This topic started as a concise and informative discussion with Jonathan Garner and spread to a screenwriting forum. By request I'm opening the topic here. Jonathan and I were mulling over movie titles vs. book titles, and that led to some thoughts about marketing. In short, how does the length of a title affect marketing? Would we, as book authors, be wise to follow the movie model and use shorter titles? Here's the post I put on the screenwriting forum to start the discussion:

Movie titles are often short. 1-3 words, simple, direct, often overtly obvious or even plain.

Just running through the movies I’ve seen or heard about recently, I can come up with a ton of examples. Toy Story, Eragon, Amazing Grace, Astro Boy, Wall-E, Up, Avatar, Inception, Megamind, Fireproof…

Many of the titles are the name of the main character (Wall-E, Bolt, Winnie the Pooh), a group that the main character belongs to (The Incredibles, The Aristocats), or a short descriptive phrase that describes the main character (Kung Fu Panda, The Swan Princess).

Sometimes the title is a main object or key secondary character (Secretariat, Ratatouille) or a location (Canyon Road, City of Ember). Other times the title summaries the premise (Toy Story, Inception, The King’s Speech) or the plot (Finding Nemo, Facing the Giants). Occasionally it’s a more poetic word that captures the essence of the film (Tangled, Up, Flywheel, Bellwether).

All these titles are short and simple. In same cases, they’re even downright boring and direct. I mean, “Cars”? How vague is that, really, when you think about it? Truth be told, words like “Up” and “Bolt” are very simple on their own.

But they work as a movie title. Why?

Jonathan and I speculated a few reasons why short, even plain, titles can work for movies. No doubt, it has to do with the way films are marketed. In summary, I think short titles work because films are marketed through two primary avenues - visual media and word of mouth - and short titles work well in both cases.

Films, being visual, are marketed with a lot of visual media. Posters, DVD covers, and trailers. Trailers are the best example - I notice that, in many trailers, the title doesn’t come until the end. By that time, I’ve sat through 2 minutes of trailer and already know whether or not I want to see the film. The title does little to sell the film to me; I just want to know the title so I know what to look up at the library or the theater. In other words, I just need the title to put a name on the images.

A boring title won’t deter me from the film. For example, with Cars, by the time I got through the trailer I wouldn’t care how epic the title was. Actually, for Cars, I wouldn’t even have to get through the trailer - if they showed the animation studio logo at the beginning (as they often do, I noticed), I’d be sold just because it’s Pixar. Which is yet another variable thrown into movie marketing - the “brand label.” But that’s another can of worms I won’t get into in this post.

The other way movies are marketed, at least in my experience, is word of mouth. “I saw this,” “Have you seen the trailer for…?”, “This is my favorite film,” etc. Or, as stated above, “this is such-a-studio’s latest film.” And in such cases, a short but unique title is incredibly useful. It’s easy to say “Tangled” and have most people know what you’re talking about, because that was the only major media in recent years with that title. By contrast, do you know how tiresome it gets to say “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” all the time? And believe me, I love the movie and watch it frequently, so I have to say it a lot… and it gets cumbersome.

There are, of course, movies with long titles. But in my experience, most of them are book adaptations that take the title directly from the book. The Narnia series, Lord of the Rings, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’hoole, How to Train Your Dragon, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, etc… It’s interesting to note that, when friends discuss these films, the titles often get shortened… Narnia (PC, LWW, VDT), LotR, HTTYD…

While there are plenty of books with short titles, long titles are more common on books, it seems to me. And my guess is, this has to do with the way books are marketed. Books are marketed through visual media, mostly by the cover, but the written word is a far larger part of their marketing. Reviews, back cover copy… and the title. If you’re browsing a bookstore or library where the books are arranged spine facing, you only have the title and the author name (the “brand”) to get you to pick it up off the shelf.

I could ramble more but I’m out of time for the night, so I’ll leave it at thus. Short titles are common on movies. They don’t even have to be highly creative short titles. But they work. Why? I’ve speculated some reasons - what are your thoughts? Do you think this same titling approach can work for books as well?

(Yeah, you guessed it - I usually give my books short titles… Faded, Red Rain, Peter’s Angel, Cogs…)

*summons Katie and begs her to cross-post her thoughts*

I'm glad you posted this on HW. After reading your post, another thought came to me: There are far more books published than movies, and so a need for far more titles for books, which could lead to needing more complex titles in order to stand out.


I'd like to hear her thoughts, too.

You're right; the movies with long titles are almost always adapted from works of literature. This post made sense and I agree. When I hear a short title, I think "movie" and for a longer title, I think "book".

That is a good point, Jonathan. Although, we aren't exactly short on movies - and not all books have a unique title. Actually, some popular, generic titles are vastly overused. But that's another tangent!

One thought I have is that, perhaps, we book authors should take a hint from movies and use unique but short titles for the marketing advantage. Katie said something of the sort, so perhaps she will reiterate here.

Yes, some titles are vastly overused. However, I was just noting one of many possible factors.

Okay... Katie is in her own corner now and happy to type.

Maybe it’s because movie people are better at marketing than book people.

It seems that short titles, in general, are better. If something is popular, but not short, it gets abbreviated. But there are more mainstream books than the are movies, no one is going to sort out what THTC means... The Hero and the Crown.

It seems movies move in a much faster lane than books. You have the superstars... and you have everyone else. If a movie is a superstar you can get away with using abbreviations. Very, very few books reach superstar status. The only ones that can use abbreviations and make sense are LotR, HP, and Narnia, and I highly suspect that Narnia and LotR abbreviations came about because of the films.

It seems books go with much more artistic titles. Look at most fantasy novels today. Not only are they longer, they tend to be very unweildy, often using made up words that may or may not be pronounceable. I think the marketers of books are less concerned with the title being memorable than the marketers of movies. A lot of this is because movies have multi-million dollar budgets, and top notch marketing teams. Books have... their author. Their author who is extremely attached the their ideas, their story, and their title. I don't think anyone working on a movie panics if the film title changes, while for authors it's one of our deepest fears.

But is this wise? Those of us who wish to be self publsished perhaps should take a leaf from the page of the movie people’s marketing book. Short titles are no less impactful… Firefly, Inception, The Dark Knight… They lose nothing for short; they may even have gained something in essence. The cold facts are that we are responsible for marketing our own books, self-published and traditionally published alike. We need to ask ourselves marketing questions: Is this title something people will remember? Can I shorten it?

On one Tangled review I remember the reviewer criticized the title as being more or less irrelevant to the story. But I think the reason they probably used it is because "Rapunzel" would have been more difficult to say, to spell, and to remember.

The reason I asked Aubrey to cross post this here, is because I want to ask you, as novelists? Is your title longer than three syllables? Is it easy to remember? Is it easy to spell, to talk about? Is there anyway you could shorten it to make it more impactful, and more useful in marketing? Do you use made up words or names in your title? Consider removing them.

A personal example is The Karistome Project. I'm really, really happy with the title, but it doesn't mean anything without knowing the story. Karistome is four syllables in and of itself, and can be very unweildy. It's my working title, and I intend to replace Karistome with another, english word that will have more meaning to readers who pick it up.

Those are my thoughts. Now it's time for the rest of ya'll to talk.

Yay! Thanks so much for typing your thoughts up again, Katie.

I would agree. It's not that long titles aren't ever warranted (or effective), but I think there are distinct benefits to a short and simple but unique title. It's worth considering those benefits when choosing the title for your book. A title isn't just a name - it's a marketing tool. Invest in it and it will repay you.

*likes this thread *

I think I like the trend of short, yet descriptive, titles. It can get annoying to have to abbreviate a title.

Interestingly enough, Sherwood Pictures has mastered this art. Their two most recent films are one word: "Courageous" and "Firerpoof." Easy to remember, no abbreviation needed, and thick with meaning. Fireproof is an incredibly clever title, and Courageous is a very striking word and sums up the movie's themes very well.

(Random observation of very well chosen one word titles...)

I definitely agree with what's been said in this discussion. As though we needed another example, the next Pixar movie's title is "Brave" (come quickly!). Also, Twilight is a primary example of a book with a title that works well (regardless of one's thoughts on subject matter).

Anyway, in my own stories, I definitely recognize the power of this principle and try to keep it short and not too cliche. My current WIP has a made-up one-word title, which, I gather, is not the best way to write. I'll probably address the question later when I'm done with the draft. However, for short stories, I prefer titles like "Masks" (my current project). I'll need to keep all this discussion in mind!

Great thoughts, everyone! Sherwood is a great example. All of Pixar's titles are short, but some of them aren't the best examples, in my opinion. I'm not sure I'd do a title as generic as "Cars" unless I had the following to get away with it! But most of their other titles are good models to emulate - "Finding Nemo," "Wall-E," "Ratatouille."

Except Ratatouille is incredibly hard to remember how to spell.

Yes, I agree. But it fits the model of a meaningful single word that ties into the plot. It's just a little bit too... French.

I changed the title of my books because they were just too long. Now I have:
Shaft, Dead of Night, Night and Day, Broad Daylight. However I also have:
Cloudy with a Chance of Pain.

I agree.

I loved how you gave examples of movies! That was very interesting to read and completely true! Check out my beginning of my book? viewtopic.php?f=116&t=5390

Most of my (planned ...) titles are very short. (I suspect this is partly due to my original Outline of History spreadsheet having a column for the book each event was to happen in, so too long a title would increase the number of pages the outline would take up.) Other than a fantasy/detective story I've begun (for which the title is intended to evoke the feel of a 19th- or early-20th-century detective story plus fantasy elements), and another story with the same main character (which I'm going to change as soon as I can think of a new title that fits), the longest in my list by words is four words including initial definite article; the longest by number of characters is only three words (but 21 characters) long. And only one (as it happens, the shortest) planned title uses an invented word.


The Narnia books perhaps; "LotR" no---I saw that abbreviation (and perhaps "FotR" and "RotK" too) in use years before the movies.

I think there may be trends in the length of book titles; in what I think of as "early" science fiction (though it's not really all that early), for example, we have Have Space Suit, Will Travel, The Mote in God's Eye, Go Tell the Spartans ...

The trouble with short titles is that there are several orders of magnitude fewer three-word titles than four-word titles, and similar jumps from five to four or from three to two, so the likelihood that your title has already been used (which is, of course, not necessarily a reason not to use it, though ...) increases exponentially the shorter your title. And we've had books with titles for a long time, many times longer than we've had movies, so they don't have quite the same problem to the same degree.

This is an excellent point, kingjon. My mom and I were just talking about this earlier today.

Me also! Mother has recently been published. It's a short story though, not a book, but she used a short title and it made me think of this thread and come to read it.

The fact that I've read two out of three of your examples is slightly disconcerting, kingjon, considering I never thought they were very widely known...

Interesting story: I never heard the abbreviation LWW until I met the Kondraels, who are big film people. I still have difficulties with those abbreviations. Whenever I need to shorten it I say "Narnia." LWW is fast enough to type, but when we were actually doing it as a play it's nearly as difficult to say as the full name, so it doesn't work as well.

Plays are an interesting example. If the title is more than two syllables it will get shortened. Because you have to use it in ordinary conversation over, and over, and over... perhaps that's how titles get shortened in film; people automatically are going to assign a shorter handle to it, and then it's discovered that that makes a better title anyway.

Examples: The Life and Times of Princess Sophia became just "Princess Sophia" or even "Sophia."

The Iliad the Odyssey and All of Greek Mythology in 99 Minutes or Less was a tricky one. I called it Iliad/Odyssey but the cast actually sat down and came up with an abbreviation they could say: IO99.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe became Narnia.

I Never Saw Another Butterfly became "Butterfly."

The Wyrd Sisters, Antigone, and J.B. were short enough to actually say.

Interestingly, comedies tend to have longer titles, as do YA novels, it seems. Such as: "My Grandfather, the Heroes, and I."

Katie makes a good point. I think the reason a lot of longer titles often get shortened to a nickname is because it makes them easier to talk about. When you're discussing something with your friends all the time, it gets cumbersome to say/type a long title. So you nickname it.

I think that's one of the reasons short titles are good for marketing. They are easy to say, making it easy for people to promote your book/film by word of mouth. You can create a "brand name," so to speak, very easily with a short title. That short word or phrase becomes a household name as people talk about it and spread it around. And word of mouth is one of the best marketing avenues, especially for self-published authors.

One good example of a nice, short "brand name" is Twilight. You must admit, everyone knows about it by now.

Exactly, Aemi. An extremely good example.

Which brings up an interesting point... While kingjon has a good point that shorter titles are more likely to have been used before, I think the key is not to have a completely unique title (because such a thing is difficult, in actuality, and titles can't be copyrighted), but to have a title that hasn't been used by a recently popular piece of media. Like "Twilight." You wouldn't want to use that for a title because most people will confuse it with the vampire saga.

Indeed.
I look forward to the process of choosing a title for my own story.

I tend to have shorter titles for my stories as well. I'm not published, but the one I'm working with right now is Bow to Death. My NaNo novel for 2010 was When You Fall.
I think they really are easier to remember. However, it can depend on what the story is about, too. I've seen books for teens with really long titles, and it seemed to suit the book. By that I mean this: the story is basically teenage angst. You know the type -'my life is awful', 'I can't get a boyfriend'. So most of the book will tend to be rambling, girly... angst. So the long, slightly angsty title fits the type of book it was. I never actually read the book. However, it would catch the eye of anyone who likes to read girly angst.
Now we're going for a bit more dramatic. Something that will catch the eye of people who like to read about adventures, swordfights and other fantastical things. So we use something that suits our style. Clash of Kings. Lord of Chaos. What was the one someone mentioned? I think it was The Hero and the Crown.
Mysteries have titles like 'The Masked Murderer' and 'The Thief of Wherever'. You can tell I made those up.
So... it all depends on the book.

Some of my favorite authors like Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti have very short titles.

Peretti:

Illusion
The Oath
Monster
House
The Visitation
Prophet

Dekker:

Thr3e
Black
White
Red
Skin
Saint
Sinner
Showdown
Forbidden
Mortal
Adam

Both of these authors write in the supernatural thriller genre. I find that the thriller genres have evolved very far from classic literature's long titles, in both film and literature, and a short title is almost a must for this genre.

Because these are the books I enjoy, when I hear a short title, I like it, even more than a long one. It makes me want to read the book. Additionally, it allows the imagination to play with the title, run with it, and guess.

A lot of classic literature has short titles as well, but many times they had sub-titles, with a more fleshed out explanation of the book.

Les Miserables
Paradise Lost
The Scarlet Letter
The Gulag Archipelago
Pride & Prejudice, etc.

Another factor that I've seen ome up in discussions elsewhere (but had forgotten until something in the 'cover' thread made me think of it) is that the shorter a title, the bigger font it can be on a cover, so the farther away it an catch a reader's eye (or the smaller the cover-thumbnail can be and still be readable in an ebook store).

Ooh. Very good point. That's definitely worked on me before.

Excellent thoughts, guys!