Is It LOTR's Fault?
- Thread starter Nardpuncher
- Start date
^^ Sure. That's how a lot of books become trilogies in the first place. First one does well, publisher contracts a sequel or series.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
With Tolkien you have to take the context and era in which they were written into account. Yes, today they would be shortened, edited and criticized for having too much "filler" and not enough female characters or for being overly complicated but at the time it was written, people were not so critical or quick to judge, and there was not a lot of material before it to compare and contrast to.
The fact it still stands out today as good material in spite of all that should tell you something about the story and the depth of which Tolkien took it.
The fact it still stands out today as good material in spite of all that should tell you something about the story and the depth of which Tolkien took it.
I'm not so sure it would be edited that much today. One of the reasons it took so long to be published was because the publishers wanted to keep all of the material but knew one volume wouldn't sell. Tolkein himself probably wasn't listened to all that seriously as regards publishing options, since he thought Silmarillion was a companion volume to LoTR, instead of the impenetrable, tedious bore it is.
I love the Once and Future King, and I love Tolkien despite yes what we modern audiences perceive as issues with the text and narrative. It's just proof that story wins out regardless. Trilogies and long work I don't mind, but I have to confess I don't like some of the poetry prose narrative. Sometimes I think some of the modern books in this form try incredibly hard to be like Tennyson. Song of The Sparrow I think is the title I'm thinking of. My niece loves Tennyson and hated this one!
That much later for Titus Alone? thanks for the info.
I knew it was delayed by Peake's death (really, it's not quite finished, which is why, though I blush to confess it, I couldn't bring myself to read it. Plus, after Steerpike's death, the main story was over.)
But that's what this thread has turned into. I guess authors feel that they NEED to have three books to tell a tale sometimes.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I'm the OP and I was just wondering if the need of fantasy novelists to make books of three was basically copying the formula of LOTR.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
No, I mean the 'assumption' that fantasy books need to be trilogies because LOTR ended up being a trilogy.
Maybe it's just me, but there seem to be incredibly few fantasy books that are stand-alones. I can only think of the works of Guy Gavriel Kay.
Maybe it's just me, but there seem to be incredibly few fantasy books that are stand-alones. I can only think of the works of Guy Gavriel Kay.
Again, attribute it to Foundation and LotR. It doesn't matter what an obscure writer did as a trilogy....these books were at the forefront of their respective "booms" (Sci-fi in the early 60's, fantasy in the late 60's) and were considered the cornerstones of them. If it wasn't for the hippies re-discovering LotR in the late 60's, and getting it back into the public's eye, Tolkien would've remained largely in the background and there'd be no "fantasy" market as you know it today.
In the 70's and 80's, if you read fantasy or sci-fi, but hadn't read either Foundation or LotR, then you weren't "experienced" so to speak. It was like saying you read the classics, but didn't read Shakespeare. And yes, because of that perception, the idea of a "trilogy" has become what it is today. Star Wars also helped that perception as well. For a long time, a trilogy was just the thing to do, whether a story warranted it or not.
Again, my TNG example: got good in season 3 ran for 7 seasons. Because that show happened to do these things and become successful, you had Trek fans and execs saying that it took a show 3 seasons to get good, and that 7 seasons was the ideal number of seasons for a show to go. The same applies to Foundation and LotR, both hugely successful cornerstones, both of which happened to be in trilogy format.
In the 70's and 80's, if you read fantasy or sci-fi, but hadn't read either Foundation or LotR, then you weren't "experienced" so to speak. It was like saying you read the classics, but didn't read Shakespeare. And yes, because of that perception, the idea of a "trilogy" has become what it is today. Star Wars also helped that perception as well. For a long time, a trilogy was just the thing to do, whether a story warranted it or not.
Again, my TNG example: got good in season 3 ran for 7 seasons. Because that show happened to do these things and become successful, you had Trek fans and execs saying that it took a show 3 seasons to get good, and that 7 seasons was the ideal number of seasons for a show to go. The same applies to Foundation and LotR, both hugely successful cornerstones, both of which happened to be in trilogy format.
Similar threads
