Why is it called a trilogy?

Why are the Lord of the Rings films called a 'trilogy' when it says in the books (or mine anyway) that it is NOT one?

cuz theres 3 movies

and most important...three books.
There might be a 'one book' version but that doesn't count.

Tolkien did not seem to like to think of it is a trilogy, but when you release something in three volumes that decision rather goes out of your hands,

That is because Tolkien thought of it as of a BIG book, made up of smaller books....

last I heard on the dvd is that it was the publisher who decided to devide into 3 books

I have LOTR it in a 6 book boxed set where it is split into 3 volumes each containing 2 books, anyone know whether it was originally 6 separate books?

The only ones I've heard of is one big book which has the whole lot in, a three book set, being one for the Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King, and a 6 book set which is supposed to be easier to read.

em..the 6 book set I know of contains exactly the same text as the other versions.

Perhaps the text is bigger?

or the books are just thinner?

Or both? 😄

Well since I am reading the LOTR books I can say that the series was originally 6 seperate books in three volumes.

Even thought I only have the three books the chapter page lists it as follows.

FOTR
Book I
Ch1-10
Book II
Ch1-10

TTT
Book IV
Ch1-10
Book V
Ch1-10

ROTK
Book VI
Ch1-10
Book VII
Ch1-10

(Well I'm not sure on the exact amount of chapters in each book, but that still proves the point.)

First post here, just thought Id mention to clarify to any who arent sure. The books were originally three (FOTR & TT published in 1954 with ROTK being published in 1955). They are split up into smaller segmentations within (as Lance Windu points out - eg, FOTR has within books I & II) to be honest, Im not sure of the thinking behind this.

Theyve been published in many formats in different countries, some of which are, as has been pointed out in a previous post, into six books (which each correspond with the books I & II segmentation I mention). These are not abridged and are (or should be) in full.

I also believe, though again, Im not too sure of this - think I read it somewhere - that they were intended as being one whole book, but the publishers werent happy (or something).

Think this is fairly factual, though someone may be able to correct me on some points.

Tolkien wrote it as 1 long book, which was separated into sixths, then, as said before, it was divided into 3 books to make it more appealing for readers to read than a huge 1000 page book

lol yea, if the book was 1000pg thick, people would be turned off by it.
it was clever to write it in 3 smaller books. we'll never know what he wanted cuz he died and his son continued.

em no, we know that he wanted it to be one book

correction
it was clever the PUBLISHERS put it in 3 books

so far as I know, true, Tolkiens intention was that it was, is, one story, but yeah as I mentioned in a previous one its my understanding that it was the publishers decision to split it.

very simple man, very simple ... does the word 'volume' mean anything to you? there are three volumes, okay? The first volume is The Fellowhip of the Ring. Second volume, The Two Towers. Third Volume, The Return of the King. And there are three books because Tolkien wanted to publish all three volumes one after the other, not all at once. And so technically, its not a trilogy. Its just called 'The Lord of the Rings' alone, without 'trilogy'.