3 ms·

The OP has a title, "Does One Word Change 'Huckleberry Finn'?" This title completely changes the tone of the original title. Titles matter, they establish a di

The OP has a title, "Does One Word Change 'Huckleberry Finn'?" This title completely changes the tone of the original title. Titles matter, they establish a direction and context for what is to follow. Retitling something on HN has even greater effect; Some people (like myself) may be very interested in the literary impact of a single word change but may be tired of rehashing the same social debates over again. I might have skipped this post entiurely were it not for my surprise that the times would use a title like this. Other people might be very interested in your title but be disappointed that the content doesn't match the title very well. Your title could apply to any of a few dozen recent posts in the news about this bowdlerizing. My suggestion is that it would have been better to post the original title and include a comment with your feelings.

Jun8 16y ago
I see. I am feeling very strongly about this, so, granted, the title may have had a bit more impact than warranted. However, I disagree with you in the following points: 1) You don't have to use the same title as the news topic. I don't understand your sprise that NYT would use such a title. The correct usage is to use quotation marks if the title is used verbatim. 2) The main point of the OP is not to delve into literary theory on the relationship between the "text" and the novel, etc., which is of academic interest (though I find that very interesting as well, having worked on stylometry for my thesis). The issue is exactly to "rehash the same social debates over again," you may be tired of these, and that's OK; but evidently they are utmost significance to a lot of non-academician people (have a look at user comments in the debate) 3) I still don't quite see why the "content doesn't match the title very well", since you haven't made it very clear which part of the title you found misleading. The word "bowdlerize" comes up in most of the comment pieces and in user comments, too, so this is clearly bowdlerization. My intent is not to continue pointless back&forth but to understand the (potential) problem.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Well, perhaps you can explain why you changed the title. What did you find unsatisfactory about it? Was it that you wanted to attract more clicks? Did you want to express a personal opinion? Did you think it did a poor job of introducing the text?
  - Jun8 16y ago
    I sense an unwarranted hostility in your comments, which puzzle me. There's no rule that by default story titles have be used verbatim, only that they should not be changed gratuitously. In fact, if you look at past submissions to HN, you see that many times the title was changed by the submitter. I see no problem in having titles reflect personal opinion; of course, this should not be overdone. NYT, being a newspaper has to impose limits on their titles, so as to serve the common denominator. when posting to HN, I'm not bound by the same rules as NYT. In this particular case NYT's title is too weak, as evidenced by the commentators, i.e. quite everyone agrees this is bowdlerizing Twain's text. P.S. Thinking of hand crafting submission titles to attract more clicks, i.e. karma whoring, is laughable, I'm too old to waste my precious time on such tricks :-)
    - raganwald 16y ago
      I'm going to let you go now. If you're feeling hostility, I suggest that the very best thing is to just walk away and forget about it. It's a title. Of a submission. To a rather ephemeral web site. There is absolutely zero emotional investment on my part. I have certain opinions about what is or isn't positive for HN the site, but at no time would I ever consider them more important than your personal enjoyment and security.
      - Jun8 16y ago
        :-) I think you are taking things a bit too seriously. What I meant was your comments (i.e. your immediate call for the editors to change the title, rather than asking the submitter to do it, and the others) seem to address the whole title change issue "from the height of an unwritten book". You're right, when this impedance mismatch occurs in newsgroups it's best to let it go. That being said, I found our small discussion less than satisfactory. Obviously you have been on HN much longer than I am (more than three times as long), so I respect your intuition about HN etiquette. However, in this case you seemed to have certain assumptions about my intentions (more clicks, etc.) to editorialize the title and you never discussed why you think the new title is so misleading for the story. As for the idea of bowdlerizing Twain, the idea is generating such a backlash (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/l07twain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/l07twain.html, Google returns 25K hits from past month for "twain bowdlerize") that I think they are going to backpedal on this one. I hope.

Jun8 16y ago

I see. I am feeling very strongly about this, so, granted, the title may have had a bit more impact than warranted. However, I disagree with you in the following points: 1) You don't have to use the same title as the news topic. I don't understand your sprise that NYT would use such a title. The correct usage is to use quotation marks if the title is used verbatim. 2) The main point of the OP is not to delve into literary theory on the relationship between the "text" and the novel, etc., which is of academic interest (though I find that very interesting as well, having worked on stylometry for my thesis). The issue is exactly to "rehash the same social debates over again," you may be tired of these, and that's OK; but evidently they are utmost significance to a lot of non-academician people (have a look at user comments in the debate) 3) I still don't quite see why the "content doesn't match the title very well", since you haven't made it very clear which part of the title you found misleading. The word "bowdlerize" comes up in most of the comment pieces and in user comments, too, so this is clearly bowdlerization. My intent is not to continue pointless back&forth but to understand the (potential) problem.

raganwald 16y ago
Well, perhaps you can explain why you changed the title. What did you find unsatisfactory about it? Was it that you wanted to attract more clicks? Did you want to express a personal opinion? Did you think it did a poor job of introducing the text?
- Jun8 16y ago
  I sense an unwarranted hostility in your comments, which puzzle me. There's no rule that by default story titles have be used verbatim, only that they should not be changed gratuitously. In fact, if you look at past submissions to HN, you see that many times the title was changed by the submitter. I see no problem in having titles reflect personal opinion; of course, this should not be overdone. NYT, being a newspaper has to impose limits on their titles, so as to serve the common denominator. when posting to HN, I'm not bound by the same rules as NYT. In this particular case NYT's title is too weak, as evidenced by the commentators, i.e. quite everyone agrees this is bowdlerizing Twain's text. P.S. Thinking of hand crafting submission titles to attract more clicks, i.e. karma whoring, is laughable, I'm too old to waste my precious time on such tricks :-)
  - raganwald 16y ago
    I'm going to let you go now. If you're feeling hostility, I suggest that the very best thing is to just walk away and forget about it. It's a title. Of a submission. To a rather ephemeral web site. There is absolutely zero emotional investment on my part. I have certain opinions about what is or isn't positive for HN the site, but at no time would I ever consider them more important than your personal enjoyment and security.
    - Jun8 16y ago
      :-) I think you are taking things a bit too seriously. What I meant was your comments (i.e. your immediate call for the editors to change the title, rather than asking the submitter to do it, and the others) seem to address the whole title change issue "from the height of an unwritten book". You're right, when this impedance mismatch occurs in newsgroups it's best to let it go. That being said, I found our small discussion less than satisfactory. Obviously you have been on HN much longer than I am (more than three times as long), so I respect your intuition about HN etiquette. However, in this case you seemed to have certain assumptions about my intentions (more clicks, etc.) to editorialize the title and you never discussed why you think the new title is so misleading for the story. As for the idea of bowdlerizing Twain, the idea is generating such a backlash (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/l07twain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/l07twain.html, Google returns 25K hits from past month for "twain bowdlerize") that I think they are going to backpedal on this one. I hope.