You can't judge a book by its cover. Or can you? (1 Viewer)

Founding member
I was having a conversation with some people on one of my artist's forums about titles of paintings and it evolved into some of us that are writing novels.

Someone there who had done much research about titling said that longer titles of books tend to be what more people go for than shorter titles. In fact, the first thing that draws one to a book is the title, and next is the imagery, that is, if you are not some famous author where people are waiting for your next book and will buy it regardless.

This got me thinking, as Bukowski titled more of his books longer than shorter, and when I was thinking up titles for the book I'm working on it was between a long title and a one-word title. I haven't even thought about the image yet.

I wondered about the image and if it should have anything to do with the title, or nothing at all - just something eye-catching.

What think you?
You can't go wrong with a cat.

I like black and white covers. Photos. With your title there are a million possibilities, all of them gritty and awesome.

But first finish the book.
Maybe the name of this thread would be a good book title. :) As for the image, I think it should relate to the topic of the book in some way.
I can say that long titles of books (or poems) hasn't worked at all for me.

Or...wait...maybe it's worked like gangbusters...and, if not for the long titles, I wouldn't have sold a single one.

Okay, no I'm confused and have once again clouded the issue.
Have you noticed how a lot of periodicals and chapbooks have short titles? The idea is to be snappy, I guess. I like Buk's titles. I like the way "Pulp" inverts his usual approach and uses a cliche as a title, tipping us the wink.
As for covers, I love simple b&w with maybe another colour for the text - line drawings, linocuts, photos. Even plain text is good.

Users who are viewing this thread