A Bloody Bad Title
Last year, I put out an anthology of flash fiction pieces called, “Blood Picnic and other stories”. The title story, “Blood Picnic” is about two people discussing a cheesy teenager slasher flick of the same name. Actually, the story is really about what happens to the literary ambitions of an author when a layered and well-written book gets made into a cheesy teenager slasher flick, but nevermind that. This Write Anything post is about that title, and how I’ve come to regret using it.
Of all the stories in the collection, I chose that one to use for the eponym because it seemed so over-the-top, so campy. The arch humor threaded into that kind of title, so obviously loaded with B-movie baggage, appealed to me and to my sense of the absurd. Unfortunately, as this book has been out there for almost a year now, it’s become clear to me that what I intended as an arch, knowing and meta-referential commentary on the heavy-handed titles of pulp horror icons is instead viewed by the reading public as just A Bad Title.
This was made apparent to me recently on Twitter, when someone pointed out that there are lots of books with the word “blood” in the title. Go on Amazon and you find: “Blood Love”, “Blood Lust”, “Blood Hunger”, “Blood Moon”, “Blood Caravan”, “Blood This”, “Blood That”, “Blood Whatever”. Her opinion was that it’s a cheap, overused shorthand to telegraph what the book is about. It’s an amateurish and clumsy cliche, she said, used by self-publishing authors pushing bad books, and for that reason, she avoids any book with “blood” in the title.
Ouch.
The layers and layers of humor, literary and cultural references I’d intended to convey were, apparently, evident to no one but me. I’d told a subtle joke and found myself the only one laughing at it.
Ouch!
I chose the title for this anthology, so I have no one to blame but myself. I recall a New Yorker cartoon (I think by Roz Chast) with a mid-list author describing his books: the one with the bad cover, the one that came out the same week as Harry Potter, the one that they didn’t market, the one with the title that was too long, the one with two typos on page 4, etc., etc. I feel like I could have added in “the one with the title nobody understood”.
Working with an editor probably would have helped on this, to change the title from “Blood Picnic and other stories” to “Reconciliation and other stories” or “Another Glass of Chardonnay and other stories” or some other permutation. But of course, such matters are in the past, and can’t be changed. The question is, what do I do now?
Re-release the anthology under a new title, with a new cover? I would hate for any of the people who bought “Blood Picnic” to feel cheated when they see that it’s the same collection. Granted, we’re only talking about a couple of dozen people, but still.
Put out a new anthology with more stories and a better title, and just fold these stories into it?
Take my lumps, call it a learning experience and go on to do a better job with the next anthology? This option leaves open the possibility of “Blood Picnic” being re-discovered later on, after I get to be a famous author. Just think of this doozy, which could be the title of somebody’s MFA thesis in 2065: “A Critical Analysis of ‘Blood Picnic and other stories’: Themes of Gender Politics in the Early Short Fiction Writings of an American Genius”.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, let this be a lesson to you: working titles are just that—working titles. Don’t be afraid to change them to something better before the book hits the website.
I should probably just slink away quietly and go sit in a corner, ‘cos my most recent release has “Blood” in the title, as did the collaboration I wrote before… And the one coming up will have “Blood” too.
We’re all in this together, Nerine.
I bought the book, and didn’t think the title was bad. Sure, there’s a lot of books out there with “Blood” in the title — including by many mid-list and popular authors.
As for the specific book in question, I wouldn’t mess with the title — it does raise the possibility of confusion. Chalk it up to experience & move on.
I think that’s going to have to be the option of choice. This was always intended as a learning exercise, so I guess I’ve learned something!
I don’t think that “Blood Picnic” telegraphs the content, because the content’s so varied that the title couldn’t possibly encapsulate all the themes of all the stories. (NB: “Blood” in a title is bad? Like “In Cold Blood”? Or Clive Barker’s “Books of Blood”? Hmmm… Really?)
As far as changing it… Most of Agatha Christie’s books were retitled between the UK and the US — heck, even Harry Potter was. (Philosopher’s Stone/Sorceror’s Stone). If you did decide to come up with a new title (A Quadrology of Tales!
) you could subtitle it in small type with the original title (formerly “Blood Picnic and other tales”). But I don’t see why you need to change it at all. JMHO.
Exactly! The varied content made picking ANY title a crap shoot. Since that anthology had several genres and styles, what to emphasize was the kicker.
The problem with the title is that it was based on something in the book, i.e., you have to read the book before the title makes any sense. And, obviously, you’re trying to sell the book to people who haven’t read it, so it falls flat.
I wouldn’t rename and resell it. If it would make you feel better, go through the whole thing and correct any errors you or your readers have found, add a preface about how and why the title of the thing didn’t work, with a few examples of what you COULD have called it, and put it out there as a second edition.
Considering your trials here, I’m keeping the title “The Dumbest Book Title Ever Written” in my pocket for if I ever get around to publishing some of my own short fiction.
Urk. That’s a very good point. Without knowing what “Blood Picnic” was about, the joke makes no sense. I can feel my horizons broadening…
I probably wouldnt change the title, just hire a psych person to figure out an appealing title next time. And include it in all your press releases and in front of your next book. I’m worried my novel’s title is too precocious…
Heh, and I’ll rent a crystal ball, too!
I liked the title and the story. The whole idea of a writer having a masterpiece turned into a hack film made me think of Frankenstein- one of my very favorite novels.
The original story featured an immortal who made a living writing schlock bodice rippers, carefully structuring his books to be profitable but forgettable mid-listers. When he accidentally let slip and wrote a really good literary book, he was terrified that it would draw too much attention and blow his cover. Although the book was a best-seller, it got completely subverted into a terrible teens-in-bikinis slasher flick, thereby restoring his obscurity. That is, until 40 years later, when someone wants to unearth the truth…
Interesting post, Tony, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think it’s a cool title, personally, but I never would’ve guessed the meaning. My assumption was that the title story is vampire related, but now I know I was wrong. Is the collection available in paperback, or e-book only? I tried to click through to it through your site, but the link didn’t work for me. . . .
Thanks, Richard. It’s e.book only right now. I priced out print copies using CreateSpace, and it would be something like $13 per copy for me to break even. Given the ubiquity of e.readers and the steep price difference between that print copy and the e.book price ($2.99), I’m not yet convinced a print version is justified.
Also, the URL for my site is easy to remember. It’s http://www.tonynoland.com , just like me.
Thanks, Tony. I haven’t joined the e-reader world yet, but if and when I do, I’ll look forward to reading the collection. By the way, I visit your site frequently, so I know the URL, it was just the link to Blood Picnic that didn’t work for me this morning (I don’t know why, might’ve been my computer’s fault). I just tried it again, though, and now all systems are functioning.