Fussing over titles

[mrissa]

I was talking to Michelle about my books, and she brought up an association that has worried me before. timprov suggested that AKICILJ was a good principle to use, but it seems to me that it's opinion more than knowledge. So here we go, and please feel free to elaborate in comments:

[Poll #423689]

Note: please do not get abusive about titles. I have an acquaintance who said things to me (about a different title) like, "Did you pick that title because you want people to ignore your book?" Behavior like that is one reason this person counts as an acquaintance and not as a friend right now. If you think Sampo is a horrible title and you'd never read a book of that name, there are far better ways to express that sentiment.

Comments

[rilina.livejournal.com]

Marymary and I have had more than one discussion of how unfair I think it is that poets get to have untitled poems and fiction writers do not vs. how useful she thinks titles are for adding that extra little twist to the reader's experience.

And then there's late singer-songwriter Elliott Smith, whose debut album features songs named No Name #1, No Name #2, No Name #3, and No Name #4. (No Name #5 shows up two albums later.) They're good songs too.

I did make the connection with Little Black Sambo--that is, I could see why you were posting a poll even before I got to the question about LBS--though I also am a person who would give a little leeway in the title of a second book of a series. I don't suppose there's an alternate spelling you could use? Or a longer phrase with Sampo that would make it clear you were drawing from a different tradition?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

No, the spelling is extremely clear. I can go with a longer title that doesn't involve the word Sampo at all but instead something reminiscent of the forging of the Sampo (poll probably to follow!), but nothing like Ilmarinen and the Sampo really applies in this case.