5 ms·

So it's purposefully deceitful? Yep. It's a farce! Though, like much farce, it does prove a rather important point: Book titles are chosen by publishers to se

So it's purposefully deceitful? Yep. It's a farce! Though, like much farce, it does prove a rather important point: Book titles are chosen by publishers to sell books. They're often inaccurate, or cheesy, or stupid, but if they move books they've met their design goal. The difference between this book and all the others is that it gives away that secret in the middle of the book. Think: Penn and Teller's Cruel Business Tricks for Dear Friends.

scott_s 18y ago
Sorry, that doesn't apply to the books I've read in the past year: - The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War - Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders - Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda - Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War - On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York - The Yiddish Policeman's Union Each of those titles tells you the contents of the book. The only one that perhaps does not is "The Yiddish Policeman's Union," but it's clearly fiction, and it is in fact about a Jewish policeman. Maybe what you said applies to bad books.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Maybe what you said applies to bad books. Yes, that's where the phenomenon becomes obvious. I note that none of your titles are business books, for example. ;) [Pertinent side question: How do I know that? I haven't read any of the books. Though I probably should, because your reading list sounds awesome.] Which is not to say that the titles of all those books weren't chosen primarily to enhance sales. It's just that the target customer was a nonfiction reader, a person who is probably more likely to buy a book if it has a descriptive, serious-sounding, nonfiction-type title. Perhaps the median nonfiction reader is much more likely to pick up The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York than Architect: Robert Moses and his Largely Discredited Ideas, or Robert Moses: A Musical Homage to an Architectural Juggernaut. (Though the last one might turn out to be a great farce!) Have you noticed that every nonfiction book has a colon in the title? Even my fake book titles have that stupid colon -- it's like a tic, I can't get rid of it! Why is that, do you think? I think it's because the titles are designed for marketing: The initial title is short, and memorable, and evocative like a tiny little poem, kind of like a good domain name should be. The part after the colon tells you what the book is actually about, because the first title is so busy being pretty that it doesn't have time to tell you anything.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    What you say is "marketing," I think is author creativity. Knowing the authors, the titles sound like their writing. For example, being a power broker is probably the main theme of the book about Robert Moses. The term is used several times, there's a chapter entitled that, and the central theme of the book is how Moses came to respect, acquire and wield power. Similarly for The Coldest Winter, the author (David Halberstam) stresses the cold as a perennial problem for the infantry, and most of the events occur during a particular winter. I've read several of his books, and it's very much in line with his writing style. Same with Shake Hands With the Devil. The author (Romeo Dallaire) uses that phrase in the introduction and at a turning point of the book to express how he felt about his position - he literally shook hands with perpetrators of genocide. I agree that non-fiction books often have a kicker in the title to clarify the subject matter. But I think the pretty, poetical title is usually written by the author. At least I think it is for the books I read.
    - mechanical_fish 18y ago
      What you say is "marketing," I think is author creativity. What's the difference? Just because the author wrote the title doesn't mean it wasn't chosen for marketing purposes -- to grab your eye, to be memorable, to describe the subject concisely, to pique your curiosity, to remind you of a story inside of the book so that hearing the title mentioned in conversation prompts you to tell the story. Authors are marketers too. Indeed, the first task of any new commercial author is to convince a publisher to buy a manuscript, and that requires a title which catches the publisher's eye, and which the publisher is convinced will catch the public's eye. In other words, when I suggest that publishers pick titles with an eye to marketability, I'm not suggesting that the typical model is "publisher buys the book and then suggests the title". I suspect that's actually rather rare, although some authors have had that experience. Much more likely is the model where the publisher solicits hundreds of manuscripts and proposals and then picks out the handful that feel commercially viable -- and a good title helps a manuscript to stand above the rest of that slushpile.
      - scott_s 18y ago
- dhimes 18y ago
  I dunno. Consider - The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War --> no, that wasn't actually the coldest winter on record - Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders --> unless they are very old or made of glass, books aren't usually classified as "fragile" - Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda -->likely the Devil never shakes anybody's hand - Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War --> the US action in Somalia was not a war - On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society --> OK, I'll concede this one - The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York --> New York didn't "fall"-- I was just there and it was still standing - The Yiddish Policeman's Union --> I'll concede this one, too. They're all using metaphors help market themselves.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    Metaphor is also employed because it makes good writing. There's a clear difference between using metaphor to communicate, and outright deception.
    - dhimes 18y ago
      I agree with your point (+1), but clear is a relative term.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  What did you think about On Killing? I got it for Christmas this year, and - as a former soldier myself - was really intrigued by the first few pages.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    I found it fascinating. He makes a compelling argument - with evidence - that humans have a natural instinct not to kill each other. I had never thought about it in the way he presented it, and it changed how I look at wars and killing in general. His followup to that, how one of modern military training's main purposes is to overcome that natural instinct, also changed how I looked at training and practice of any kind. His interviews with veterans who had killed was both fascinating and heartbreaking. Regarding media, one point he makes that I agree with is the non-chalance with which people kill in movies and tv is ridiculous. Not offensive, just fantasy. It did change how I view killing in entertainment. Simply, in reality, most people won't kill. What I didn't buy was his final argument, which tries to argue that the rise of violence in media has contributed to the rise of violence in society. I did not find his evidence convincing. He just spent an entire book arguing for the value of conditioning through actual training, then claims that viewing violence is enough to make someone do it. Unfortunately, this claim is what Robert Grossman is most famous for. I think that's sad, because the rest of the content are things I think all of society should know, in particular those who know someone who has served. A note on the writing itself: not the greatest. In many ways it reads like someone's term paper. He also tries to make connections to the fuzzy-wuzzy side of psychology at times. But that doesn't stop the rest from being good and worth your time. Honestly, I'd rather ask you what you thought about it. I've never been a soldier, so I'm fascinated to know what soldiers feel about it.
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      Thanks for the insight. Perhaps I'll let you know/blog about it once I'm finished the book... I got 6 books for Christmas though, so it may be a while! :)
- GHFigs 18y ago
  Actually, the subtitles tell you the content. The titles themselves are still more marketing labels that look good 6" wide in bold. They may relate metaphorically to the content, but they would be scrapped in a heartbeat if they didn't sound sellable. In fact, given that most non-fiction books are sold to the publisher before so much as a chapter is written, it's not unreasonable to say that many such books might not even exist without an edgy and sellable title.

scott_s 18y ago

Sorry, that doesn't apply to the books I've read in the past year: - The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War - Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders - Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda - Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War - On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York - The Yiddish Policeman's Union Each of those titles tells you the contents of the book. The only one that perhaps does not is "The Yiddish Policeman's Union," but it's clearly fiction, and it is in fact about a Jewish policeman. Maybe what you said applies to bad books.

mechanical_fish 18y ago
Maybe what you said applies to bad books. Yes, that's where the phenomenon becomes obvious. I note that none of your titles are business books, for example. ;) [Pertinent side question: How do I know that? I haven't read any of the books. Though I probably should, because your reading list sounds awesome.] Which is not to say that the titles of all those books weren't chosen primarily to enhance sales. It's just that the target customer was a nonfiction reader, a person who is probably more likely to buy a book if it has a descriptive, serious-sounding, nonfiction-type title. Perhaps the median nonfiction reader is much more likely to pick up The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York than Architect: Robert Moses and his Largely Discredited Ideas, or Robert Moses: A Musical Homage to an Architectural Juggernaut. (Though the last one might turn out to be a great farce!) Have you noticed that every nonfiction book has a colon in the title? Even my fake book titles have that stupid colon -- it's like a tic, I can't get rid of it! Why is that, do you think? I think it's because the titles are designed for marketing: The initial title is short, and memorable, and evocative like a tiny little poem, kind of like a good domain name should be. The part after the colon tells you what the book is actually about, because the first title is so busy being pretty that it doesn't have time to tell you anything.
- scott_s 18y ago
  What you say is "marketing," I think is author creativity. Knowing the authors, the titles sound like their writing. For example, being a power broker is probably the main theme of the book about Robert Moses. The term is used several times, there's a chapter entitled that, and the central theme of the book is how Moses came to respect, acquire and wield power. Similarly for The Coldest Winter, the author (David Halberstam) stresses the cold as a perennial problem for the infantry, and most of the events occur during a particular winter. I've read several of his books, and it's very much in line with his writing style. Same with Shake Hands With the Devil. The author (Romeo Dallaire) uses that phrase in the introduction and at a turning point of the book to express how he felt about his position - he literally shook hands with perpetrators of genocide. I agree that non-fiction books often have a kicker in the title to clarify the subject matter. But I think the pretty, poetical title is usually written by the author. At least I think it is for the books I read.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    What you say is "marketing," I think is author creativity. What's the difference? Just because the author wrote the title doesn't mean it wasn't chosen for marketing purposes -- to grab your eye, to be memorable, to describe the subject concisely, to pique your curiosity, to remind you of a story inside of the book so that hearing the title mentioned in conversation prompts you to tell the story. Authors are marketers too. Indeed, the first task of any new commercial author is to convince a publisher to buy a manuscript, and that requires a title which catches the publisher's eye, and which the publisher is convinced will catch the public's eye. In other words, when I suggest that publishers pick titles with an eye to marketability, I'm not suggesting that the typical model is "publisher buys the book and then suggests the title". I suspect that's actually rather rare, although some authors have had that experience. Much more likely is the model where the publisher solicits hundreds of manuscripts and proposals and then picks out the handful that feel commercially viable -- and a good title helps a manuscript to stand above the rest of that slushpile.
    - scott_s 18y ago
dhimes 18y ago
I dunno. Consider - The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War --> no, that wasn't actually the coldest winter on record - Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders --> unless they are very old or made of glass, books aren't usually classified as "fragile" - Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda -->likely the Devil never shakes anybody's hand - Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War --> the US action in Somalia was not a war - On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society --> OK, I'll concede this one - The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York --> New York didn't "fall"-- I was just there and it was still standing - The Yiddish Policeman's Union --> I'll concede this one, too. They're all using metaphors help market themselves.
- scott_s 18y ago
  Metaphor is also employed because it makes good writing. There's a clear difference between using metaphor to communicate, and outright deception.
  - dhimes 18y ago
    I agree with your point (+1), but clear is a relative term.
run4yourlives 18y ago
What did you think about On Killing? I got it for Christmas this year, and - as a former soldier myself - was really intrigued by the first few pages.
- scott_s 18y ago
  I found it fascinating. He makes a compelling argument - with evidence - that humans have a natural instinct not to kill each other. I had never thought about it in the way he presented it, and it changed how I look at wars and killing in general. His followup to that, how one of modern military training's main purposes is to overcome that natural instinct, also changed how I looked at training and practice of any kind. His interviews with veterans who had killed was both fascinating and heartbreaking. Regarding media, one point he makes that I agree with is the non-chalance with which people kill in movies and tv is ridiculous. Not offensive, just fantasy. It did change how I view killing in entertainment. Simply, in reality, most people won't kill. What I didn't buy was his final argument, which tries to argue that the rise of violence in media has contributed to the rise of violence in society. I did not find his evidence convincing. He just spent an entire book arguing for the value of conditioning through actual training, then claims that viewing violence is enough to make someone do it. Unfortunately, this claim is what Robert Grossman is most famous for. I think that's sad, because the rest of the content are things I think all of society should know, in particular those who know someone who has served. A note on the writing itself: not the greatest. In many ways it reads like someone's term paper. He also tries to make connections to the fuzzy-wuzzy side of psychology at times. But that doesn't stop the rest from being good and worth your time. Honestly, I'd rather ask you what you thought about it. I've never been a soldier, so I'm fascinated to know what soldiers feel about it.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Thanks for the insight. Perhaps I'll let you know/blog about it once I'm finished the book... I got 6 books for Christmas though, so it may be a while! :)
GHFigs 18y ago
Actually, the subtitles tell you the content. The titles themselves are still more marketing labels that look good 6" wide in bold. They may relate metaphorically to the content, but they would be scrapped in a heartbeat if they didn't sound sellable. In fact, given that most non-fiction books are sold to the publisher before so much as a chapter is written, it's not unreasonable to say that many such books might not even exist without an edgy and sellable title.