Titles that annoy us

Some time ago there was a thread about the best titles. What about titles that tend to repel a reader while the book is still sitting there unopened?

One sort of title I dislike has a proper name used as an adjective, followed by a noun, the meaning of which might not be clear, e.g. The Eiger Sanction, The Shawshank Redemption. These tend to be thrillers, a category that doesn't attract me anyway, and titles of this kind strike me as somewhat pretentious. I do make an exception for titles that have a place name (or even a personal name) preceding "Affair." After all, one of the few movies I've ever really enjoyed was entitled "The Nelson Affair," although in Britain it did have a different title--"A Legacy to my Country," I think. And I would certainly at least pick up and look at, say, The Acropolis Affair.

The other category that puts me off is that of novels with a female protagonist, usually historical novels, bearing titles referring to that character's relationships, The Garbageman's Daughter, The Surgeon's Wife, etc. There's a whiff of misogyny here. We don't usually see titles such as Pharaoh's Uncle (I'd give that one a chance, I think), or The General's Grandson.

Any other LT'ers want to weigh in on titles they dislike?

Nothing specific has yet occurred to me but I'm annoyed by English titles for translated works that have nothing to do with the original ones, especially because there usually seems no earthly reason for the renaming. Even small changes sometimes make a significant difference: I've just finished reading Cafe Celeste, whose original title is less straightforward: L'empire celeste.

A modern book with 'A Story of' in the subtitle isn't promising because that so often precedes 'A Mother's Loss', 'My Struggle with Addiction', 'A Fatal Love' and the like.--Hang on, here ya go: 'Mrs Bovary in the Provinces: The Story of a Housewife's Downfall'.

My son and I were in the bookstore the other day and had some fun finding all the books with the word "girl" in the title. That girl sure does get in a lot of bad situations.

I agree about "The So-and-so's Wife/Daughter/Mistress". It's an immediate turnoff for me.

The dumbing down of titles for different audiences is annoying. The most obvious being Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone becoming the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Not sure why the individual paperback screwed up the title. Would it make a difference with the right one? It is Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption originally.

>4 SylviaC: Yes, dumbing down is a real problem (and its proponents like to use the expression "making it more accessible"). It happens with television, too. I was reading a discussion by Joanne Fletcher (the woman who claimed to have found Nefertiti's mummy a few years ago) and a colleague about a mummification documentary. The ninety-minute program was cut by half an hour for its US airing, and a lot of material was left out, as Fletcher claims, because Americans couldn't handle it or couldn't understand it. I've never had a really high opinion of Fletcher. It got revised downward with that article. (And if you're a writer trying to sell books in another country, why alienate potential readers by making disrespectful generalizations about them?)
And if readers (elementary school kids included) hadn't heard of the Philosopher's Stone, why not put an explanatory note at the beginning of the book? I rather suspect a lot of British school kids would be unfamiliar with that legend, too.

Yep, the so-and-so's female relative, and changing titles to make them "accessible" over here. Really, Northern Lights is too difficult for Americans to understand? *sigh*

To provide a counterpoint, I prefer the US title, Re-Birth, to the British title, The Chrysalids (by John Wyndham). Interesting book, no matter the title.

I really loathe the condescending referentials, though, such as "The Surgeon's Wife" (mentioned above). Surely there's more to a human than marital status. I love the stories in Stephen King's book, Different Seasons (which included Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption), and I often use that book to remind me that he *can* write, when he wants to (yeah, not a fan of most of his work, leave me alone, get off my lawn, kids today).

>8 Lyndatrue: Title changes are often simply changes. Different market, different culture.

(Also King's been publishing since the 70s so that's hardly kids today.)

>9 .Monkey.: Well, the kids today went with the get off my lawn, and since I'd just been mowing (and am still, just in for a break), it made me laugh. Still does.

We are of an age though (Stephen King and I), but my comment about not caring for most of his work (in which he made a ton and a half of money, because he's *good* at scaring people) still stands. Didn't say it was bad, only that all four works in Different Seasons were good.

>7 Thwaite: Northern Lights became the Golden Compass, did it? Those wily Freemasons are at it again.

(I still can't think of a particular book title that was instantly off-putting but certainly I found myself going a bit cringey as I asked in a bookshop for the biography of William Donaldson, You Cannot Live as I Have Lived and Not End Up Like This, what with its clod-stomping rhythm: da DA da da da DA da da da DA da da da DA.)

>5 Bookmarque:

It's probably a movie tie-in edition. The famous film that was adapt from King's novella is simply entitled The Shawshank Redemption:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/

Not sure why they shortened it. They probably thought Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption was too long-winded for marketing purposes. Or perhaps that the general public had forgotten Ms. Hayworth (if this is the case, they obviously didn't ask any heterosexual male who had spent five seconds watching one of her movies - va-va-voom!).

I read some romances, but won't even look at anything with "Billionaire", "Sheik", or "Tycoon" in the title.

>4 SylviaC:, I'd agree changing "philosopher's stone" to "sorcerer's stone" is dumbing it down. I have a hard time explaining this one. Chance to remain educational in its title and they blew it. I'd expect they didn't edit the text of the story and it's still described as "philosopher's stone" throughout? Makes the title change even more silly.

>7 Thwaite:, the title "Northern Lights" is not very suggestive of the genre or of magic. There's not enough intrigue in it, but a golden compass sounds like something special.

>12 artturnerjr:, or people would expect the actual Rita Hayworth as the story's leading character.

The 'Someone's Daughter/Wife' titles can be used purposefully to emphasize restrictions placed on women by family background, e.g. The Rector's Daughter.

One title of incredible dullness is Tony Blair's autobiography, A Journey. Even The Journey would have been an improvement.

>14 Cecrow:

or people would expect the actual Rita Hayworth as the story's leading character.

That's true - hadn't thought of that. Actually, I vaguely remember being (approximately) halfway through the original novella the first time I read it and saying to myself, "Okay, where does Rita Hayworth come in?" :)

>6 orsolina:

The ninety-minute program was cut by half an hour for its US airing, and a lot of material was left out, as Fletcher claims, because Americans couldn't handle it or couldn't understand it.

More likely, to fit in more commercials.

I really dislike generic titles. This hardly ever happens to me with the books I choose to read - I can review titles read and it brings back to mind always what that book was, what it was about. I might be less confident if I read nothing but, say, Harlequin romances.

I do much worse with movies. I keep a running list of what I've seen and there's a LOT where the title suggests nothing at all because it's so generic and meaningless. Fifty movies released that year on widely different subjects could feasibly have used that same title, etc.

I would like to add "Club" to any title. I find it a great turn-off. There were many of the genre that I enjoyed, but after awhile they became redundant. Every club has the requisite character. Snobbish that way, I guess.

I never pay any attention to titles, and am a little surprised that apparently a number of people are annoyed by some of them. I simply figure that titles are are a marketing ploy to maximize sales.

>14 Cecrow: They changed it to "sorcerer's stone" in the text so at least they were consistent.

>20 nemoman:

This. A title is a name - it is there to identify something. I do not get annoyed at names (or titles). Back cover (or inner flap) summaries tend to annoy me a lot though.

>20 nemoman: / >22 AnnieMod: Yep. Pretty much the same as judging by a cover.

A good title--especially when I'm looking over the fiction shelves--is the one that intrigues me or makes me laugh. When I'm already familiar with the author's work, it doesn't matter so much; I'd check out anything by Pat McIntosh or P.F. Chisholm or Steven Havill. But if I don't know the author and I'm looking for a entertaining novel, The Railwayman's Wife is going to leave me cold. One exception--when a real person was actually known by such a designation, the title may pull me in; I'm thinking of the Bearkeeper's Daughter by Gillian Bradshaw--ah hah, it's Theodora (and nobody simply refers to her as "the Emperor's Wife"). The bearkeeper in question is long gone, of course, before the story even begins.

>17 lilithcat: Fletcher did say more than once that the mummification documentary was cut down for the US because Americans couldn't be expected to stay with it for ninety minutes or appreciate the subject. It's not the first time I've noticed this attitude in our cousins across the pond. Jayne Torvil, the ice dancing champion, once told an interviewer that Americans wouldn't get references (in a performance program) to the "disappeared" victims of South American dictatorships. Too bad, Jayne, you lost a lot of fans there.

Incidentally, Fletcher was featured in a ninety-minute "documentary" about her alleged "discovery" of Nefertiti. Boring, repetitive, the same re-enactments over and over again, and the actor playing the High Priest in an absolutely unbelievable wig.

Pauline Gedge had a supernatural suspense story which was entitled Scroll of Saqqara in Canada but Mirage in the US. Now, Mirage is not a bad title, especially considering what was going on the story, but why the change?

Cozy mysteries with "clever" food related titles. Egads. I mean, The Cereal Murders? Seriously?

>25 Her_Royal_Orangeness: Bad puns are a sure way to get me to at least look at the book. I've read several simply because they had a terrible pun for a title. Ghouls Just Haunt to Have Fun being the most recent. Authors can't get me twice that way though.

"How to" in a title will make me pass on by. Unless it is spoofy. So tired of self-help books.

non-uniqueness. It's not that hard to do a quick search and see how many other people have already published books with the same name. If any of them are even remotely popular, or in the same genre, pick something else.

>27 reading_fox:, yeah, adding Ken Follett's World Without End was an eye-opener that way. So many books with the same title.

The only title I can think of that really annoys me is Thomas Hardy's Far From The Madding Crowd. I want to say "maddening". I really want to say "maddening". I always, ALWAYS want to say "maddening". It's so maddening!

When you watch the film of Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone, you will notice that every time the phrase Philosopher's Stone is mentioned the character saying it either has their back to the camera or the lower part of their face is out of shot, which makes for easier dubbing for other audiences.

>29 lawbrarian: Hahaha same here! I cannot not read it as "maddening"!

It's not so much a title issue, but there are certain words on the inside jacket/back of the book description that drive me bonkers. "Redemption" makes me put the book back every time. I also hate the list, like "As she discovers her own journey of love, loss, acceptance, and bread." *snooze*

>32 Alliebadger:, that's interesting. I usually allow a pass on jacket/back cover descriptions, often not even reading them until after I've started reading, because they are never written by the author. It's pure marketing and full of hyperbole and ridiculous comparison (EVERYTHING is the next Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc.)

>33 Cecrow: Totally. I look at them long enough to note the genre and maybe spot a "key word" or two and that's it. Publisher blurbs are often ridiculous.

Yes, yes--I was just discussing this book with my husband yesterday. I cannot keep from saying "maddening." Mind-readers!

The only ones that tend to turn me off are very generic and forgettable titles, like "a case of murder" or "the house in the street" sort of thing, these are not real examples, I just can't think of any specific ones at the moment (probably because I've forgotten them!).

Anything that is followed with: A Novel. I know it's a novel. Duma Key:A Novel is clearly not a travel guide. I guess I just find it pretentious. None of my bookie friends agree with me though, so may be its just me.

#37 - it might be useful if it is, for example, a biographical novel, thus "X: a novel", shows it's not a non-fiction biography of the subject.

That's what all my friends say. It's just my pet peeve I guess.

I'm not reading any more books called "The Somebody's Wife". Also ones that pretend to be nonfiction (e.g., Special Topics in Calamity Physics). Also ones with the long, precious titles. STAHP! I'm looking at you, An Arsonist's Guide to Writers' Homes in New England and especially YA books like The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things and I'd Tell You I Love You But Then I'd Have to Kill You. I blame The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society.

>40 reconditereader: Ah, but I *liked* The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society. It was a pleasure to read, and the title was fitting. As a counterpoint (to the idea that titles ought not to be too precious, or overlong), there's always Harlan Ellison. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, Repent! Harlequin, Said the Ticktock Man, and Gene Wolfe (in his days before the luster of gold addled his brain), with the excellent collection entitled The Island of Doctor Death and Other Stories and Other Stories (another favorite).

I'm not a fan of schlock writing with pretentious titles (and I'm deeply disturbed to discover that the "...and Other Big Round Things" is an actual book), but I do like words, when used well.

Anything that includes a swear word won't get me reading past the cover. If it's on top it's inside. Life is too short and there are plenty of better books waiting for me.

>37 Katfix: I don't get the (Title): a Novel thing either. Seems like a dumbing down to me. However, an exception I've found is Macbeth: a Novel and Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: a Novel by A.J. Hartley. Those differentiate from the works by Shakespeare and are both excellent novels, not dramas.

Title's that have little if anything to do with the plot.

I quite like the long ones, even if I can't remember them A girl who circumnavigated fairyland in a ship of her own LT normally pulls them up anyway.

I like the long titles, at least they're distinctive! The very generic ones that get re-used a lot are the ones that annoy me. I have three books in my library titled "Night Watch" or "The Night Watch", and at a quick glance there are three others on LT with 100 copies or more.

>37 Katfix:

My pet peeve, also. A subtitle can do so much more than define the book as "a novel." I probably knew it was a novel when I picked it up.

>43 MrsLee:

Clarification, as in your examples, are about the only reason for "a novel."

>36 john257hopper: these are not real examples

One of them is!

A Case of Murder

#47 - yes, I thought it probably was, but I didn't check;)

>44 reading_fox: & >45 lorax:
It's especially fun when the writing lives up to the long descriptive title, like Catherynne M. Valente's does.

Another that fulfills it's promise is The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared.

Non-fiction books with over-snappy one-word titles that need endless puffing subtitles to tell you what the book is actually about - Bullshit: the thrilling story of how a simple, brown agricultural product changed the face of the publishing industry throughout the known universe forever