Lord of the Rings -- Book or Trilogy?

[Odysseus819]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 224</TD><TD><img src=http://images.ofoto.com/photos51/1/40/56/13/93/0/93135640103_0_SM.jpg?v=1 WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/narya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Lord of the Rings -- Book or Trilogy?

I referred to LotR as a trilogy once on this site and several ppl quickly jumped on me and said it was a single book. One point they made, I believe, was that the book was originally in 7 parts, so that the division into 3 parts was artificial (like the division of The Odyssey into 24 books). I thought of it as a trilogy without really analyzing the question, but I now think the &quot;one book&quot; theory makes more sense. After all, would you consider Fellowship of the Ring a book in itself, with its cliffhanger ending? It really only makes sense as part of the trilogy -- oops -- as part of the LotR.

</p>