Today I am coming to you with a controversial topic… What do you think?
I am instantly drawn to books with catchy titles, espcially when they’re short, snappy, and memorable. However, a few days ago, when scanning my shelves, I noticed a lot of novels that have really long names. Perhaps intentionally. Perhaps unecessarily.
My question is this: What do you think of books with monster titles?
I was attracted primarily to all of the novels pictured above because of their short and snappy names. I wanted to know what it was in the case of Alexa Chung’s novel, and what was Stolen in the case of Lucy Christopher’s. In short, I was drawn to the snappy and attention-grabbing titles of these novels, so much so that I was compelled to read the synopsis, and eventually purchase them.
Fangirl remains one of my favourite books, Stolen one of the most chilling, and it one of my favourite autobiographies.
…let’s not talk about Butter and Nerve.
Pictured above are some of my all-time favourite books. They also all happen to have outrageously long names, so much so that they are commonly shortened: The Perks of Being a Wallflower becomes Perks, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time becomes simply The Curious Incident, Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe is merely Aristotle and Dante. What I love most about these lengthy titles is how – in their length – they still neglect to give anything away. Frankly, Fangirl gives more away about its plot than The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, which is a solid 8 words longer.
I think books with long titles have an extra quirk to them. Though I am not drawn to an instant, snappy quality, I’m left intrigued, which – frankly – is even better.
⋘Love or Loath?⋙
Personally, I love them. I think they add an extra bit of character to the book, though it is a little annoying to keep having to shorten them…