Lord of the Rings -- Book or Trilogy?

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 742</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Lord of the Rings -- Book or Trilogy?

The Lord of the Rings was intended by Tolkien to be published as a single book. Due to cost concerns, Allen Unwin Publishers required the book to be divided into three parts and was so published. Each of the three books also contains two so-called &quot;books&quot; plus the appendix contained in Return of the King, which comprise subsections of the work. Harper Collins recently published the Millenium Edition in seven volumes based upon the &quot;book&quot; subsections plus the appendix which they marketed as being &quot;as intended&quot;. This is not the case. The three traditional volumes of LoTR were divided &quot;artificially&quot; at appropriate points at the end of equally artificial &quot;book&quot; subsections. But JRRT wanted LoTR to be one volume and wrote it as such. It is a single work and technically not a trilogy, three related works with each individual part telling a complete tale (example: the original Star Wars is more of a true trilogy).

The Blue Book on Citation forms would typically require the title &quot;Lord of the Rings&quot; to be italicized. However, if I understand you correctly, the question is whether LoTR is the title of a work, not a question of citation form. From the technical perspective, the actual publication would dictate the citation form, not the author's intent. However, single volume editions of LoTR have been published, complicating matters. In short, ask not the elves for advice for they will say both yea and nay.

Welcome to the boards by the way.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>