Novel Titles

Does not that affect the work or make it a little harder because there is no room to manoeuvre?

 

It depends on who you are. Some people could find having a title set in stone to be restrictive, but it might help keep others on track if they're the kind to deviate from the point.

 

I don't normally decide on a title I just find I think of something that's 'right' and no decision is required.
I often find the perfect title for my book is actually in the manuscript. I pay very little attention to giving my work a title, since no one but me reads it I don't feel it matters. Most of my work has gone untitled. I have quite a few pieces of written work on a Disc that just says Horror story 1 Horror story Two. Poem.

 

I think I've only started one story without a working title, but I only got a few hundred words into it before realizing I had a cool concept and good characters, but no ideas abut what story I wanted to tell. In retrospect it may have been a portent that the story was doomed from the start.

My second book had a placeholder title even after it had been accepted by my publisher, as I was never really happy with it. I started a thread here on the forums and someone came up with a much better title, which I used with their permission.

But other than those two situations, the title is usually something that comes to me as part of the pre-planning/outlining process and stays as is through publication.

 

Titles for me don't seem to come until after the work is finished. If something gets a title before it's finished it'll probably get changed.

 

I almost finish writing the first draft of my first story. Probably a novelette or novella. But the first title I had in mind was already taken since I can't copy an existing book title . The story is about this:
2 beings from different worlds who's friendship for one and other must gather their courage and fight alongside against a danger from her past before ocean life is eradicated.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about having the same title as an existing book; there's lots of repetition of titles.

Don't use, like, Harry Potter or The Sun Also Rises, but if the previous book wasn't too well know, you're probably fine.

 

Well my title would be the Water Princess since one of my main character is a mermaid

 

I'm still trying to figure it out 400 pages later. I don't know why those 2 or 3 little tittle words are so hard to come up with.

 

Usually, I will throw a temporary title on the book before I start working, just so I have something to name the Scrivener file, then I will come up with an actual title after the first draft is complete.

 

An other title would be The Princess of the sea

 

This post stems from a Twitter thread earlier today. I see these every so often--an author decrying readers who don't want to invest in a series that isn't done yet.

I'm less likely to buy books in a series that isn't done, unless they absolutely stand alone as separate novels. I won't say I'll never do it, but I'm less likely. Particularly if it's an author I don't already like.

Authors, understandably, are frustrated by this because if early books in the series don't sell the series might not be completed. These days that's not a great argument, in my view, but what's aggravating are the authors who don't just express their disappointment or frustration about this, but who become strident about it, leveling a finger at the reader with almost a 'how dare you" attitude.

That's what I saw on Twitter, today, and have seen on other occasions.

My response--it's my money and my leisure time. I don't owe you, author, a purchase of any of your books. Ever. If you (or your publisher) want to go with a series and I decide I don't want to start that series, or I don't want to start it until it's done, that's my prerogative. If your series never gets done as a result, well guess what--there are already more books for me than I can possibly read before I die. I won't miss your series. So get bent.

/fin

 

It is an interesting development to consider, I can understand how discouraging one might feel in the event that their work should underperform. However, this does not justify the pointing of fingers. It is quite easy to shake your fist at the rest of the world in contempt instead of bearing the brunt of responsibility with regards to our endeavors and the possibility of success.

Are these authors advertising their works as part of a series? Perhaps this strategy is inherently offputting to readers? Part of the intrigue regarding literature...I would say stems from the mystery of it all, and the uncertainty of what might or might not come next.

Let us be honest with ourselves and each other, it is quite easy to become cynical about upcoming authors who create works intended for a series because it seems like a scheme to extract money from readers. (Or maybe I am just cynical)

Who wants to know that seconds are coming before they know if the food is good?

Being an author is an incredibly risky occupation, and if an authors motivation lies disproportionately on money and success. I would suggest considering a different field.

 

So you never read a one off book? What is with the series hangup. How do you know how many books a series will have. Would you wait 50 years for some famous author to finally write the last book in his series before you started reading ?

 

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion. Lots of people aren't interested in investing in a series that isn't complete.

Though this post seems to be targeted at authors who get assholish about people not wanting to start a series before it's finished. That is seems like a silly way to go about getting more readers, but whatever.

I do buy series books before they're finished. I don't do it specifically because I want to support the author, I do it because I enjoy reading series books, and I enjoy having something to look forward to. If I like the first book in a series, getting the notification that my pre-order of the next instalment is ready to read is like giving my future self a present.

I also mostly read books in the genre I write in. I feel like even if a series isn't awesome, it gives me the opportunity to dissect it and figure out why I didn't like it and then avoid the shit out of that in my own writing.

 

I read mystery series, but I’m not a fan of big-arc series—even when they are finished.

 

I like mysterys. But I will read one off and no series needed. But if I liked it and it were a series I would be more likely to read another one.

Almost all series have a big arc of some sort. Or at least stuff that is common to all of the books so that multi time readers can enjoy that inside information as a lagniappe, as well as getting the main story.

 

What makes you think I never read a one-off? Are you illiterate or were you just in too much of a hurry to comment to read my post?

 

In my experience, mystery and thriller series tend to be of the sort where each book stands in its own, even though there is some story arc between books. I like that just fine.

 

Yep—that’s why they work for me. The series characters’ lives may change, but usually in a way that still makes the book feel like a book, not an episode with a cliffhanger.

 

I think I'm the sort who does like reading series (preferably trilogies), but only if I know the author isn't going to bail out partway through. I'm always more inclined to pick up a first book if I know the second book is either already published or just about to be published.

Of course this doesn't apply to authors whom I trust and already like. Joe Abercrombie is starting a new series with a book published in September, and I've already pre-ordered a copy. And I bought Phillip Pullman's first volume in his new 'Book of Dust' series, and I'm antsing around, waiting for the second, which is due soon. However, both of these guys have quite a few published books behind them. I know they finish what they start, and they are worth reading.

I'd be less inclined (but not completely put off) to start investing in a series that only has one book completed, if it's from an author I've never heard of, and has no other books for sale. However, I do try to take each offering on its own merits. I don't have any absolutes, when it comes to reading.

 

I like a good series, but honestly, the GRR Martin debacle has put me off reading any that aren't complete by the time I start reading. It's not just that he hasn't FINISHED the series, it's also that I felt like I could feel the unraveling in the writing itself as he introduced more and more characters in that last book and seemed to be completely losing control of what he was creating. Maybe I sensed that wrong, but his inability to finish the series suggests otherwise.

The better a story is, the more involved I get and the more upsetting it is to not get a good resolution. So I avoid unfinished series, for sure.

 

I like series. I would say that I actually read more series than standalones. That being said, I may hold off on reading the first book if a) I know it's gonna be good bc I'm familiar with the author and b) the last book is near release, or at least guaranteed to release.
For the most part, though, I'll read them. I don't like not knowing that Book 2 or 3 isn't released yet. That annoys me. (Happened 3x in the last month- picked up 3 really good series, only to find out that the 2nd or 3rd book wasn't out yet and I thought they were- very annoying.) But if I go into the reading understanding that the next book isn't out, I'm ok with waiting. I like to re-read books, so if the next book comes out, I'll re-read the whole series before starting the new one.