posted
I've always worked under the assumption that the title is like the cherry on the sundae, meaning it shouldn't be essential to my understanding the story. Am I wrong in assuming this?
As a reader, I often skip over the title, but I've had at least one critiquee respond to me with something like: "Didn't the title clue you in?"
posted
I think it all depends on what you are writing, and how important it is to you. I just got done with a short story first draft, and the title, albeit weird, is the only place where the species that I create is named. [A Voluptuous Finish, with a Scythe of Reapers]
I also think titles can provides some very subtle cues to the reader about the topics and concepts they are about to experience. Mine includes attributes similar to a group of wine connoisseurs sampling various bottles at a tasting party, so the voluptuous finish part is apt.
Some of the best titles I've ever read are like this. I think my favorite ever is "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktock Man,'" but I also like "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream," and a personal favorite (the title, not the story) "Adrift Just Off the Islets of Langerhans: Latitude 38° 54' N, Longitude 77° 00' 13" W..." all by Harlan Ellison.
posted
Look at it like the opening credits and titles of a film. Some people think it has nothing to do with the movie and do nothing to make it a cohesive part of the experience. I do not understand this thinking; you lose valuable time that could be used for audience prep. Others will use the credits to set expectations and mood, give background information, and hints - I am in this camp.
My personal preference is to use the title as an important part of the entire work. I especially like short titles that seem clear when you first read them, but have multiple meanings which become apparent as more of the story is read.
posted
I realized belatedly that the title to my short story -- The Peachwood Sword -- had the reader looking for the sword as the story unfolded. The sword came in at the climax only. It was a distraction. The new title -- Through a Demon's Eyes -- cues the reader to be looking for a demon which is what the story is about, not about a wooden sword.
The wrong title can derail a short story, I think.
posted
"My personal preference is to use the title as an important part of the entire work. I especially like short titles that seem clear when you first read them, but have multiple meanings which become apparent as more of the story is read. "
My sentiment too.
I think of the story as one of several in a magazine or anthology. (I do, really, ever hopeful.) It'll be listed in the table of contents with several others and all the potential reader can see is the title (even less than the first 13) so it has to tempt, tease, promise, intrigue -- something -- or else they'll read it last :-(
I like to find a pithy title early in the writing process. It gives me a mental hook to hang story ideas on and sets the mood for the piece. It often alludes to the conflict resolution though not necessarily obviously.
Such titles are very hard to dream up. I suspect that being a poet helps.
Some titles I like that fit this pattern are Heinlein's "The Man who Sold the Moon", "The Roads must Roll", "By His Bootstraps"; Blish's "Surface Tension"; Aldiss's "Who can Replace a Man?"; and Asimov's "Nightfall" and "Little Lost Robot".
Yet many of my favourite short stories don't have such titles, so I guess it doesn't matter all that much.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
