Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

LOTR not a series

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    I tried sending an e-mail to the person responsible, but it bounced, so I ll creeb about it here instead. A potentially clever which book would you like?
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I tried sending an e-mail to the person responsible, but it bounced, so I'll
      creeb about it here instead.

      A potentially clever "which book would you like?" quiz (it did come up with
      books I like, fwiw) at <http://bluepyramid.org/ia/bquiz.htm> was based on a
      recommended book list at <http://bluepyramid.org/library/bookcomp.htm>, and
      that
      book list contains the statement:

      "3. NO series (as one entry). I know the old list had series combos. I was
      wrong. I don't care if Tolkien wanted the Lord of the Rings series published as
      one volume. It wasn't. Deal."

      So I wrote:

      But _The Lord of the Rings_ isn't a series. It's one novel in three volumes. If
      it has to be treated as separates, then what about all the great novels of the
      18th and 19th centuries that were published in multiple volumes? I see _Great
      Expectations_ by Charles Dickens on your list. Three-volume novel, exactly as
      _The Lord of the Rings_ is.

      It usually appears as one volume today, but you can also get _The Lord of the
      Rings_ in one volume today too, and it doesn't say "omnibus" or "complete Lord
      of the Rings novels of J.R.R. Tolkien" on it, the way real series combo volumes
      do.

      I also see _Dune_ by Frank Herbert on your list. Did you know that that's
      actually a compilation of two separate novels, _Dune World_ and _Prophet of
      Dune_?

      - David Bratman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.