I’m an avid romance reader. I also can’t remember most romance novel titles to save my life. In fact, if you burned romance novel titles into my eyeballs, I would still not remember them.
Yet I have no problem recalling titles for films, music albums, paintings and songs. My friend has a theory that I associate imagery and sounds with titles, which helps me remember them.
It’s a valid point, but my theory is there are too many generic titles in romance genre. I was asked if I could recall titles of non-romance novels. Yes, I would, but only if I read them. Yet I don’t seem to have this ability with romance novels.
First, I’d like to point out three things:
- a) I’m not including category romance novel titles because it’d be like shooting fish in a teacup
b) I’m leaving authors’ names out of this column for two reasons — one, this topic has nothing to do with them, and two, I can’t remember their names.
c) I’m well aware authors have little control over their book titles, so please, no finger pointing at their direction.
In the romance genre there are a few common types of titles [please feel free to chime in if you can think of other types]:
- Hero’s Role
I thought to include heroine’s roles, but I realise there are only about six reoccurring key words: Bride, Widow, Courtesan, Daughter, Mistress and Woman. Plus a splatter of nobility titles [duchess, princess, etc.]. So, I’m sticking with hero’s roles here:
Social status/Profession: Viscount, Earl, Millionaire, Rancher, Cowboy, Lord, Marquis, Soldier, Knight, Warrior, Prince, King, Barbarian, Chieftain, Groom, Laird, Pirate, Spy, Warlord, Bodyguard, Half-Breed, Bounty Hunter, Tycoon
Nature: Devil, Angel, Werewolf, Bad Boy, Dragon, Lion, Demon, Wolf
Descriptive role: Conqueror, Seducer, Cad, Rake, Viking, Raider, Gentleman, Lover, Protector, Guardian, Immortal, Scoundrel
Nationality: Texan, Englishman, Scotsman, Highlander, Australian
- Most Popular Adjective of the Year
I have no way of knowing if I have this right, but these are my impressions from years as a romance reader.
1970s: sweet, surrender, savage … oh, yes! ‘Savage’ was very, very popular. Savage Kiss, Savage Caress, Savage Lover, Savage Seduction, and la la. This lasted ’til, I think, mid-1990s.
1980s: shadow, cave, caress, storm, secret, fire, winter, danger, legacy, castle
1990s: caress, untamed, silk/silken, sensual, angel, seduction, tempt(ation), passion, embrace
2000s: dark, night, shadow, run, heat, hot, cold
Always: heart, lover, surrender, wicked, scandal, love, passion, marriage, bed
- Déjà vu
Quite a few romance novels borrow or twist song titles, lines from poems, plays, songs, film quotes, and film titles, e.g.
Son of the Morning — “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” [Isaiah 14:12-15]
Someone to Watch Over Me — “Follow my lead, oh, how I need / Someone to watch over me” [Gershwin, 1926]
It can be fun, figuring out why a romance novel title looks familiar, but when it’s recycled a number of times, it gets tiring.
- Seasonal, Holiday, Weather and Special Occasion Titles
Secrets of a Summer Night
A Christmas Bride
Savage Thunder
A Passionate Wedding - Generic titles
You and No Other
Wonderful You
His Wicked Ways
Falling for [hero/ine's name]
His Passionate Embrace
Desire’s Passion
Generic titles do get lucky when they have exceptional stories to back them up. I would never remember The Windflower if it wasn’t for the story [and Cat] nor After the Night. Unfortunately, this is not the case for every romance novel.
Don’t let me start on a popular trend of giving a series of connected books one key word, e.g. the Dark series, the Mackenzie series, the Star series, and such such. This is one of major reasons why I avoid most of long-running book series.
I cannot tell you how many times I failed to recall titles of books I wanted to recommend to reader friends. It doesn’t help that the titles rarely have anything to do with the contents of the book nor are they that meaningful.
Titles are an important marketing tool — so why this need to recycle only a limited number of key words or generic titles? I don’t see how could this help book sales or with the way the romance genre is perceived. Yes, it may help readers to make their buying decisions quickly, but so many titles are so forgettable.
What do we need to do to get better titles for romance novels? Tie up marketing departments and flash ‘em photos of Scottish men’s pale bums until they shriek “Uncle!” and promise not to ever, ever, ever use the words “Half-Breed” or “Passion” in a title again?
No related posts.
I’m the same way as you. For the life of me I can’t remember the titles of romance books I read even last week unless it really stood out. Authors – yes, titles – no. I have a friend who I lend books too, I’ll ask her how she’s enjoying them and she will rattle off the title and I won’t have a clue as to what book she is talking about unless she gives the author too. She’s the opposite – she doesn’t remember the author so we neve know which books we are talking about unless she get’s it out or gives a bit of story detail.
Maili, This is perfect. You’ve said exactly what I’ve been thinking on this subject. The cynical atttitude toward generating titles for romances disrespects the individual nature of each book as well as the whole genre. And since cynicism on their part breeds cynicism on my part, I’ve had the distrustful thought that titles are sometimes **deliberately** made to sound similar, in an effort to capitalize upon this very forgetfulness (which I certainly do share with you). I’ve feared that the publisher’s marketing departments really WANT me to be standing in the bookstore, desperately trying to recall the exact wording of the title in the rave review that I read, and they want me to give up and pick the nearest thing that I can find. Perhaps they might think that I won’t go to the trouble of returning the book when I’m able to check it and discover my mistake — but they are very wrong. I have returned books for this reason. I love books. I don’t think they are interchangeable. I’m not willing to settle for a possibly inferior one when I specifically wanted a different, superior one.
Thanks for raising this topic, Maili! Long overdue, in my opinion. I’ve never been able to remember a title, either…or, more accurately, which title goes with which book. I think the problem is that the titles tend to have very little to do with the plot, or at least very little to do with what makes Book A different from Book B. Passion, desire, flames, hearts, shadows, savages…honestly, that could be any love story; there’s no hook there on which to hang your memory of the unique conflict in that particular story. I suspect publishers view titles a little like clinch covers: a way to brand the book as a romance. I can see some advantages to doing so, but it also seems like a disservice to both the author and the genre, because it reinforces the “formula” stereotype that all romance novels are interchangeable. So far as the titles and my memory go, they ARE interchangeable, even when the stories themselves are memorable. Seems like a shame. (Or at the very least inconvenient when I want to recommend a book to someone and can’t remember the $#*# name!)
Allison’s right — part of the title process is making sure the book is identified as a romance. When I was an editor, we used to have “titling sessions” during which we would toss around ideas for books, and it wasn’t easy. There are so many levels to it — if you want a book to sound “big,” if the book is part of a series and you want the titles to be similar or have a theme, if you’re trying to capture its sense of humor or drama. It’s not easy. And while it *does* lead to some generic titles, you’d be surprised how difficult it is to come up with titles that match the cover look, and haven’t been used before, and don’t give plot points away…
Any title with the word “tame” or “taming” is a like a red flag to a bull to me — it is a word I normally associate with training animals. I think it is demeaning when used in association with a person — what are you going to do to this person to “tame” them? Do they end up glassy-eyed and docile? It is possible that I have missed out on some good reading because of my prejudice, but I can’t think of a book with “tame” or “taming” in the title that has tempted me in the slightest.
Great post, as usual.
And I’m going to rinse my eyes with bleach if I ever see another ’savage’ title.
Most of the time I don’t think of titles at all unless they ‘connect’ a series. (ex: Beth Ciotta’s Jinxed, Charmed & Seduced; Mariah Stewart’s Dead Wrong, Dead Even, Dead End.) My books are set in the Keys, so I like keeping Key in the title (All Keyed Up, Key of Sea)
I think titles often work as secondary branding sometimes. For awhile, some of Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ books were from song titles or other pop culture (It Had to Be You; Dream a Little Dream; Lady Be Good; This Heart of Mine)
My pet peeve is with books called “Once a (fill in the blank)” Maybe it’s like buying a new car and suddenly you notice how many other people drive the same car. A friend’s first book was Once a Pirate. Now I always notice that title structure.
Great article Maili! And yes, romance novel titles are SO forgettable. Especially the series ones. I mean, how many people know the whole order of the Dark series with all those forgettable titles?
I disagree. I think the listings here show a remarkable variety. The adjectives listed show mostly trends of the TYPES of stories that were so popular in those decades. And for one to name dozens upon dozens of words and say that shows a lack of imagination is stretching credibility. These are strong adjectives that immediately evoke a response in the viewer and indicate the type of story to be found inside.
And Son of the Morning? I’d like to see that book. Since when is it a romance-only thing to reclaim lines from the Bible, Shakespeare, or other poetry? That has been the provence of literary novels for centuries. Lord of the Flies? The Sound and the Fury?
Regarding the idea of using the hero’s archetype, this is an old saw.. Some people like that kind of title, some don’t. But certain words are indicators of the genre, and Princess, rake, Scandal, Temptation, etc. say “romance” the way that “gun” “death” “chase” and whatnot say “mystery”.
Regarding the “series” books with one name, like “Dark” or “in Death” — I love them. I think it’s a brilliant way to indicate series without saying “First Book” etc. We don’t all have it as easy as JK Rowling, who names hers after the main character, and the Number trick and alphabet trick are already in use.
Sorry, but for as many recycled titles as I see in this genre (What a Girl Wants was used five or six times a few years ago) I see just as many gogeous and original titles.
This may show my complete ignorance, but I was completely gobsmacked to learn that editors have the ability to change a book’s title. When I think of a title for any particular work I have in progress, it’s a painful, careful process. It’s akin to finding just the right name for a characer; you try several different options until finally, you just know that the title is right. And the idea that my intentionally selected title will be tossed out the window in favor of something generic kind of…well, pisses me off may not be strong enough.
“And the idea that my intentionally selected title will be tossed out the window in favor of something generic kind of…well, pisses me off may not be strong enough.”
Lynn, the problem is marketing *is* one of the title’s functions. If you wrote a fabulous late-Victorian historial with a lot of dark sexuality and a villain, and then called it “Miss Bright’s First Kiss,” for instance, it’s going to sound like a Regency, and it’s going to sound light and funny. Authors do go to a lot of trouble choosing titles, but they don’t always get that part right. And it does* make a difference.
That said, they don’t always get changed. But it was the first thing I always told me authors — don’t be wedded to your title.
I was looking over my romance keeper shelves after reading this article and laughing my butt off, because man, these titles are completely interchangeable.
Then Came You
Dreaming Of You
Give Me Tonight
Paradise
Almost Heaven
Kingdom of Dreams
Shadow Dance
Shadow Lover
Black Angel
Dancing on the Wind
Mr. Impossible
Lord of Scoundrels
You could swap just about any title onto any book, and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference. Call Dreaming of You, say, Dancing on the Wind, or even Lord of Scoundrels–it just doesn’t make any difference.
My non-romance keeper shelves make it a bit trickier to swap titles around. Here are the titles on the first couple of shelves:
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Hyperion
Fall of Hyperion
The Return of the Native
The Three Musketeers
Hit Man
Different Seasons
An Alien Heat
The Hollow Lands
The End of All Songs
Weeds
Naked
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Not quite fair, though, since this covers quite a spread of genres.
Fantasy books might give romance novels a good for their money, in terms of silly titles that have a tendency to blur together. Quick! Count the number of fantasy novels that have “dragon,” “king,” “game” and “throne”!
Fabulous article!
I, too, forget titles, but not all. Jen Crusie’s ones fantastically sum up the plot or premise. I give her major props.
Maybe it’s me, but it seems contemporary ST are better named with less cliched words than historicals and categories. I don’t really mind series that have a reoccuring theme, as long as the title fits the book.
“These are strong adjectives that immediately evoke a response in the viewer and indicate the type of story to be found inside.”
Yeah, but it also makes them virtually interchangeable. I could just as easily put Lord of Scoundrels or A Hint of Seduction (just two on my shelf that I glanced at) onto any other historical and no one would bat an eye at the title change.
Of course, this also could be because the stories themselves are becoming so mindlessly the same. But that’s probably another column (or one that’s already been done).
Titles that I can think of that actually bring to mind the actual story are ones like Susan Wiggs’ The Charm School, Julia Quinn’s Dancing at Midnight or Brighter than the Sun.
I just hate that so many titles almost seem to just be slapped on and don’t evoke the real character of that individual story and differentiate it from any of the others.
I agree with the article–romance titles need a major makeover. We started out with titles like SWEET SAVAGE LOVE/CAPTIVE BRIDE gracing clinch covers (heh, another time, another rant) in the seventies and we still haven’t managed to move from mostly “romance” thematic summaries to good, standout titles for individual books.
Like others have said, even some of my favorite reads have the most godawfully generic titles that basically say “historical romance novel”, “contemporary romance novel title by committee”, and so forth.
I’m sure coming up with titles are hard. And when you’ve got as many product releases as the romance publishing industry does, it’s bound to be easier to go with what’s similar to the hot and selling titles than to spend the time and energy to come up with something singular and unforgettable.
Series…I can rarely tell what books in series or trilogies are in what order. Like Nicole said, remembering the order of the DARK series? Forget about it. And I wouldn’t be able to list the titles of the IN DEATH series in order, either. At least smart publishers will list the books in a series (by order!) on the endpages somewhere.
Tying a book to the same word can be tricky; I had a problem with the Susan Andersen BABY trilogy and the Kathy Love trilogy because the phrases used as titles didn’t really have a clear sense of order or progression.
Take the CRIMSON CITY series–there’s a slight sense of progression from the beginning–surface to depth, increase in intensity/saturation–but the last two titles deviate from that. Could Random Reader pick out the order of the books by the titles alone? Doubt it.
On the other hand, some good, aptly used titles that I can remember off the bat would be Nora Roberts’s oxymoronic ones–CARNAL INNOCENCE, HONEST ILLUSIONS, HOT ICE, PUBLIC SECRETS, and the like. The nice thing about those is that they actually referred to something integral in the books and added a playful twist.
PS: I think SAVAGE is still going strong, btw. Two words: Cassie Edwards. *bleaches brain*
What’s wrong with giving away a plot point in a title? Usually it’s the blurb that convinces me to buy a book, so I’m already getting some of the plot.
I also don’t mind series with similar titles like DARK or IN DEATH. I’m a series slut and it provides a mnemonic hook for me. Julia Quinn’s Bridgerton series had titles that played off Bond movies, didn’t they? I thought those were brilliant.
I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve gotten from readers telling me they picked up THE CARE AND FEEDING OF PIRATES from the title alone. The title was my idea, no changes from editors. I chose it because I didn’t want just another generic pirate title indicating just another generic pirate romance. There were people who did not like it, but the point was, they noticed it. Work with your editors on your title–it is a good marketing tool and often the very first thing a reader browsing the shelves sees.
I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve gotten from readers telling me they picked up THE CARE AND FEEDING OF PIRATES from the title alone. The title was my idea, no changes from editors. I chose it because I didn’t want just another generic pirate title indicating just another generic pirate romance. There were people who did not like it, but the point was, they noticed it. Work with your editors on your title–it is a good marketing tool and often the very first thing a reader browsing the shelves sees.
I apologize for the double comment, don’t know what happened.
It wasn’t for emphasis or anything (LOL).
I’m really bad at remembering titles too, but for me, this usually has to do with either, how much the book sucked, or how totally average it was.
Although, funnily enough, it’s more likely I’ll remember a book that sucked balls, than a book that was just ‘ok’.
Thanks, everyone, for ringing in. I’m sorry that I wasn’t around yesterday to join this discussion. *headdesk* Much appreciated. I’d like to address a few comments:
And Son of the Morning? I’d like to see that book. Since when is it a romance-only thing to reclaim lines from the Bible, Shakespeare, or other poetry? That has been the provence of literary novels for centuries. Lord of the Flies? The Sound and the Fury?
Oops, I think I didn’t make myself clear in the column. FWIW, I didn’t slam it; I was saying that it’s one of *popular* types, e.g. “In the romance genre there are a few common types of titles [please feel free to chime in if you can think of other types]:”.
FWIW, it’s actually my favourite type because I love puzzles, trying to figure out why it’s so familiar. In case you honestly want to know, Son of the Morning is the title of Linda Howard’s time travel [contemporary/medieval] romance.
Maybe it’s me, but it seems contemporary ST are better named with less cliched words than historicals and categories.
I wondered about that, too, but then again, contemp STs are more likely to adopt song titles than any other romance sub-genres, e.g. Baby Don’t Go, Love Me Tender, Heartbreak Hotel. At least these are more easier to memorise than the majority of historical romances.
I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve gotten from readers telling me they picked up THE CARE AND FEEDING OF PIRATES from the title alone.
Heh, I never read that book, but as soon as I saw the title, I learned to associate it with your name.
It’s still one of a very few book titles that I don’t need a few proddings to recall author’s name.
[...] standing in the bookstore, desperately trying to recall the exact wording of the title in the rave review that I read [...]
That has me laughing out loud because that is such a familiar scenario. Well, it’s either that or cry. Usually I give up and leave bookshop, empty-handed.
And I’m going to rinse my eyes with bleach if I ever see another ’savage’ title.
Leave some for me, please.
part of the title process is making sure the book is identified as a romance. When I was an editor, we used to have “titling sessions” during which we would toss around ideas for books, and it wasn’t easy. There are so many levels to it — if you want a book to sound “big,” if the book is part of a series and you want the titles to be similar or have a theme, if you’re trying to capture its sense of humor or drama. It’s not easy. And while it *does* lead to some generic titles, you’d be surprised how difficult it is to come up with titles that match the cover look, and haven’t been used before, and don’t give plot points away.
Hm, I’m still not that convinced. Why hammer it over a *romance* reader when you have a backblurb to make it clear that it’s a *romance* novel, along with a *romance* cover of a novel that is likely to be shelved in *romance* section? What is the point of romancising a book title as well? That’s a thing I don’t really get.
On the other hand, you were an editor of category romance novels? If that is the case, it’s a fair point as I’m aware that there is a considerable number of rom readers who do look for key words in book titles within short span of time.
It’s just that I don’t understand why there is a need for it with historical and contemporary romances. Especially when you have so many authors and editors asking for respect for this genre while pointing out that a lot of authors worked damn hard on the craft of writing romances. The problem is, I feel, the use of generic titles is splattering a lot of bullet holes in their line of defence.
It *is* hard to say to a non-romance reader, “You ought to read The Rake’s Virgin Widow. It’s a very well-written roman- …err, why are you laughing?”
Maili, no I wasn’t a category romance editor — I worked on mostly historicals, and we published a lot of them at the time (let’s see — at one point, we were doing as many as twelve a month).
I think more specific titles would work a lot of the time, but there are still a lot of non-web-savvy readers out there who want specific things when they pick up a book. If it has a romance cover and a romance blurb, they might raise an eyebrow at a title as plain as “The Historian.” Almost any of Jenny Crusie’s
books could be called “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime,” but you’re not going to get a real romance vibe from it.
I understand how hard authors work to title their books, and I realize there are plenty of blah titles out there, but in my experience it’s tough to come up with something that works in the current market, isn’t a tired rehash of someone else’s title, and gives at least a flavor of the romance aspect of the book.
Maili, no I wasn’t a category romance editor
Stupid, stupid! I confused you with Melissa Senate. My apologies to you and Melissa.
The rest – thank you for the insight. I still think that having romance-styled titles – on top of romance covers, cover taglines and backblurbs – are ghettoising the genre even more. I think readers – even non-web-savvy – could tell it’s a romance if the cover is clearly a romance cover, regardless of its title.
I believe that because whenever romance readers talk about books [online or in person], they tend to group authors’ names with generic titles while they generally, with unusual titles, leave authors’ names out.
Having all said that, a fellow reader pointed out that ebooks have interesting titles, which helps ebook readers to discuss without a need to name authors. I had a look [I admit I don't read many ebooks] and she was right. There seems to be more variety to the ebook list.
I still think that the romance genre needs to rethink on titling romances, especially if it wants to attract new generations of romance readers.
Thanks for hearing me out, Amy. Much appreciated.
I totally understand the difficulty in coming up with titles. It’s hard enough, as an author with individual books, to do it. An editor/editorial team has to consider all the other books they’re aware of at the same time. They can’t be too long, or they’ll be too small or too dominating on the cover.
I don’t tend to remember titles, either, and also wish some were less generic. Like Suzanne Brockmann’s Troubleshooter series. It started with The Unsung Hero (I think that’s right) and The Defiant Hero, and though those are close to generic, they also spoke to the story itself, so I remember them (almost LOL). But I have no idea which book was Gone Too Far, or Out of Bounds.
I have a connected series (as yet unpublished) that has the “word” connection, but I’m trying to keep them connected to the stories. Soul of the Dragon has a real dragon in it. Soulflight has the heroine who can fly. And so on. But in ANY series, unless the title has the alphabet or numerical trick (as mentioned), there’s no real way to remember the order of the books without looking at them. Especially if the series goes on for a long time.
Maili, cara mia.
I agree most emphatically about mony book titles. They are insipid and boring.
As a former PR and Marketing worldwide for Gucci I am surprised at the time wasted by editors and spinners just to come up with the most colorless titles.
Methinks it is also a power trip into futility. Editors are overworked and underpaid.
As a writer of autobiographical fantasies who has recently began to write romance novels, I intend to stand my ground on my strongly named titles which fit the story well.
As a form of curiosity, I joined a romance writing class on the Internet. They asked for two pages of a so called plot prompter. I sent in 18 pages, since the story is almost finished. Well, my dear, I was told in no uncertain terms to write 2 pages as NO ONE would deign to read all my pages. Above all else, the Rules and Regs must be observed. This to someone who published their first article at age 13 and won a $10,000 prize from the Ministry of Tourism in Spain at age 18, for an article on GALICIA, EMERALD LAND OF SPAIN.
Not amusing. I sent another story, more controversial but kept it to two pages. I am awaiting the verdict.
I have another bone to pick. All those tiresome Counts and Countesses and other titles.
As a real life Contessa, I was born one for Christ’s sake,nobility is not so much a question of style…it is mostly about responsibility, accountability,inner elegance, courage, kindness, upholding social justice.
The term nobless oblige means exactly this. Think of the others first.
Ciao. This is a marvy site.
Isabel von Fechtmann