I guess I haven't read something that used a name as a title that I didn't think worked. I was trying to find a link to a New Yorker story called Travis, B., but I can't find a place to read the story unless you subscribe to the New Yorker. Anyway, I really liked this story. It's a quieter story, but I really dig it. Travis, B. is the name of a teacher. There is nothing crazy or unusual about this teacher. But the story is more about this guy who kind of sneaks into her class. I will hold back on saying more in case anyone wants to track it down and read it. I think the title here is a very interesting choice. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but I would love to know what the writer was thinking when she put this down as the title for her story. I just don't think it was an obvious choice. Or maybe it was the most obvious.
Well from what I have found is that a title can be just as off-putting as a cover. And this is backed up by the fact that people are going to judge based on the simplistic parts, regardless of the content in the blurb/book itself. I for one find that if the blurb and title are both off-putting, I will reject it if it doesn't 'fit' in a sense. I was just offering my honest opinion and thoughts on the subject in general in a light hearted fashion. So to start taking others ideas and opinions 'personally' and praise/refute them, will make the point of the exercise one of futility. And as such will show that some are not wanted when it comes to trying to add something to a conversation. Not everyone is going to give you the thoughts that you like. So perhaps make a list of those that you wish to not respond to your posts, as you seem to be 'cherry picking' through what others have posted. Though it would be more worthwhile to consider any and all possibilities and decide which one works best for you. Think on it for a bit.
You weren't the one who turned it into a silly thread. I'll take at least some of that responsibility. It just irks me when people say "absolutely never do this; that is a cop out; it's stupid to do such and such". For your original question, I think that titling after a character, like any literary device, should be done with purpose. I'll use Lolita again because I recently read it and it's fresh in my mind. The title is apt because of Humbert's obsession, full blown pedophiliac lust for this pre-pubescent girl. If the novel was about some totally different plot line, like Humbert struggling to be a step parent after he killed Lolita's mother, then the title would not have worked and would have been a silly choice. As with any device, especially one like this, you should have some reason to do it. I've never titled a story that wayy because it wouldn't have fit any of my stories. But if I feel, in the future, that one of my stories would benefit from that, I wouldn't hesitate for a second on the grounds that it's a cop out or lazy or whatever other silly reason someone can come up with to not do it.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I do kind of have a short named after a character. It's a sf horror story and and eponymous 'character' is a monster the mc encounters that's only referred to as She. I thought naming the short that would potentially be ominous and creepy (it could also sound like a romance story ...), and the entire thing is about the legend of She and the mc's interactions with it, so that was my thought process there. I'm sure I could come up with a different title and I might at some point, but I'm content with it as is. On the other hand, I had another short I'd initially named after the main character which was about transhumanism, and I felt that changing the name to something that referenced transhumanism was much stronger than using her name. Even though she's the mc, the story is about not just her, but her becoming a cyborg and eventually a 'brain in a jar'. Identity is a big part of the story, so maybe using her name would make sense, but in this case I mostly just went for what I thought sounded cooler. Maybe that's a childish way to title things? I don't know, it's worked out for me so far. You could always try to get in touch with her on twitter or email her about it, if you're really interested. Nothing to lose, right?
The whole thing about titles are that they should draw the person into reading the book (the cover art and blurb are also designed to do that but that's another story), yes there are a few classics that have been able to pass with a character's name as the title (Lolita being ruled out of it because it wasn't her actual name as we have come to discuss in this thread) but that doesn't change that most people are less likely to pick up a book simply titles "Sam" or "Sarah" etc where there are titles that tell you more about the actual story or give you a hint of what it will be about: I.E. "Darkness of Light", "Building Harlequin's Moon", "Gemini Cell", "Rynn's World", "Fall of Reach", etc.
Stephen King did pretty well with Dolores Claiborne. According to Wikipedia, "it was the best selling novel of 1992 in the United States." I'd take those sales, just sayin'.
How do you know this? I'd be interested in a source. This isn't me being snarky; I'm genuinely interested in how you came upon this information.
Simple psychology really. We judge everything to make decisions when it comes to pretty much everything. We judge the way a person walks down the road, what they're wearing, how they're talking. Books are the same thing. What is the first thing presented to a potential reader but the spine of a book, on which is simply the title. That makes us want to pick it up to look at or not, from there it goes to the cover art and blurb and then possibly the prologue/chapter 1 start. Before finding interest in anyone or anything we scope it out to see if it's too our liking. Now this may change based on what people we trust say about someone or something but overall we make our own decisions after taking in every little detail.
But where is your source that most people find books named after people to be less appealing right from the get go? How does that fact that it's a person's name make it less likely to be picked up than any other title format? Also have you heard of the musical Hamilton? It's not a book (well the autobiography its based on is and that's a bestseller too), but there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of sales going on there as well.
So no source. You're assuming that your personal preference (character name titles are bad) is the same as everyone's or at least the majority's. Of course we judge books by their covers, and titles, and blurbs, but we don't all judge them the same way - same way we don't judge every person walking down the street the same way, even though we're looking at the same person. I see a girl with hot pink hair walking down the street and think "nice" while my friend thinks "nope"; I see a book titled Sam and think "okay" while you think "boring". There's no right answer here. It's just opinion. I really would be interested in some statistics on what kinds of names sell better, but it seems like such a difficult - if not impossible? - thing to collect numbers on when so much goes into making a book sell.
Nothing is more ridiculous than criticizing one famous title and then desperately defending another. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Lolita. Both famous, good titles.
I only read books with titles between 3-7 words, two of which must be adverbs, two pronouns, and the title as a whole must be a pun.
Because a name doesn't TELL anything about the story or give any indication of what they are reading other than simply "the Author was too lazy to come up with an actual title" which no matter how good your work may be it will get less sales with that. So do you want to call all psychologists wrong then? Ok but the next time you want to make a sci fi novel without hard science you better tell scientists they're wrong to because that's just silly. And both have underlying meanings and are NOT in fact a characters name which is what we are discussing. So by that statement alone you prefer meaningful titles instead of cop-outs.
But one of the character's names in Lolita is, in fact, Lolita. I'm now convinced you're a troll. In which case, I applaud you for being able to play a buffoon for an incredibly long period of time. As for the psychologist comment. You're asserting that "all psychologists" believe that people are less inclined to read books with names as titles? Congratulations, kid. You've just made the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this forum. Quite an accomplishment. You should get a medal. ETA: "They're wrong TOO*." I'll definitely be taking novel advice from someone who might not know the difference between to and too.
Please cite a study where psychologists proved that a majority of people preferred titles that weren't character names. Again: I agree with you that we judge books on titles etc. That's not in contention. I'm not disagreeing with your "Simple psychology really . . ." post, I'm disagreeing with your conviction that everyone judges by the same standards. Did you even read my previous post past the words you quoted?
@Wolf Daemon , you need to be able to separate your own logic from fact. Maybe you think titles, using character's names, are lame, but the fact is, many classics have gone this route. So when the OP wants to know if he can use a title, based on a character's name, successfully, the objective answer is "yes." Can't you agree with that?
Yes. Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the start of the thread was silly. It wasn't. It was an interesting topic. But all the humphing and frumphing that followed did get kind of silly. Debating WHEN to use a character's name for a title is how the thread began. This is useful for a writer to think about. But then it deteriorated into WHETHER or not to ever name a book after a character, because some people hate these kinds of titles, and we lost sight of the issue. I mean ...why debate something like this at all? Many extremely enjoyable books—past and present—have been titled after the main character. I have never in my life encountered anybody for real who says, "I refuse to read that book because it's got somebody's name for a title." Have you? "I love all Stephen King's books except Carrie, which I've never read because I hate the title because it's a girl's name." Now we've got ANOTHER reason to reject a book before we read it? Next we'll be told that agents don't like name titles and if we submit one we'll never get published. Honestly. I'm really fed up with folks pre-judging a book for reasons that have nothing to do with the writing inside or the story that's being told. As I said before, writing and publishing is hard enough without coming up with yet more reasons to make it harder. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it used to be the case (before my time, but just barely) that books were published with nothing on the cover but the name of the book and the author's name. Books didn't even have jackets. No jacket design, no blurb. Nada. Fancy that. Just the name of the book and the author, printed in gold on a fancy leather or pressed paper binding. You can still buy these books in second-hand book shops. How on earth did people choose what to read 'back then?' Now there are so many barriers between the reader and the story. Worrying about whether a title is a person's name or not is just another barrier.
Oh gawd you're one of THOSE people? The moment someone disproves you and disagrees with you you try to push it away by saying "Well you're just a troll." Gawd get a better argument PLEASE. Lolita isn't the name of the women so it isn't the title isn't a blatent cop-out. Yes it has more meaning to the title but it's still not as good as having an ACTUAL title. And I asserted that "All Psychologists" know that people judge based on the smallest details. The objective answer is "not if you want to get the most out of your book." Yes some more classic titles have gotten away with it but it's still a sloppy/cop-out name idea. I doubt any publishing company would publish a book simply called "Lucy" or "Bethany" unless you already had a number of worth while titles out. And either way the point of the book title, cover, blurb is all to attract a reader. Everything tells the reader what they might find in the book, same is for how we meet people, we judge everything about them. So to answer the OP: Once in a blue moon you may do well with it but overall it is much more worth while to put effort into your title to entice the potential audience.
Proof? You need to show me proof, like I've shown you. Can you deliver? Or are you just giving an opinion?
That's the only logical answer my frail brain can muster. I can't let myself believe you're actually being serious. Lolita is an actual title and name of character No, it's not a cop-out. Yes, you are being ridiculous. And this has nothing to do with you being in disagreement with my opinion. It has to do with that idea that you decided that choosing a character's name for a title is, in all scenarios, a cop out.
Proof of psychology and an understanding of the human mind, it's pretty much common sense for anybody above the age of 20. But maybe you're not that old. Idk. And as to what evidence have you placed forward? As I have not seen any of this so called evidence. Lolita is better than the MC name being the title but not by much. It's still simply a name. While it may have more thought put into it it still doesn't tell the reader anything. I have yet to have anybody show proof that it's not. Cop Out: an instance of avoiding a commitment or responsibility. Simply naming your book after the main character is in fact "avoiding [the] responsibility" of thinking up a meaningful title.
I've not read any of these titles. These titles tell me absolutely no more than any other title, MC name or not. The name of the piece should add to the overall experience. It's not meant as a look into the story. It can be a look into the story, but saying that it has to or it's a cop-out is foolish. Please tell me how the titles you've listed give me any more than the titles I've quoted below. I haven't read any of these quoted novels. I have NO idea what is in store based on these few words in either example. But I bet most of them have a title that will add to my overall experience after I've read the books (your examples included). My point is that you're totally discounting a completely valid means to title a novel based on parroted information. You've skirted any attempt to get a real argument out of you and you've asserted your opinion as fact. Your opinion is not a fact; my opinion is not a fact. No one in this thread is wrong or right. They are opinions.
