My last post about the story Kubuku Rides (This Is It) generated some challenging feedback from people who disagreed with me about its title. I thought the title did the story a disservice because it has so little relation to the story's content. Two commenters thought the title was quite effective because it piqued their interest.
I agree titles should catch a potential reader's eyes and act as a hook. I just also think it should give the reader some sense of what to expect from the story, even if it's just a vague emotional sense. For instance, I wouldn't expect a story called Shivering to be about the hottest day in recorded history, or a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman in 1950. And I'd expect somebody in the story, at some point, to either literally or metaphorically shiver. Otherwise, why not give the story an equally catchy title that relates to the content? You could call the heat-based story Yes, Even Hotter Than That or the encyclopedia salesman story Knock Knock or something.
Personally, I like my titles to have layers of meaning. If my door-to-door encyclopedia salesman was frightened of strangers, I could use the image of knees knocking together in fright and call the story Knocking. If my salesman thought his job was pointless and stupid, I could use the insult-related meaning of "joke" and call the story Knock Knock Joke. I like titles that make sense before you've read the story, and then make even more sense afterwards.
But I want to thank those two commenters because they gave me quite a bit to think about, and they gave me an idea for discussion in the next OTP newsletter.
Showing posts with label Titles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Titles. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Worst Title I've Seen Yet
In the last post I mentioned a story by Larry Brown called Kubuku Rides (This Is It). Now, I happen to love this story and I think it was more than good enough to win the prizes it has won (inclusion in the Best American Short Stories series, etc.). But oh, that title. I hate it.
This Is It would have been a fine title, I think, because that's a line of dialogue a character says when he reaches a critical breaking point that changes the story's direction. But the first part? Kubuku Rides? My argument against it is
1. There is no character, place, or object anywhere in the story named Kubuku. In fact, other than things connected to Brown's story, the only link Google could find for "Kubuku" is a hotel in Bali, Indonesia. That hotel has no relevance to anything in the story, and it doesn't work as any kind of metaphor or other comparison to any story element. I'm not even convinced the hotel existed when Brown first sold his story.
2. Nobody "rides" anywhere in the story. One character drives a car in one scene, but that's not riding.
Yet Kubuku Rides, by itself, was Brown's original title for the story. According to his own notes in the Best American edition where his story can be found, Brown worried that no one might understand that title so he added a parenthetical (This Is It).
Calling the story Wei-Lo Chants (This Is It) or Pocahontas Alphabetizes (This Is It) would have helped just as much because those titles don't connect to anything in the story either.
What intrigues me is, Brown says the title is supposed to explain the story's narration. As I mentioned in my last post, he wrote that story in a specific dialect, and the narration is unlike that of any other story of his I've ever read or have heard about. Apparently the completely different style of this story bothered Brown. He asked himself who was narrating the story. His answer was that some character named Kubuku must be narrating it. The narrative flow is both strong and smooth, so he figured the narration was Kubuku's way of "riding" along with the story. The "This Is It" part was supposed to explain that the story was the result of Kubuku's "riding."
I don't believe that five clones of Sherlock Holmes, working together at the peak of their intellectual powers, would figure that out.
Brown seems wedded to this title and its explanatory purpose. When an "indie" movie was made from his story based on his own screenplay adaptation, the title of the movie was the same as the short story's. Which seems ridiculous, because if the "Kubuku" business was supposed to explain the story's narrative style, how could it possibly relate to a movie? Is Kubuku now the director? No, that was Terry Kinney. What is there in the movie to explain that's equivalent to narrative dialect? I'd argue, nothing. Besides, movies based on other sources frequently change the title from that of the source. Why not title the movie This Is It? (It came out before the Michael Jackson documentary used that name, so I don't think anyone would have complained.)
The point of this rant is, some rules were NOT meant to be broken. I say, "Give your story a title that clearly relates to some aspect of that story" is one of those rules.
This Is It would have been a fine title, I think, because that's a line of dialogue a character says when he reaches a critical breaking point that changes the story's direction. But the first part? Kubuku Rides? My argument against it is
1. There is no character, place, or object anywhere in the story named Kubuku. In fact, other than things connected to Brown's story, the only link Google could find for "Kubuku" is a hotel in Bali, Indonesia. That hotel has no relevance to anything in the story, and it doesn't work as any kind of metaphor or other comparison to any story element. I'm not even convinced the hotel existed when Brown first sold his story.
2. Nobody "rides" anywhere in the story. One character drives a car in one scene, but that's not riding.
Yet Kubuku Rides, by itself, was Brown's original title for the story. According to his own notes in the Best American edition where his story can be found, Brown worried that no one might understand that title so he added a parenthetical (This Is It).
Calling the story Wei-Lo Chants (This Is It) or Pocahontas Alphabetizes (This Is It) would have helped just as much because those titles don't connect to anything in the story either.
What intrigues me is, Brown says the title is supposed to explain the story's narration. As I mentioned in my last post, he wrote that story in a specific dialect, and the narration is unlike that of any other story of his I've ever read or have heard about. Apparently the completely different style of this story bothered Brown. He asked himself who was narrating the story. His answer was that some character named Kubuku must be narrating it. The narrative flow is both strong and smooth, so he figured the narration was Kubuku's way of "riding" along with the story. The "This Is It" part was supposed to explain that the story was the result of Kubuku's "riding."
I don't believe that five clones of Sherlock Holmes, working together at the peak of their intellectual powers, would figure that out.
Brown seems wedded to this title and its explanatory purpose. When an "indie" movie was made from his story based on his own screenplay adaptation, the title of the movie was the same as the short story's. Which seems ridiculous, because if the "Kubuku" business was supposed to explain the story's narrative style, how could it possibly relate to a movie? Is Kubuku now the director? No, that was Terry Kinney. What is there in the movie to explain that's equivalent to narrative dialect? I'd argue, nothing. Besides, movies based on other sources frequently change the title from that of the source. Why not title the movie This Is It? (It came out before the Michael Jackson documentary used that name, so I don't think anyone would have complained.)
The point of this rant is, some rules were NOT meant to be broken. I say, "Give your story a title that clearly relates to some aspect of that story" is one of those rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)