LOTR not a series
- 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
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
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
- David Bratman