More On Titles

I was listening to a podcast recently, and they started talking about book titles.  One book title was The Great Good Thing.  The other was Werewolf Cop.  I’d say one of these is far more descriptive of what’s going on in the book than the other.  So it got me wondering just how descriptive a title should be, and what is the effect on how many folks buy it.

It’s no secret that authors agonize over the creation of titles.  We get wedded to them, as we put a great deal of emotive effort into finding just the right one.  I’ve personally brainstormed through so many that made me say ew that when I find something that strikes a chord with me, I latch on tight.

I tend to like titles that intrigue the reader and make them wonder what the novel is about.  Every title is appropriate, but that’s because the meaning is embedded within the story.  It’s meant to be much more broad than just a rote description, but lots of titles out there take a different viewpoint.

I can see this dichotomy on my own bookshelves.  I’m looking at dozens of books, and their titles vary from The Third World War(easily figured out) to Executive Orders(story meaning) to Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets(about Harry Potter finding…well…the Chamber of Secrets) to Way of the Pilgrim(What pilgrim?  What’s the way?).

There’s a fair amount of sneering between authors who fall into these two title camps.  The fully descriptive ones tend to view those of more broad meaning as conceited snobs who can’t just say what they mean while the more broad ones tend to view the fully descriptive ones as simple-minded idiots who can’t think deeper.

What do you want from your title?  Should it give you insight into the story, or should it be something that makes sense as you read?