Can anyone tell me what a series of two books (literary fiction) is called?
i have seen both diptych and duology used for this but i am not competent enough in English to know if such use was correct or not. a look at their dictionary definitions tells me probably not.
Dictionaries are not always on top of the changing use of words. If there are any substantial numbers of prescriptivists railing against such usages the usages are probably correct. You will find the occasional prescrip that goes out in search of typos and other simple errors and rants against them as though they were common solecisms which is why I add the "substantial numbers" caveat. Of the two choices that latishya gave I would think 'duology' would better serve the purpose. 'Diptych' would more likely bring up the image of a two part painting and then you'd have to waste time explaining that it was books you were referring to. With 'duology' you would only have to explain if it weren't books.
...wouldn't it work just call them a "book" and a "sequel" ?
"sequel"Some sequels are prequels, midquels, or otherwise ... (
link). Folks like to smoodge language into leeking and drafty corners like caulking.
Also, a sequel sort of implies that the plotline of the first story wraps up neatly, which is not always the case with the first book of a duology. Besides, it's easier to say 'duology' than it is to say 'book and sequel.' If you want something to pule and micturate about with 'duology' you could always use the fact that it's mixed Latin and Greek. Some folk seem to think that's a punishable offense.
how about biology?
or perhaps this is the wrong thread for that....
:¬ )
To quote some wonderful person:
heh