Everyone knows the old axiom that people shouldn't judge a book by its
cover, but do they also misjudge books by their title? I don’t know. I suspect a
great title can get readers to look further, a horrible title stops further
inspection, and a mediocre title doesn't influence sales one way or the other.
The Barnes and Noble Book Blog posted an article “12
Books With The Most Irresistible Titles.” Good Titles, but I always liked Lonesome
Dove because it sounded intriguing.
The Great
Rehearsal might be the worst title I've encountered for a great book. Carl
Van Doren wrote one of the top three history books on the Constitutional
Convention. The book was published in 1948, when the United Nations was just
starting and Van Doren thought the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a
rehearsal for writing the UN charter. This poor title probably dampened sales of a fine history book. Ironic,
since the book never mentions current events except in a slapped together
preface.
I've never agonized over my own titles, except for Tempest
at Dawn, my own book on the Constitutional Convention. Since this was a
novelization of the convention, I needed a title that didn't sound like a
history book. I still like the title. Perhaps I should have agonized more over
my other titles. The Steve Dancy Tales: The Shopkeeper,
Leadville,
Murder
at Thumb Butte, The
Return, Jenny's Revenge, and Crossing the Animas are pedestrian. I like The
Shout Mouth Society because it connotes secret society intrigue, which is the
plot of this contemporary novel. Principled
Action is a lousy title and may have affected sales of this nonfiction book
about the founding period.
Authors may not be the best at selecting titles, but I’m not
sure focus-group driven editors are better. My title for my computer
technology book was Dinosaurs and
Whippersnappers, but Wiley insisted on The
Digital Organization. I still prefer my title.
