Today, I came across this gem: Ruthlessly Bedded, Forcibly Wedded – I pass over titles like that.

You’re right Tumperkin, Written on Your Skin wasn’t as nonsensical of a title as her two previous books.

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.

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

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.

Oh come on, you can’t blame GenX for this. That was totally started by the Boomers.

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.

@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:

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.

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.

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.