gave ("unique").

Slack usage does not improve the vigor and precision of language but the reverse. It's not pedantry when nutritionists point out the benefits of a degree of discipline regarding one's eating and drinking, nor is it when people contend for use of words with care rather than casual comfort and convenience -- or whatever it is that's supposed to be the benefit of easygoing usage.

A Question | Science Fiction & Fantasy forums (sffchronicles.com)

However, since the lines have been drawn and arguments have been made, perhaps this thread might be suspended soon. Does anyone have anything new and helpful to say about this? If not, perhaps enough has been said, before we get too far into the "more heat than light" area.

 

[Ashleyne]

Is there really any vital reason for calling it anything different from what he says it was? To me, it seems less a matter of right or wrong than of courtesy versus discourtesy.

By that logic, you shouldn't be calling it a novel. Tolkien objected to that term as he viewed LotR as a heroic romance.

 

[The Big Peat]

I imagine most linguistic drift is usually criticised as slackness and what not, but it still happens and has happened. People may complain but if asked to name Tolkien's most famous trilogy, they'd still know the expected answer (and it appears Tolkien did use the term trilogy himself at times anyway from casual googling). While if asked to name Tolkien's most famous novel, there would be confusion. Ahem. Sorry. I mean, if asked to name Tolkien's most famous heroic romance.

I'm afraid, Peat, that you've got the origin of the word fantasy quite wrong. It derives from a word that involves imagination and appearance, dreams, phantasms, and the like, making the products of imagination visible. Nothing to do with fairy tales.

I didn't say it derived from the word. I said that what we call fantasy was originally called fairy tales. Which is true. The Hobbit itself was routinely called a Fairy-Story when initially reviewed.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, that is a useful thing to know and consider, Ashleyne, when studying the book, so thank you for mentioning it.

But here is what will probably be my final point: in studying the structure of The Lord of the Rings (either in a book club discussion, or in an academic piece of writing, or in a class of some sort) surely it more useful to know that it was meant to be a single story told in multiple parts then to mistakenly approach it as though it were three separate, complete, but related books—as in a trilogy. Because if it were meant to be the latter ... well, Tolkien did a pretty bad job of it ... but as the former it succeeds. So what is to be gained by using the term "trilogy" loosely, when a more precise term might lead to better understanding of the way the story is structured?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I didn't say it derived from the word. I said that what we call fantasy was originally called fairy tales. Which is true. The Hobbit itself was routinely called a Fairy-Story when initially reviewed.

Some of what we now call fantasy was at one time called fairy tales.

The Hobbit is certainly more like a fairy story than The Lord of the Rings is. If only Peter Jackson had viewed The Hobbit in that light, we might have been spared some hours of boring and gratuitous battles.

 

[Pyan]

I was likening the dictionary to God in the same way pyan likened Tolkien to God, Teresa, which by the way, would most likely be offensive to a devout catholic like Tolkien. I know my vicar brother would be highly offended.

There was no intention to offend anyone - I used the phrase in the well-known trope sense: "A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the 'Word of God' comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director or producer."

 

[Ashleyne]

The term trilogy may attract more customers who might want a break between reading each volume. There’s also the advantage of knowing the story ends after the third volume, as trilogies don’t end on cliff-hangers and everything is resolved by the end of the last book. Trilogy is more marketable than a 500,000 word plus novel. If readers don’t like the first instalment, they save money by not buying the second or third. Essentially, making the entry point a third of the potential overall cost makes people more likely to risk their earnings on something they may not enjoy.

Also, a slight digression, say the full length single novel costs £30. By splitting it into three, you could sell each book for £12 and make more pennies per paper. And, making people wait between three volumes over the one or so year period makes it easier for fans to get excited and speculate between their friends as to what will happen next.

The book may never’ve been published if Tolkien didn’t agree to split it into three. He gained a lot of money by doing that. Although, there’s the possibility he could have found a different publisher to print it the way he wanted. Whether it would have been as successful printed in a single volume is something we’ll never know. Personally, I know people who are put off by longer books.

 

[farntfar]

I have the LotR as a single book in English, which makes it not a trilogy. In fact I have 2, not by the same publisher.
I also have a French version in three volumes, making it a trilogy in French

I also have a single copy of the Return of the King, but only that. (for the complete appendicies, not available in the other versions)
This is presumably not a trilogy either, or part of one. Maybe you could call it an extract?

Changing the subject slightly, I noticed years ago that if you place my three volumes of the First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant together, the cover pictures pretty much join together.
Does this make it a triptych?

 

[soulsinging]

It’s clearly a sextet and I’m just annoyed no publisher has ever done it justice by publishing all 6 volumes separately as they were intended.

 

[Extollager]

It’s clearly a sextet and I’m just annoyed no publisher has ever done it justice by publishing all 6 volumes separately as they were intended.

That's been done -- the 7th volume being the appendices.

The Lord of The Rings millennium Edition (tolkienlibrary.com)

 

[soulsinging]

That's been done -- the 7th volume being the appendices.


The Lord of The Rings millennium Edition (tolkienlibrary.com)

That's a pretty cool set! Guess that attempt at snark blew up in my face

 

[AE35Unit]

Tolkien explains in my edition that it is not a trilogy, but is 6 books plus appendices (which I didn't read)

 

[soulsinging]

Tolkien set himself to write a sequel to The Hobbit, and one could well argue that the first book of Fellowship is that sequel, an adventure, with a fair share of hobbit silliness, etc., covering some of the same ground, etc. The Black Riders in this first book are mostly "spooks" -- not the terrible Nazgul they will become. The first chapter of Book 2 is the transition from "the Hobbit sequel" to The Lord of the Rings proper, which one could contend really gets going with the council of Elrond. That second chapter is really like nothing in The Hobbit for its grim seriousness and its demands on young readers who like "action." I may be overstating this argument a little, but not, I think, by much.

On my current re-read, this jumped out to me as never before. Book 1 is definitely the sequel to the Hobbit publishers requested, with some light-hearted romps through the countryside with hobbits (and of course, the oft-discussed Tom Bombadil). Frodo's knife wound is when things begin to feel actually grim, and by the end of the work Tolkien has moved much more towards the more mournful tone of the Silmarillion. You can see the progression from the book publishers wanted to the book Tolkien wanted to write. I think it's a big part of why I always preferred the Silmarillion to the LOTR proper, it seems more in line with his actual interests than the LOTR which seems like he sometimes struggled to incorporate Hobbit-like action into his sweeping historical romances. It's also why I'm not surprised that he never bothered writing the rumored LOTR sequel and instead opted to focus on perfecting the mythology of the Silmarillion.

 

[Extollager]

"it seems more in line with his actual interests " -- Soulsinging, based on my readings of LotR and Christopher Tolkien's History of The Lord of the Rings, I'd hesitate to say that LotR conflicted with Tolkien's actual interests -- or rather, I think that is probably what was the situation when he began to write it, but he became greatly invested in it, as you suggest, and during a hiatus in writing it, in the mid-1940s, it was to a new story that he turned rather than to the legends of the First Age. The topic of that work (The Notion Club Papers) in a word is Sauron, so it is, or would have been if completed, in a sense a long appendix not to The Silmarillion but to LotR. (The topic in three words is "Sauron and Númenor.")

 

[Extollager]

By the way -- there's a thread that didn't get too far off the ground (so to speak) --

Interested in The Notion Club Papers? | Science Fiction & Fantasy forums (sffchronicles.com)