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I have a connected series (as yet unpublished) that has the “word” connection, but I’m trying to keep them connected to the stories.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.

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 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.

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?”

Again, many thanks. Anyone else wants to add another bit, please do. I’ll be around this time. :>

Although, funnily enough, it’s more likely I’ll remember a book that sucked balls, than a book that was just ‘ok’.

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.