Is It LOTR's Fault?

[Nardpuncher]

Is it The Lord of the Ring's fault that most all fantasy stories are trilogies or even more than three books?

Sure it's great to have nice long saga ( I'm on book two of A Song of Ice and Fire and I'm glad there's a lot more to read!)

But sometimes I'd like to pick up a fantasy and have a nice adventure without lots and lots and lots of world-building. Maybe even one where they don't need to have the usual map at the front of the book.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'd say yes. Fantasy novels and fantasy movies are heavily influenced by Lord of the Rings since Jackson turned the books into movies.

 

[Caliburn24]

Fantasy books, even more than general fiction, are based around building a world or set of worlds, with all the characters, history, culture and sundry baggage that goes along with such world building.

You can tell a good story in a single book, but to create a really memorable fantasy world you need more than one book.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Didn't Tolkien originally want the Lord of the rings to be published as one book and it was his publishers that insisted it be broken down to three books?

As far as I am concerned Lord of the Rings is one, long novel.

 

[JarodRussell]

Didn't Tolkien originally want the Lord of the rings to be published as one book and it was his publishers that insisted it be broken down to three books?

I don't know about that. But technically, LotR consists of 6 books published in 3 volumes.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Despite it being divided into 6 'books' and published as three books it is only one novel.

I believe the publishers want it broken into three publications partly due to paper shortages in Britain after the war and also to make the price cheap enough for people to want to buy in the first place.

 

[JoeZhang]

I'd say yes. Fantasy novels and fantasy movies are heavily influenced by Lord of the Rings since Jackson turned the books into movies.

The problem with that is that people were knocking out Fantasy series that went on and on and on long before the arrival of the films.

I think it comes down to straight forward commercial greed, why come up with a new idea when you can kick the arse out of the same idea over and over again...

 

[Deckerd]

I agree with JZ to the extent that the books did more to influence fantasy literature than anything else ever written. So the films were just an afterthought as far as influence goes. I don't think you can put it down to greed any more than any author who writes a themed series. It's false to level this at writers when most artists do something similar at some time in their productive lives. Composers, artists, choreographers and photographers all produce triptych.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Despite it being divided into 6 'books' and published as three books it is only one novel.

I believe the publishers want it broken into three publications partly due to paper shortages in Britain after the war and also to make the price cheap enough for people to want to buy in the first place.

I'd heard this also but forgot to include this in my original post.

 

[Lt. Trull]

lotr is one book hacked into three parts by the editor who didn't think we could stand such a intense novel....

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Fantasy books, even more than general fiction, are based around building a world or set of worlds, with all the characters, history, culture and sundry baggage that goes along with such world building.

You can tell a good story in a single book, but to create a really memorable fantasy world you need more than one book.

This.

And LOTR pretty much blazed the trail for this sort of massive world-building.

A good fantasy series can consist of a lot of books, but each book should be able to stand on its own. I've seen a few series like that. It seems to be the best of both worlds.

 

[Klaus]

Lotr is NOT a trilogy, it's one book...

 

[Deckerd]

It was unsellable as one book. Even Prof Tolkien conceded that.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Related to this is I like Conan and I wish there were more fantasy novels with one character we follow and where there's little need to remember 200 names of places and people and different religions etc. etc.

Though of course as I said before I'm on book two of The Song of Ice and Fire and can follow it easily.

 

[Kemaiku]

Is it The Lord of the Ring's fault that most all fantasy stories are trilogies or even more than three books?

Sure it's great to have nice long saga ( I'm on book two of A Song of Ice and Fire and I'm glad there's a lot more to read!)

But sometimes I'd like to pick up a fantasy and have a nice adventure without lots and lots and lots of world-building. Maybe even one where they don't need to have the usual map at the front of the book.

Not really, many fantasy stories were many books long. For instance I have two collections, one from 1847 "Varney the Vampire" is over 220 entries long, the other "Saga of the Noble Dead started in 2003 and will conclude in 2014 with 15 books.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I've seen that Varney the Vampire one for sale here. It sounded like a kids horror book.

Is it good?

 

[intrinsical]

The Wheel of Time series is so long the author died before he could complete the final book. :P

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's television's fault.

 

[Caliburn24]

The Wheel of Time is in good hands with Brandon Sanderson. And I'm confident he can write an end for WoT that is satisfying.

I'm more worried about George R.R. Martin dying before he can finish a Song of Ice and Fire.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Lord of the Rings is really the only (literary) fantasy I like. Everything else comes across like a cheap knockoff to me. Well, unless you count Harry Potter, which I love.
Really, there's not much room for innovation in a genre that's so limiting. It's like hardcore music. All you really need is Black Flag and a few others. After that it's just redundant. (Not to offend any fantasy and/or hardcore fans, that's just my own personal opinion! Sorry, I'm kinda drunk right now.)