Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Serieses!
>
LOTR is a mess
date
newest »
newest »
Lauren wrote: "This series: https://www.goodreads.com/series/6617...Was recently renamed from LOTR, a bunch of changes were made, and it's now a giant, ugly mess. The numbering is bizzare and the boo..."
Hi Lauren
Just linking to your original thread.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
A staff member has made some changes after the original changes.
But the series name hasn't been corrected. It would be best to speak to Support about this.
https://www.goodreads.com/about/conta...
Was recently renamed from LOTR, a bunch of changes were made, and it's now a giant, ugly mess. The numbering is bizzare and the books that are included (and excluded!) seem to have little rhyme or reason. It also no longer matches its description. It's almost like it's been vandalized.
I would posit that if there *is* a "Middle Earth" series (which, btw, should be "Middle-earth") that includes all Middle-earth books, LOTR should be represented as a single volume as a) that's how Tolkien envisioned it and b) it more accurately communicates that, in the context of all of the Middle-earth literature, LOTR is a single entry. There is certainly no need to include the 1-volume and 3-vol and 6-vol all in the same series.
Regardless, separately, there should be a basic LOTR series called "Lord of the Rings" with only the three main books (using the existing series description). Not with every permutation of 1-volume or 7-book alternate editions, which is ugly and confusing (and GR has previously said to create separate series for different series divisions): just the three main books, and maybe The Hobbit as #0.