Fantastic entry about titling your work.

[valis2]

painless_j discusses titles, why some work, and why some don't.

As some of you might know, I have an English major. One of the most formative classes I took was a Shakespeare class. The woman teaching the class continually took off points for having boring titles for papers.

I'd always had boring titles. I always felt like it was kind of...showing off, maybe? to have fabulous titles. I mean, what if it doesn't live up to a cool title? But this teacher really pushed me, so I started naming my papers wildly, and she gave me full points.

I've kind of gotten out of that, but J really made me think about it. The title for Retribution was pretty boring, but at the last moment I froze, and went back into that old don't-make-the-expectations-too-high mode. Now that I read her entry, I realize that I'm not doing myself any favors by naming things so vaguely.

*resolves to name wildly in the future*

Comments

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

I didn't say this over there, but frankly, a good title and a crap story? I won't keep reading. But a crap title and a good story? I really don't even see the title when I'm looking for something to read (which may be why I almost never remember titles later!). I'm looking for content, not packaging - I look at everything else, pairing, author, warnings, the first few paragraphs - the title is irrelevant, to me at least.

[thesnapelyone.livejournal.com]

That was a fabulous essay! If I ever bloody manage to write anything to title again, I will go title wild.

[svartalfur.livejournal.com]

As a reader, I'm with Aucta. I'll look for pairing, summary, warnings, and then I'll read the first paragraph (sometimes the ending, I have to admit) and decide if I go on reading. For example, pir8fancier's story This Boy's Life (http://archive.skyehawke.com/story.php?no=14247), that I love to pieces - I had to look up the title just now, but I'll always remember it as the "Snape as Scheherazade"-story.

As a writer, the title is important for me. Sometimes I have a title long before I have a plot, and I work my story around it. But that does in no way mean that these titles are better or more significant than those I add to a story later on. I love them better, though. ;D

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Honestly, this is how I feel, too, but she does make a couple good points...some readers who would normally not have read the story will get drawn in by a better title, and as far as remembering it for later, it helps to have a memorable title.

Personally, I'm crap with titles; I remember plots, sometimes...

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it? I just have to get over my fear of having a great title and have it not live up to expectations. *grins*

[valis2.livejournal.com]

I'm not much into titles...I can't ever remember them, I usually remember plot. But J's entry did make a great point about how you will get an extra handful of readers who might normally not have clicked on it if your title is interesting enough, and that makes me want to work a little harder at it.

In the case of prose, I usually have the title last; for poetry, the title is usually first, oddly enough.

[rinsbane.livejournal.com]

Titles are - hum. This is what I said to PJ because I'm too lazy to type it all out again. But in short, I have two very different kinds of titles. The ones that are stupid, meaningless and often even sounding stupid, and then the ones that embody the feel of the fic to me. Regardless of what they tell about the fic for marketing or such. Because I write for the feel of a fic, so if I end up with a title that has the same feel, then it's a good title. Even if no one else gets it. Period. *g*

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

I went to a writing seminar once where a woman spoke on marketing and I fidgeted the whole way through, fighting to keep "But that's not what it's ABOUT!" from bursting out. She was all about "write what sells, whether you like to write it or not, write like bestselling writers whether that's the way you write or not, write to the market, and package it exactly in this prescribed way, years of marketing research shows that people look more at blue covers than green, sans serif type than serif type..." I couldn't fucking stand it. I'm not artsy fartsy, but that is NOT what I write for. That sort of POV is not about writing, and it's not even about writing-and-selling. It's about selling, period - what you want to say as a writer is beside the point.

Now, PJ's point is a entirely valid marketing standpoint, but I'm focused on content (for my own sake - though I like to think it also benefits any readers). I'm not about how shiny I can make the package. It's just not the way I think. I'd be a lousy salesman. It's an even less compelling position since there's no actual bucks involved. :-) If I needed to pay my rent I'd sell out faster than you could say hypocrite.

And it's probably perfectly true that some people don't find my packaging shiny enough, and therefore move to the shiny shelf of the fanfic virtual bookstore. Maybe they'll even find better content there, if they care about that. :-) Can't please everyone.

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

Please don't think I'm suggesting titles are unimportant. I give serious thought to all my titles - but not from a marketing standpoint. I want my title to reflect the story's mood or theme or point. Whether it makes the rest of the world go "Ooh! Great title!" Well, it never enters my mind. What would be the point, anyway? How can I predict what other people will consider a good title?

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

In the case of prose, I usually have the title last; for poetry, the title is usually first, oddly enough.

I don't write poetry but I wonder if this is because in a poem you have your theme more firmly set in your mind than in a story? That is, a poem is generally a more tight encapsulation of a single theme than a story is, so sometimes a story can take turns you don't expect, modifying the theme, I don't know if you title things for that reason, based on theme - I do - but if so, that might make sense.

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

Thank God.

*Just not a marketing type. Really really not.*

[svartalfur.livejournal.com]

I never thought that you suggested anything in that direction. I guess my phrasing was off. I meant that I'm with you as a reader, but not that I oppose you when I think about titles as a writer. I never believed that your titles are unimportant to you. Scratch, Bottoms Up, Pariah ... those are all titles that I remember well. They fit and are obviously chosen with care.

Let's take "Snape: The Home Fries Nazi" for example. Is this title so good because it's so catching? I'd say no. What I'll never forget about that story is bald Snape with sunglasses, terrorizing a whole town. The title just fits. If someone had chosen a title like that and told a boring, unimaginative story, I'd forgotten all about it and would remember it as "the story with that odd title."

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

And for people like me who didn't get the reference (It's from Seinfeld or something, right?), it was just a weird title. :-) I heard about the story via recs anyway, so I can't say whether, had I seen the title and summary, etc., cold, as it were, I would have read on. I might've. Hard to say. But the writing would have hooked me whatever the title. :-)

[rinsbane.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Me neither. But also I think that the titles that I just know and feel are titles for fic that I'm closest to. The titles I like best tend to go with fic I like best. I can think of several idiotic titles that I just tacked onto fic that I don't like. Which is not to say that some fic I do like don't have titles I don't like as well, but that if I know a fic isn't one of my better ones, I probably don't like the title as well either.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that a few of those same fic that kind of make me cringe are the ones that more people read/rec'd/liked than the ones I know are good. It's that same marketing thing - it's not just the title that markets, but the easiness of fic. Understandable. It makes us happy and squishy to read easy fic, and I love it myself, but I also know that it's not where my writing strengths lie. This is why I tend not to write it. No, that's not quite accurate. Rather, it holds no appeal to me to write. When I have written it, it's been because I had to exorcise the idea. But since I don't write to tell a story, and the best I can say about my easy fic is that it tells a story, meh. So what if I get the most readers on those fics? I mean, I like feedback and all. But.

I think all that was a long-winded way of saying, yeah, not marketing type either. ;-)

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

I'm an easy fic writer by nature, of course, but I understand what you're saying. You write because there's a drive in you to write, not because you need people to read your stuff - so it wouldn't matter that the style of writing nearest your heart, the style that speaks closest to what your heart is saying, isn't "marketable." That's just entirely beside the point - and that's nothing against fic that is broadly liked. Who cares if it's broadly liked or liked by a few, if what you wrote said what you needed to say? That's the raison d'etre if you write for yourself. If you write to bring something within you, some idea or feeling or thought, out into some concrete form, "how can I make this LOOK appealing to others" is not likely to enter your head. Most especially, "How can I CHANGE this to make it look more appealing to others" isn't going to. (Notice I don't say be more appealing - marketing via title is all about package, zero to do with substance) As for titles, like you, mine resonate with me - that's why I pick 'em. They work with the story, they represent it (to me, and if I don't know what my story's about, who would?). That couldn't possibly have less to do with the concept of making it gleam so other people are attracted unthinking, magpie-like, to its shininess.

And, again, that doesn't mean it's evil to like having people read one's stuff, or that a sparkly title is innately bad. If it so happens that the "right" title is sparkly, awesome. But reaching for surface glitter instead of substance? No thanks (hell, my stuff has little enough substance as it is). If readers only care about the surface glitter, to paraphrase somebody or other, "then they are not the sort of readers I want."

[valis2.livejournal.com]

I think in the case of poetry...the title unifies it (just as you are saying), whereas for me in a story...the plot unifies it, so sometimes it's a little more difficult to put it together for me. ;)

[valis2.livejournal.com]

I think I have some of the same experiences. I'll come up with a perfect title for a fic, and then I have other fics that languish until I slap something boring like "Retribution" on them and just call it a day. *laughs*

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

That makes sense to me.

[rinsbane.livejournal.com]

Pre-cise-ly. That's exactly it.

You do write easy fic (in the sense that it's happy, though I wouldn't necessarily equate the two automatically), but that's deliberate on your part and I've always assumed that's what speaks to you, which is the reason to write anything. Therefore, your "easy" fic isn't my easy fic, and couldn't lack in the same way I find mine does. I've seen you write not-easy fic, and it took my breath away. Which is not to say that I haven't enjoyed the rest of your fic immensely - it's always pure joy and such excellent craft - but my point is that it's clearly choice on your part, not for marketing or other reasons. Which is the nice thing about fanfic, that it lets us cater to our whims rather than the purse. And if you get readers to love it the way yours is loved, that's just gravy. *g*