I personally think they both suck. A title should either be used to convey an idea or a plot point and every book I've ever read follows this trend. Mine is called 'Return of the Ancient' and would you believe, it features a particular god (or Ancients, as I call them) returning to the world the book is set in. Nice and simple and straight to the point. Second book will be called 'Hall of the Dead' and features a hall full of dead people. Make a reference to something vague and your readers will want to know more, especially if it's a sequel whose title aludes to something in the first novel that might have been a small detail or supporting character. Hope this helps, happy writing!
I would expect that from a title like, The Time Machine, but I wasn't put off with, of Mice and Men or, The Grapes of Wrath. I was happy to have the meaning and relevance of my book title, Deceitful Survival to be discovered by the reader.
I agree, but given the options presented to me, I went with the third. When I say 'convey an idea or a plot point', almost every book does this either directly, or through metaphor, such as the examples you've given. When a book doesn't, the reader is often left wondering why on earth it was given such an oblique title. Midnight in Paris makes sense for a book set in paris at night, whereas Lunch at Midnight leaves me not curious, but concerned that the book will be as pretentious as the title. The art of a good title is to make the reader want to read, such as your title which does make me want to know more. Even better when the title is vague but enticing, like 'The Various Haunts of Men' by Susan Hill. Could be a drama or a horror, could have a classical setting or involve crime in some mordern way. You don't know but you want to, great title!
Makes me think.. Your title should be for your target reader. I'm sure a YA wouldn't pickup Fifty Shades of Grey, but would pick up, I Fell in Love with a Vampire. That being said it would be interesting to find a pattern of titles that appeal to certain targets. My finished work was targeted to twenty-five to forty-five female and I’m good with the title. My WIP is targeted to a younger m/f audience but still adult, maybe eighteen to thirty. The title sucks, because Sting of the WASP would only be recognized by someone in their forties or fifties. I have some work to do.
I would bet a hefty sum of money (so around 5$) on the big publishers already knowing that pattern. How much control do they have over the title? Do they approach authors and suggest/demand a title change sometimes/often? Does anybody know this? Who knows, maybe Twilight was supposed to be The Sparkly Vampire Boys originally...
Here are some titles that were changed from mundane to top sellers: First Impressions, changed to Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen) Something That Happened, changed to Of Mice and Men (John Steinbeck) Atticus, changed to To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee) Fiesta, changed to The Sun Also Rises (Ernest Hemingway) Tomorrow is Another Day, changed to Gone with the Wind (Margaret Mitchell) Stranger From Within, changed to Lord of the Flies (William Golding) Twilight, changed to The Sound and the Fury (William Faulkner) All’s Well that Ends Well, changed to War and Peace (Leo Tolstoy) They Don’t Build Statues to Businessmen, changed to Valley of the Dolls (Jacqueline Susann) The Mute, changed to The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (Carson McCullers)
Most of those revised titles are much better than the original. Stranger From Within stands out as especially terrible, like a cheap Straight-to-DVD movie these days...
What great luck for Stephanie Meyer! Also, does that mean Something That Happened is still available? 'Cause dibs!
I voted for the meal time, as I thought it was funny. That said, if it's not particularly humorous piece, that might be a bit of a misleading title.
