Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

People have been referring to the books as if they are sequels of each other and form a trilogy. Technically that is incorrect because the Lord of the Rings is made up of thee volumes not three parts. When Tolkien first wrote it it was ONE book, but because of it's length and the paper shortages as a result of the war, the publisher had to split it up. It was not Tolkiens intentions for the story to be seen as three seperate parts.

im soo sorry i got it wrong thank god you put me in my place i will try to be correct in da future

gotta go bye bye nite nite

I wasn't trying to put anyone in their place I was just sharing a little factoid.

wellllllll isn't the book actually in 6 parts?

dude your optimus prime sig kicks so much butt

yeah fini youre rite, the book is in six parts, its the film thats a trilogy, the books aren't....

im sure many people here have read the books, no one noticed this....?

Actually, you are all wrong - it has 7 parts (7 BOOKS).

The Ring Sets out
The Ring goes South
The Treason of Isengard
The Ring goes East
The War of the Ring
The End of the Third Age
Appendices

AND they are referred to as Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, Book 4 etc.

This is how it was originally written by Tolkien.

grrrrrrrrr okok and the appendices............
tiger lily........haven't you seen my other thread........"do youselves a favour" ?????

It's supposed to be one novel, yes, not three, broken down into 3 volumes and 6 "books." But who cares about such petty things? It's still 3 volumes, which may or may not be published together.

umm yes i have

people think its a trilogy because there are three books in each book (if you know what i mean) one generally for each significant part of the story (i know its all significant but soooo)

I know it has seven books but how do you know that that was what Tolkien intended?

Never knew that the book was released during the war?

Tolkien wanted it released as one book.

Which is what I said, but I wanted to know what evidence sifer has to support what he said.

It's one great story and that's enough for me... no too fussy on how many books or parts it is made of

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/images/moresmilies/wallbash.gif

Here here!

Well then I guess you are an example of the saying "Ignorance is Bliss"

Yeah....but he had to come to terms with the fact that it was bad for the book to release it as one book! No one will buy a book that size, without knowing what it's about! Tolkien wasn't even a professional writer, and the ppl who knew him stated that in the EE TT.....He was an academic going against all the rules of editing! U gotta love him for that tho!

that would be one long book...

and this is a case where knowledge doesn't change a thing.
come on, i mean, does it really matter whether we look at it as a part of a triology or a story? we still know it's connected and it's not like we miss anything looking at it either way.

Hell Yeah! That's what I mean!

If you want to be correct it does matter, and you're right it doesn't change the story if it's split but I never said you had to see it as one part. As I've stated before I am simply sharing a fact for those who don't know.
BTW I believe knowledge ALWAYS changes things.