The Romance Reader as Connoisseur (2): Book Titles

I’ve been thinking about book titles since I wrote about Moira Manion’s comments on the titles of Harlequin Presents. Then Robin, in a review at the Smart Bitches said that ‘Rarely do I pay much attention to Romance novel titles; if not downright offensive, they’re often inane and rarely informative’. However Ro, a poster at AAR, commenting on this subject, gave a list of romances due for release in the coming year and said something that sounds like the complete opposite of what Robin had said:

--Wild and Wicked In Scotland
--Two Weeks With A Stranger
--Sinful Between the Sheets
--Too Great a Temptation
--The Sinful Nights of a Nobleman
--The Wicked Games of a Gentleman
And so on...
Whatever happened to those one word titles: "Scandal", "Desire", and what not? Now, the titles tell the entire story! (my emphasis)

So, who’s right? Do the titles ‘tell the entire story’ or are they uninformative?

Some (but not all) titles do indicate something about the setting (e.g. Scotland), protagonists (e.g. a stranger, nobleman or a gentleman) or the plot (temptation, two weeks), and a couple of them seem to me to indicate that the books are historical romances. Whether they’re truly ‘informative’ in the sense that they tell us a lot more than that, however, is another matter. And I don't know why there needs to be so much use of terms which originally had a spiritual meaning (sin, wicked etc). It’s a pet peeve of mine, no doubt due to studying a bit of theology and plenty of medieval texts where ‘temptation’, ‘wicked’ and ‘sinful’ were words which were not designed to entice, but to cause fear in the reader: I haven’t caught up with the idea that these words now sound enticing and delicious. It reminds me of the diabolical spin-doctors alluded to in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, who work steadily at changing the meaning of words. Screwtape, a senior Devil, is writing to his nephew, a junior Tempter:

Puritanism – and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life. (1945: 55)

But I digress. So, back to romance titles. Looking at the pile of 10 Mills & Boon/Harlequin romances I chose at random recently from the library, it seems to me that their titles are informative, though they may be ‘offensive’ or misleading to some. Here’s the list. I hope it’s not too boring, but without giving examples, I really don’t think I can show how informative the titles are.

Contracted: Corporate Wife, by Jessica Hart (2005). Tender Romance
This suggests to me that this will be an office romance, involving businesspeople, and indeed, the heroine is the hero’s PA.

The Marriage Adventure by Hannah Bernard (2005). Tender Romance.
I’ve already blogged about this one, and at the heart of it is the struggle for control of the heroine’s family’s adventure holiday business.

The Five-Year Baby Secret by Liz Fielding (2006). Tender Romance.
This one’s really obvious. It’s about a secret baby, and the baby is now a 5-year old.

The Bridal Chase, by Darcy Maguire (2005). Tender Romance.
There is a fair amount of chasing, with the heroine at times chasing the hero, and then she’s in retreat and he’s chasing her.

A Most Suitable Wife, by Jessica Steele (2005). Tender Romance.
The hero begins by believing that the heroine is completely unsuitable, only to realise that he was completely wrong and she’s perfect for him in every way.

Baby of Shame, by Julia James (2005). Modern Romance (this is the equivalent of the Harlequin Presents line).
I think the difference in title between this and The Five-Year Baby Secret is an indication of the difference between the two lines. In the Modern Romance/Presents line, there’s a lot more dramatic conflict, and that’s reflected in the title. It is, of course, another secret baby story, and the heroine is an unmarried mother.

The Mancini Marriage Bargain by Trish Morey (2005). Modern Romance
The use of the name, Mancini, indicates there’s an Italian hero. The words ‘marriage bargain’ suggest a marriage that is not a love-match.

Blackmailed into Marriage by Lucy Monroe (2005). Modern Romance
Another marriage which is entered into for reasons other than love. In this case the heroine’s family give her no option but to marry.

Mistress to a Rich Man by Kathryn Ross (2005). Modern Romance
I discussed this title in a previous blog entry. It’s not about a mistress, but the heroine has sex with the hero before either of them realise that they’re in love, and he’s rich.

Exposed: The Sheik’s Mistress by Sharon Kendrick (2005). Modern Romance
Another not-really-a-mistress, but a relationship which, it appears, is not likely to lead to marriage, and the hero is a sheik. The ‘exposed’ part of the title refers to the fact that the affair becomes public knowledge thanks to reports in the media.

As mentioned before, authors usually don’t have control over the covers their books are given, and often they don’t even have the final say on the title. Betina Krahn and Candace Schuler, for example, have recently mentioned their least favourite covers, each of which included a title that wasn’t the one they'd originally thought of. How the editors and art departments make these decisions is a subject about which I know absolutely nothing, but I’m sure it must be because they think certain titles will be more appealing to the target audience. And I wonder if a large part of the appeal of titles like the ones mentioned by Ro, and those of the Harlequins I listed, is that they help the reader make a selection quickly.

So, to conclude, I think the titles usually indicate at least one of the following: the profession/status of the hero and/or heroine; the setting; the type of relationship (e.g. arranged marriage, a ‘mistress’ i.e. sexual relationship not entered into with any expectation of it leading to marriage); an important element of the plot (e.g. secret baby). All of this is information which the connoisseur reader of romances will understand and use when making a quick selection at the shops or the library.

Anyone got any favourite, or least favourite titles? Do they describe the book well? Do they entice you to read the book? And do they make it easy for someone browsing the shelves to tell that what's inside is a romance?

----
Lewis, C. S., 1945. The Screwtape Letters (London: Geoffrey Bles, The Centenary Press).

Sold!

There was an item on US public radio recently about romance which I heard about thanks to a member of the listserv. It started well enough, mentioning current bestsellers:

"Angels Fall," by Nora Roberts. It's billed as a novel of romantic suspense. Number two is "12 Sharp," by Janet Evanovich. About a sassy female bounty hunter. Chick lit rules the lists, you could say. But bookstore worker and commentator Moira Manion is a bit worried about what women are reading these days.

So why is Moira worried? Because she’s been reading the titles of books in the Harlequin Presents series:

I noticed a theme in the "Harlequin Presents" series. Titles like "Mistress Bought and Paid For," "Bought By a Billionaire," "Bought By Her Husband," and "Traded to the Sheik."

When and why did women start fantasizing about being bought and sold? Women have fought against being property. Some sacrificed their lives. I can't believe women would pay to read a story of a woman so desperate for money that she sells herself to a Greek billionaire or a Zanzibar sheik.

But it makes sense. We live in a time when everything is for sale. Why work yourself to death for little pay when you can become the property of a rich man?

First of all, lets have a look at the guidelines for the Harlequin Presents series:

these fast-paced stories are essentially escapist romantic fantasies that take the reader on an emotional roller-coaster ride. Written in the third person, they can be from the male or female point of view, or seen through the eyes of both protagonists. All are set in sophisticated, glamorous, international locations.
With its focus on strong, wealthy, breathtakingly charismatic alpha-heroes who are tamed by spirited, independent heroines, the central relationship in a Presents novel is a provocatively passionate, highly charged affair, driven by conflict, emotional intensity and overwhelming physical attraction

So yes, the hero is likely to be a ‘rich man’, and that’s part of the ‘escapist’ element. And he’s going to be ‘strong’. But the other side of the equation in this line are the ‘spirited, independent heroines’. These are not books about women who find a wealthy man and immediately latch onto him in order to get his money. They are, however, often about women who are mistaken for ‘gold-diggers’, but, and this is a point that Moira seems to have missed, because she doesn't appear to have read further than the titles, they are not mercenary or materialistic women. For example, one Harlequin Presents novel that I read recently is Kathryn Ross’s Mistress to a Rich Man. The title is exactly the sort that Marion’s talking about. And the hero early on decides that the heroine is ‘a cold-blooded gold-digger and a damn good actress’ (2005:23). Is the heroine a gold-digger? No, of course she’s not, she just wants to meet the father she hasn’t seen for twenty years, and he happens to be a rich and famous movie-star. She doesn’t even become the hero’s mistress, though they do start a sexual relationship before they declare their love for each other.

The misunderstandings about the heroine’s motivation, and/or the nature of the circumstances in which the heroine is forced into close proximity to a hero that she often initially dislikes (but is attracted to) are not, I think, written so that women can indulge in ‘fantasizing about being bought and sold’. It seems to me to have a lot more to do with ensuring that each story is ‘a provocatively passionate, highly charged affair, driven by conflict’. And clearly the readers enjoy both the conflict, which serves to raise the sexual tension, and what is often a Cinderella-like fantasy of a poor, virtuous woman becoming the wife of a rich, handsome hero.

Some of the stories I’ve read do involve the hero and heroine entering into an arranged marriage, perhaps because the heroine is being ‘sold’ by her father or other relative, or perhaps because she needs to marry in order to save her family, or pay for medical treatment for a sick child. But the heroine generally struggles against her fate and she certainly doesn’t marry a rich man just because she wants an easy life of luxury. Furthermore, the heroine is never a ‘mistress’ according to the dictionary definition of ‘a woman (other than a wife) having a sexual relationship with a married man’, though she may occasionally be a ‘kept’ woman if she’s living in accommodation he provides. Very often, as in Mistress to a Rich Man, the word ‘mistress’ just seems to mean that the heroine is the hero’s lover.

The moral of this particular story, it seems to me, is that it’s not wise to judge a book by its title, and it’s even less sensible to judge an entire series (or genre) on the basis of their titles.

Personally I prefer less ‘glamorous’ settings and non-alpha heroes, so maybe I’m misjudging the appeal of this line to other romance readers. But if there are any of you out there who love the Harlequin Presents/Mills & Boon Modern Romance line, what is it about these books that appeals to you? Is Marion right that you’re just ‘fantasizing about being bought and sold’?

----
Ross, Kathryn, 2005. Mistress to a Rich Man (Richmond, Surrey: Harlequin Mills & Boon).