What’s in a Title?

The amount of authors I’ve never heard of blogging about how to be a better writer is positively silly. Stephen King or J.K. Rowling wants to offer some advice? I’m listening. Joe Blow posts a new writing tip every other day? Thanks, but I’ll pass. So please don’t take this post as me trying to tell you how to write. I’ve got a big ego, but it’s not nearly that big. This post is more about an observation I’ve made as a fan of both books and films. That observation is that the title of a work often plays a big part in the success of that work. Getting noticed is difficult. I know this as well as any author. Choosing a poor title for your work makes it that much harder. As important as it is for you to make sure your writing or filmmaking is as good as it can be it’s probably just as important to take the time to pick the right name for your project. Let’s look at a few examples.

This weekend I watched Neill Blomkamp’s latest sci-fi film, Chappie. I enjoyed it despite some sloppy plotting but I couldn’t help thinking how awkward the name is. Sure, it might make sense in South Africa where it was filmed, but this is an American movie about a sentient robot. Why wouldn’t they give it a name that resonates with the American audience? “Chappie” sounds like some sort of bad across-the-pond comedy. Relatively poor reviews didn’t help the box office for this one, but I have to believe it would have had a better chance if it was named something that helped it stand out.

One of my other favorite sci-fi examples is the recent Tom Cruise movie, Edge of Tomorrow. This title stinks something awful. It sounds like a soap opera or maybe some low budget straight-to-cable Dolph Lundgren offering. Yet it’s based on a well-received Japanese graphic novel with the much more interesting title, All You Need Is Kill. The marketing for this film when it hit the theaters was so weak that they changed the movie’s name to the much-improved Live. Die. Repeat. for the home video release. The film made plenty of money based on Cruise’s star power and good reviews but just imagine how much better it could have done with one of those cooler titles from the get-go.

A great example of a poor title being caught and corrected is the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. When it was first published in the U.K. it was titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. While perhaps not a terrible title, think how much better “sorcerer” rings to the intended middle grade audience than “philosopher”. A sorcerer is a worker of magic, a fantastic character that promises danger and adventure. A philosopher? Well to a kid, that’s typically just an old man that lectures and writes boring books, isn’t it?

And finally, I present Ayn Rand’s 1957 opus, Atlas Shrugged. Whether you love or hate this book (there are very few that fall in between), there’s no denying it’s got a great title. It perfectly fits her theme and it’s instantly memorable. Yet the working title was “The Strike”, a generic name for a book if I ever saw one. Atlas Shrugged was only the title for a chapter until her husband suggested otherwise. Millions of copies later, I think it’s safe to say Ms. Rand made the right choice.

So I’m not telling you that you can’t find success with a lackluster title. The Shack and The Road certainly suggest otherwise. And I’m definitely not saying a great title guarantees success. I think Storm Orphans is a fantastic title yet I can still count the sold copies of my debut novel in the hundreds. I’m just stating that before you publish or produce your hoped-for blockbuster, you might want to give the title a little extra thought.