A Post About Romance Novel Titles in Two Parts
(1) I was chatting with my one female colleague yesterday. She told me she actually looked into the Supermarket Bin of Romancey Goodness, the charity used book bin at our local market chain, featured in this post. This is progress for someone who only reads Holderlin. In German.
But, she added, “some of those titles, they’re so ridiculous!” Before launching into a treatise on Inverse Proportionality of Romance Novel Title Excellence to Romance Novel Content Quality, I asked what any sane romance reader would ask: “Which titles?”
“Well”, she continued, “there’s this one about wind, and it shows this guy’s butt…”
Dear reader, you know what happened next. Yours truly was sifting through that bin — at a supermarket clear on the other side of town — within the hour. And here’s what I found:
I bought it, naturally (only fifty cents!) and in the process of seeking the cover for this post –thank you, RomanceWiki — I found another windy 1980s era Bantam Loveswept:
I wonder how many romance novels today contain the word “wind”, thanks to its close association with flatulence. Here’s one:
I don’t know if it helps or not that the heroine’s hands are on the hero’s butt.
There’s “Ashes in the Wind”, and, of course, “Gone with the Wind”, but, Ms. Green’s title notwithstanding, not many contemporary titles with “wind” in them. I wonder if “wind” has succumbed to its prurient/negative connotation, i.e. flatulence/hot air, as in A Mighty Wind, Christopher Guest’s 2003 mockumentary about folk singers.
There are plenty of old Harlequin titles with words or phrases you wouldn’t use today because they’re offensive, like “The Half Breed”, “Half-caste”, or outdated, like “Miss Doctor”, or liable to be taken in the wrong way, like “The Doctor on Elm street” or “The Web” or “Gay Canadian Rogues” (some of these are mystery or thriller, and written by men. Harlequin didn’t specialize in romance its first few years out of the gate.).
One of the Loveswept titles had a hero named “Dick”, again, not something you’d be likely to see today. Can we read a title like (and the following are all Harlequins, circa 1960) “Nurse Lynnette’s Release” and not think of the big O? “Two for the Doctor?” “The Golden Peaks”? “Stiff Competition”? “Stallion Man”? Could we use these titles non-ironically today?
Another Loveswept title had the word “melancholy” in it. I wonder if the connection to depression — so much better known and understood today — would rule that one out?
How many good words — even something as simple as “come” — have been tainted by the ironic, cynical and sex-saturated mentality of Gen X and Gen Y/the Millenial Generation?
(2) Reusing Titles
In writing the first part of this post I was amazed to see how many romance novel titles have been recycled.
“Mr. Perfect”, “Dream Man, “Sizzle”, “Black Ice, “The Rogue”, “Practice Makes Perfect”, “Indiscreet”, “Slightly Scandalous”, “Into the Storm”, “Wild Rain”, and “Someone to Watch Over Me”, are not just, as I know them, books by Linda Howard (2), the first Jennifer Crusie, Anne Stuart, Celeste Bradley, Julie James, Carolyn Jewel, Mary Balogh, Suzanne Brockmann, Christine Feehan, and Judith McNaught, but also all Bantam Loveswept titles from the 1980s and early 1990s.
I tried to think of song titles and movie titles that are recycled in the same way, and found it much more difficult to do. Although, in music, you’ll have a traditional song which is redone many times, often with different titles (like “Stagger Lee” or “Shady Grove”), and in film, one movie can be remade two or three or four times (“Hound of the Baskervilles”, for example, or “Halloween”, or “Dracula”)
Recently, I saw a new Brenda Joyce paranormal called “Dark Lover”.
Knowing that “Dark Lover”, is the first title in J.R. Ward’s iconic, bestselling Black Dagger Brotherhood series, which is still going strong, I wonder why some other — any other– title could not have been chosen (by the editors? publisher? author? team of marketing execs?). Ward’s Dark Lover only came out 4 years ago, after all.


What do you make of the title recycling? Why is it routine practice in the romance genre? And does it matter?
Related posts:
- Fuzzy Thoughts on Promotion and Book Blogging I’ll start with three quotations: 1. In an interesting post called “The Reviewer/Promoter Hat“, Mrs. Giggles wrote, I found myself...
- I Finally Read a Stephanie Meyer. Thoughts on New Moon. Stay away from this post if you like this series, if you dislike snark, or if you don’t want to...
- Stock siblings in romance Have you ever noticed that in romance series featuring male siblings, you can often find the same character types? This...
- Top 10 Lies of the Romance Novel Hero and Heroine Lying to oneself is a special skill humans possess. I know this because it happens to be one of my...
- “Come for me, baby”: orgasm on command Why is this phrase (and its variations) so ubiquitous in romance? You don’t believe me? Well, here’s a list complied...
- What (Not) To Do Wednesday: Black Dagger Edition Was Wrath wrong? (say that three times fast!) Dark Lover is the second romance novel I read, after Lover Revealed....






#1 by Victoria Janssen on November 6, 2009 - 4:45 pm
LOL!
My new book shares a title with a Patricia Rice novel. I didn’t pick it, though. I guess they think if it worked once, it’ll work again.
#2 by Wendy on November 6, 2009 - 5:05 pm
The recycling title thing happens in a lot of genre fiction. I know I’ve seen repeats on mystery/suspense novels before. Of course, can I remember any examples now? Ha!
#3 by Angela/Lazaraspaste on November 6, 2009 - 5:08 pm
You have totally inspired me to finish my photo essay of library sale purchases that I have been meaning to do for months and months.
I think it is very interesting that the titles get recycled, too. The shard property of titles, like the shared heroic types etc., further suggests the mythic or folktale aspects of the genre. Its as if the title is telling the reader more than the synopsis by giving away some motif or theme of the book that is shared by other books like it.
The childish snickering that happens when you encounter one of those words nobody can use unironically, well it doesn’t work so great in literary theory classes but when you are talking about Shakespeare you can safely bet he meant you to snicker.
#4 by Jessica on November 6, 2009 - 6:05 pm
You know, I felt like such as pompous jerk when I used the phrase “photo essay”, but no one has called me on it, so I’ll keep it.
You are giving them a lot of credit here. I think I may have to go all Ockham’s razor on your ass and pick Victoria’s:
@Wendy:
If an example is forgotten in cyberspace, does it exist?
#5 by SonomaLass on November 6, 2009 - 6:43 pm
Title recycling is a little annoying; makes it hard to find the right used book from an author’s backlist, for one thing! When it’s something really recent and obvious, I can’t help wondering if there’s an attempt to borrow glory.
What about iconic character names? Some men’s and women’s names get repeated in romance and it doesn’t really bother me, although reading a Sophie and a Sophia back-to-back recently made my head spin a bit. After all, it happens in real life, and the only way to avoid it would be to use exotic or made-up names (JK Ward again), which doesn’t make sense unless the book’s set in an alternate reality. But I think there are some names you should just avoid re-using, at least in a context similar to the “original.” I can’t read a historical romance set in Jacobite-era Scotland with a protagonist named Jamie, even if it was a relatively common first name in the period. Someone recently mentiond a book with a dark, sexy hero named Roark — nope, I wouldn’t want to read that. I never blame authors for their covers, and I assume they may not have chosen their own titles (for sure they don’t have final say on those), but character names? Even if the auther is ignorant of the match, it puts me off.
#6 by Bronwyn Parry on November 6, 2009 - 6:59 pm
An example of changing word meanings that stays in my mind and yes, causes me to grin when I read it, is in a classic Australian series of books, written for kids/teenagers, with the first published in 1912 and then through WW1 and beyond. The Billabong books follow the adventures of siblings Jim and Norah, and their good friend Wally, and contain many instances of dialogue such as “‘Good grief!’ Wally ejaculated.”
I am not kidding.
Things have definitely changed since 1915. And yes, Wally is a heroic character, and ends up marrying Norah.
#7 by RfP on November 6, 2009 - 8:55 pm
“I was amazed to see how many romance novel titles have been recycled.”
A Harlequin editor discussed that in the NY Times a few years ago:
You might enjoy some of the awful titles I dug up for a post last year, The book title’s secret meaning. I particularly like The Manatee: Strange Loves of a Seaman. No, it’s not a paranormal, but it’s not exactly normal either
#8 by katiebabs on November 6, 2009 - 9:25 pm
Why I just came back from a used book sale and have some great Loveswepts and old SSE from the 90′s. I will post pictures tomorrow
#9 by Kate on November 6, 2009 - 10:35 pm
No deep thoughts here. Only that “Nurse Lynette’s Release” almost made me spit my wine onto my keyboard. That is so awesome.
Also, why does the lower part of the Y in Brenda Joyce’s name look like a penis, directly pointing at the model’s penis? Coincidence? And why was it that was the first thing I noticed? Hm. I suppose you could say I’m sensitive to typeface.
Anyhow.
#10 by heidenkind on November 6, 2009 - 11:19 pm
Hmmmm. Well, to me romance titles are kind of like romance covers: I generally treat them as white noise or read a book despite them, not because of them. I mean, the titles for Harlequin and Silhouette serials these days are basically alphabet soup. And I have read tons of books where the title made nooooo freaking sense at all, or are very similar to other titles. Meredith Duran’s books universally have nonsensical titles.
Oh, and Lisa Kleypas also published a book titled Someone To Watch Over Me, btw–it’s one of my favorites. ^_^
#11 by willaful on November 6, 2009 - 11:28 pm
I immediately thought of this quiz.
I agree about romance titles (and covers) being pretty much white noise. Unfortunate, but just something I put up with because I love the genre. And you can get some giggles out of mocking them, if nothing else.
#12 by Janet W on November 7, 2009 - 9:22 am
I thought initially I was in 100% agreement with willaful — white noise is a wonderful description — but as the Harlequin book title naming brigade shifts its attention to Harlequin Historials, it becomes more than white noise, it fires me up to white heat. The titles are an insult, in many cases, to the admirable and praise-worthy content within. Won’t even mention the cover pix!
Carla Kelly has posted on AAR that she didn’t think the title of one of her latest books was as reflective of the content (my paraphrasing) as the one she proposed. I’m sure other authors have similar feelings.
I am NOT slamming categories — I appreciate all the efforts made to expose readers to their many virtues. I buy ‘em and I read ‘em. That being said, how about the publishers meet us halfway and stop insulting us with titles that are formulaic, generic and without beauty, for the most part? Repetitive titles … again, grab a noun (duke), adjective (dashing), another noun (lady) and a last adj (reader’s choice), shake and mix. Really not impressed! It’s so copy-cattish.
#13 by BevBB on November 7, 2009 - 9:46 am
@RfP:
Yeah, but at least it has the distinction of being a “first” along with the odd title, and description – The First Harlequin.
Seriously, after a while the repetitive titles do all run together and only time they’re truly annoying is when they interfere with finding/remembering a book. Or keeping straight two books by different authors.
Or from different genres. That’s when it gets seriuosly weird.
#14 by Jill Sorenson on November 7, 2009 - 10:01 am
It’s difficult to find a title that hasn’t been used before. I’ve spent hours googling title ideas. Now I don’t bother because the publisher always changes it. With panache, in my case.
They also have title/cover meetings, and a team has to approve the title. Maybe a tried and true title is easier to pass…
#15 by Kaetrin on November 7, 2009 - 9:28 pm
well, of course, then I had to look!
*grins*
#16 by Nicola O. on November 8, 2009 - 1:55 am
How many good words — even something as simple as “come” — have been tainted by the ironic, cynical and sex-saturated mentality of Gen X and Gen Y/the Millenial Generation?
Oh come on, you can’t blame GenX for this. That was totally started by the Boomers.
#17 by Tumperkin on November 8, 2009 - 3:55 am
What an entertaining post! It put me in mind of a very old Kids In the Hall (remember them?) sketch where an old lady laments the appropriation of ‘lovely words’ like ‘gay’ and ‘fistfucker’. She then reminisces about how her grandfather drove across America in a old Fistfucker. Hilarious and unfortunately not on You Tube.
I particularly love the cover for Strong Hot Winds! It looks like the waiter and bellydancer in a Turkish restaurant getting carried away after hours.
I must admit to having a weakness for the double entendre (it’s such a British weakness! Ooo-er missus!) so in one sense, the more come, wind etc. the better.
On a more serious note, I agree with Janet W and would like to see a move away from formulaic titles particularly in historicals. Any title with the word ‘Duke’ in it proves an immediate obstacle to me now
Heidenkind: I disagree about the latest Meredith Duran title: Written on Your Skin since it does have a connection to the story.
#18 by Jessica on November 8, 2009 - 8:53 am
@SonomaLass: See, the names of heroes and heroines don’t bother me, because they really are a finite resource (although not so finite as the heavy repetition of certain names suggests, I grant you) — this phenomenon tracks real life in a familiar way. But I feel that books should have unique names (if at all possible).
@Bronwyn Parry: LOL! That is a great example!
@katiebabs: It was very fun to take that trip down memory lane. I wish more historians would take up the history of category romance. I felt like I was channeling Laura Vivanco.
@Kate: You are so right about the emphatically phallic typeface. Talk about “accidental dong“! Although I don’t think it’s that accidental.
@heidenkind: Alphabet soup is a terrific way to put it. And thanks for the reminder of the Kleypas — I had that in the back of my head but couldn’t bring it forth! I agree with you that they are “noise”, but why? And why, as you say, do they so often have NOTHING To do with the book — at least that’s one crime we can’t blame the Presents Line for. (although, as Tumperkin says, I wouldn’t pick out Duran as a prime offender).
Why couldn’t a contemporary Lit Fic author say to her editor or publisher, “You know, ‘Pride and Prejudice’ would be a great name for this book. And it has worked so well in the past!”
@BevBB: See, now this is why I don’t read other genres.
The titles situation would get truly out of hand. (Thanks for the link to your post on the Manatee! )
@Jill Sorenson: Thanks for sharing that, Jill. Having never tried to find a unique book title myself in such a prolific genre while appeasing a team of other people … well, I really don’t know how hard it is.
@Nicola O.: LOL. You’re right. It’s not very Gen X of me to take responsibility for anything, is it?
@Janet W:
Janet, I have to agree with you.
@Tumperkin: Oh, god that Kids in the Hall skit. Spouse and I just spent the last few minutes reenacting it to gales of laughter.
And “Duke” — UGH!!!! You are so right.
#19 by BevBB on November 8, 2009 - 9:34 am
@Nicola O.:
Ya think?
Bad and even repetitive titles have been around at least since the beginnings of the paperback era. For proof, just go to have some fun browsing through BookScans, a site devoted to collecting & archiving copies online of vintage (pre-1960s) paperback covers. You have to dig if you’re looking for something in particular because they’re arranged by publisher and then by number – and there isn’t a search feature – but it’s definitely fun stuff to look at. Some of the decriptions/back cover blurbs there are rather enlightening too.
#20 by Tumperkin on November 8, 2009 - 2:54 pm
All those lovely words!
#21 by Heloise on November 8, 2009 - 3:39 pm
Wind Dancer by Jamie Carie published Jan 1, 2009
Apparently she (her publisher) didn’t get the memo.
#22 by Simone on November 8, 2009 - 4:16 pm
I would make an eloquent comment on this, but I am too distracted by the pleats in Mr. Wind Warning’s pants. And Mr. Strong, Hot Wind’s black jeans!
#23 by heidenkind on November 9, 2009 - 2:55 am
@Jessica:
Well, as to that, I imagine it’s because people generally view them–the books–as interchangeable. Boy meets girl, blah blah blah, why put in the effort to come up with an original title when you have a perfectly reliable title formula to turn to? Whereas P&P is Literature and therefore unique.
@Tumperkin:
You’re right Tumperkin, Written on Your Skin wasn’t as nonsensical of a title as her two previous books. So we’re seeing improvement! With Duran it seems to bother me more than with other writers… I’m not sure why.
#24 by Kate on November 9, 2009 - 12:23 pm
Actually I found Bound By Your Touch to be rather contextual, since touch was used frequently and not necessarily in a sexual content to grow the relationship between Lydia and Sanburne. I’m thinking specifically of the rooftop scene (which yes, did turn into a sexual scene) in which Sanburne is touching Lydia to comfort her. The title does read like a stock title, but I did find it much more contextual than her first title. I haven’t read Written on Your Skin yet.
#25 by willaful on November 9, 2009 - 12:40 pm
Even if the titles of Duran’s books aren’t particularly relevant (haven’t read any but the first, so no opinion there yet), they are certainly evocative and distinctive, which is more than you can say for most titles. Sure, there’s a Duke in the first one, but no seduction or wicked or sinful or scandalous. Or anachronistic pop culture jokes, or annoying alliteration. I think Written On Your Skin is one of the best titles I’ve ever heard — except perhaps that it might have a BDSM vibe?
#26 by Wanderer on November 10, 2009 - 12:24 am
I love when a title is referenced in the book. From recent memory would be Goddess of the Hunt. I love the way the name came up in the story.
Today, I came across this gem: Ruthlessly Bedded, Forcibly Wedded – I pass over titles like that.