FWIW, all four Alien movies were packaged in a Quadrilogy. I kinda like the sound of that.
I vote Duology as well.
coupling
Brace.
[QUOTE=glee]
Using what others have said, I think the sequence goes:
original
sequel
trilogy
series
[/quote]
[QUOTE=chorpler]
But doesn’t “sequel” refer to the second book itself, and not the two-book series as a whole?
[/QUOTE]
Well that’s true. :eek:
I suppose I was thinking of a conversation that went:
“Have you read the …?”
and was trying to make words that fitted into that.
[QUOTE=coffinjumper]
That’s specific to art though.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen it used for books. The example that comes to mind is Stephen Donaldson’s Mordant’s Need books. Some reviewer (Dave Langford?) was commenting how the diptych format was becoming more popular.
You know, long ago a trilogy was more than just the second and third books in a series. In fact, in the far distant past, like the 1960’s there was some regular discussion about Tolkien’s work not being a trilogy at all.
A trilogy was supposed to be three complete, and basically only thematically related stories, showing variations on the same general set of circumstances. “Mutiny on the Bounty” was one such book. The other books dealt with What it was like after the mutiny for the mutineers, and one on what Captain Bligh was like when he was captain of a twelve foot dingy. Neither of the other books had the public following.
Tris
[QUOTE=chorpler]
But doesn’t “sequel” refer to the second book itself, and not the two-book series as a whole?
[/QUOTE]
Good point. I was thinking about " a book and its sequel" being a way to describe a series of two related books.
You make a good point that it’s not quite the same structure and use.
[QUOTE=DrCube]
Trilogy seems to be special, here. What about all the other numbers?
For every “Lord of the Rings Trilogy”, we have plenty of “Oz books” and “Lethal Weapon Movies”. So I’d say that’s your answer. 3? It is a trilogy. Any other number and they’re just books, or movies, or whatever the relevant plural is.
[/QUOTE]
A series of four novels can be a quartet, witness Paul Scott’s The Raj Quartet (The Jewel in the Crown, The Day of the Scorpion, The Towers of Silence, A Division of the Spoils) and Lawrence Durrell’s The Alexandria Quartet (Justine, Balthazar, Mountolive, Clea).
[QUOTE=Tapioca Dextrin]
duology
(doesn’t seem to exist much outside Wikipedia, though)
[/QUOTE]
Fantasy author Dennis McKiernan has a pair of books out refered to (on the covers) as the Silver Call Duology. So some publisher went with it, anyway.
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
For what it’s worth, strictly speaking The Lord of the Rings should not be referred to as a trilogy… When Tolkien gave the manuscript to his publisher, he said, “Hmm, this looks like three volumes worth of material. We’ll publish it in three volumes with six months between the publication of each volume.” Tolkien objected, but the publisher said that he was probably going to lose money on the book anyway, so Tolkien should be happy with even getting it published…
[/QUOTE]
Another reason, as Tolkien discussed in his Letters (ed. by Humphrey Carpenter) was that the UK still had post-WW2 paper rationing of some sort, and the publisher couldn’t print LOTR in a single volume at the time.
[QUOTE=Chez Guevara]
A series of four novels can be a quartet, witness Paul Scott’s The Raj Quartet (The Jewel in the Crown, The Day of the Scorpion, The Towers of Silence, A Division of the Spoils) and Lawrence Durrell’s The Alexandria Quartet (Justine, Balthazar, Mountolive, Clea).
[/QUOTE]
And Marjorie B. Kellogg’s Dragon Quartet.
Sorry for the belated thanks; away from a computer for a couple days. I was trying to figure out how to title a display on Clint Eastwood’s recent WWII, um, double feature. I settled on “double feature,” even though that’s not very exact. “Duology” is probably more correct, but it would probably confuse our customers to the point of catatonia or grand mal.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
A trilogy was supposed to be three complete, and basically only thematically related stories, showing variations on the same general set of circumstances.
[/QUOTE]