To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is ''The Fellowship of the Ring'', [=GBS2=] is ''The Two Towers'', and [=TftF=] is ''The Hobbit''.
to:
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is \'\'The Fellowship of the Ring\'\', [=GBS2=] is \'\'The Two Towers\'\', and [=TftF=] is \'\'The Hobbit\'\'.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It's more feasible to skip reading ''The Hobbit'' and go straight to the ''[=LotR=]'' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. ''[=LotR=]'' and ''The Hobbit'' are related but separate stories, but the ''[=LotR=]'' books are just different chunks of the same story.
to:
It\'s more feasible to skip reading \'\'The Hobbit\'\' and go straight to the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' and \'\'The Hobbit\'\' are related but separate stories, but the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' books are just different chunks of the same story.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Fun fact, when ''[=LotR=]'' was written it was supposed to be ''six'' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson's film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]](though it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six)[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn't really make a difference because they're really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
to:
Fun fact, when \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' was written it was supposed to be \'\'six\'\' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson\'s film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]](though due to the length constraints of feature film, it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six)[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn\'t really make a difference because they\'re really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I'm going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
to:
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I\'m going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. ''Literature/TheHobbit'', on the other hand, gets its own page.
to:
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats \'\'Literature/TheLordOfTheRings\'\' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. \'\'Literature/TheHobbit\'\', on the other hand, gets its own page.
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is ''The Fellowship of the Ring'', [=GBS2=] is ''The Two Towers'', and [=TftF=] is ''The Hobbit''.
to:
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is \'\'The Fellowship of the Ring\'\', [=GBS2=] is \'\'The Two Towers\'\', and [=TftF=] is \'\'The Hobbit\'\'.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It's more feasible to skip reading ''The Hobbit'' and go straight to the ''[=LotR=]'' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. ''[=LotR=]'' and ''The Hobbit'' are related but separate stories, but the ''[=LotR=]'' books are just different chunks of the same story.
to:
It\'s more feasible to skip reading \'\'The Hobbit\'\' and go straight to the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' and \'\'The Hobbit\'\' are related but separate stories, but the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' books are just different chunks of the same story.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Fun fact, when ''[=LotR=]'' was written it was supposed to be ''six'' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books.
to:
Fun fact, when \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' was written it was supposed to be \'\'six\'\' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson\'s film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]](though it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six)[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn\'t really make a difference because they\'re really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson's film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]]though it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn't really make a difference because they're really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
to:
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I\'m going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I'm going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. ''Literature/TheHobbit'', on the other hand, gets its own page.
to:
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats \'\'Literature/TheLordOfTheRings\'\' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. \'\'Literature/TheHobbit\'\', on the other hand, gets its own page.
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is ''The Fellowship of the Ring'', [=GBS2=] is ''The Two Towers'', and [=TftF=] is ''The Hobbit''.
to:
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is \'\'The Fellowship of the Ring\'\', [=GBS2=] is \'\'The Two Towers\'\', and [=TftF=] is \'\'The Hobbit\'\'.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It's more feasible to skip reading ''The Hobbit'' and go straight to the ''[=LotR=]'' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. ''[=LotR=]'' and ''The Hobbit'' are related but separate stories, but the ''[=LotR=]'' books are just different chunks of the same story.
to:
It\'s more feasible to skip reading \'\'The Hobbit\'\' and go straight to the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' and \'\'The Hobbit\'\' are related but separate stories, but the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' books are just different chunks of the same story.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Fun fact, when ''[=LotR=]'' was written it was supposed to be ''six'' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson's film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]]though it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn't really make a difference because they're really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
to:
Fun fact, when \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' was written it was supposed to be \'\'six\'\' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I'm going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
to:
All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson\'s film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]]though it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn\'t really make a difference because they\'re really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. ''Literature/TheHobbit'', on the other hand, gets its own page.
to:
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I\'m going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats \'\'Literature/TheLordOfTheRings\'\' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. \'\'Literature/TheHobbit\'\', on the other hand, gets its own page.
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is ''The Fellowship of the Ring'', [=GBS2=] is ''The Two Towers'', and [=TftF=] is ''The Hobbit''.
to:
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is \'\'The Fellowship of the Ring\'\', [=GBS2=] is \'\'The Two Towers\'\', and [=TftF=] is \'\'The Hobbit\'\'.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It's more feasible to skip reading ''The Hobbit'' and go straight to the ''[=LotR=]'' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. ''[=LotR=]'' and ''The Hobbit'' are related but separate stories, but the ''[=LotR=]'' books are just different chunks of the same story.
to:
It\'s more feasible to skip reading \'\'The Hobbit\'\' and go straight to the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' and \'\'The Hobbit\'\' are related but separate stories, but the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' books are just different chunks of the same story.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Fun fact, when ''[=LotR=]'' was written it was supposed to be ''six'' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn't really make a difference because they're really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
to:
Fun fact, when \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' was written it was supposed to be \'\'six\'\' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, Peter Jackson\'s film adaptation was likewise done as a trilogy,[[note]]though it probably could have been more faithful to the source and/or had less excessively long installments if it had been done as a series of six[[/note]] and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn\'t really make a difference because they\'re really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I'm going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
to:
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I\'m going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. ''Literature/TheHobbit'', on the other hand, gets its own page.
to:
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats \'\'Literature/TheLordOfTheRings\'\' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. \'\'Literature/TheHobbit\'\', on the other hand, gets its own page.
To extend your metaphor, I think GBS1 is ''The Fellowship of the Ring'', GBS2 is ''The Two Towers'', and [=TftF=] is ''The Hobbit''.
to:
To extend your metaphor, I think [=GBS1=] is \'\'The Fellowship of the Ring\'\', [=GBS2=] is \'\'The Two Towers\'\', and [=TftF=] is \'\'The Hobbit\'\'.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It's more feasible to skip reading ''The Hobbit'' and go straight to the ''[=LotR=]'' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. ''[=LotR=]'' and ''The Hobbit'' are related but separate stories, but the ''[=LotR=]'' books are just different chunks of the same story.
to:
It\'s more feasible to skip reading \'\'The Hobbit\'\' and go straight to the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' trilogy, than to skip to the second or third book in that trilogy. \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' and \'\'The Hobbit\'\' are related but separate stories, but the \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' books are just different chunks of the same story.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Fun fact, when ''[=LotR=]'' was written it was supposed to be ''six'' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn't really make a difference because they're really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
to:
Fun fact, when \'\'[=LotR=]\'\' was written it was supposed to be \'\'six\'\' books. The publisher later decided to publish it in three volumes instead of six, IIRC because there was at that time a shortage of materials for manufacturing books. All reprints since then have followed that precedent, and today everyone just thinks of it as three books. It doesn\'t really make a difference because they\'re really just one long story chunked up into parts, anyway.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I'm going to have to vote for GBS1 and GBS2 to be listed as a single entity.
to:
I was uncertain before, but the more I think about it, the more I think I\'m going to have to vote for [=GBS1=] and [=GBS2=] to be listed as a single entity.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. ''Literature/TheHobbit'', on the other hand, gets its own page.
to:
Notably, ThisVeryWiki treats \'\'Literature/TheLordOfTheRings\'\' as a single entity when analyzing it, rather than giving separate works pages to the individual parts, even though its trope list needs more than half a dozen subpages due to length. \'\'Literature/TheHobbit\'\', on the other hand, gets its own page.
