Have Title, Need Plot!

GFanthome said:

If there's one thing I learned about being in bands is that if you come up with a great name for one, either you won't end up starting that band or the band will end badly, either going down with a fizzle or in flames.

Think of the story/plot first, then choose the title.

Click to expand...

Well, your bands, maybe, but other successful bands have started with a name for the band.

And where writing is concerned, many successful writers have started writing with nothing but a title. Ray Bradbury may be the most blatant example, but many of us do this. I can't even start writing until after I have a title.

Actually, my point was that I have never experienced any good from coming up with a title and then working from there - either in bands or my writing.

It looks as if there is a bit of a divide on this issue.

Also to Traven: don't be *too too* in love with your title because if your story ever makes it to the publishing stage, the publisher may change it completely on you, as some authors have experienced.

GFanthome said:

Actually, my point was that I have never experienced any good from coming up with a title and then working from there - either in bands or my writing.

It looks as if there is a bit of a divide on this issue.

Also to Traven: don't be *too too* in love with your title because if your story ever makes it to the publishing stage, the publisher may change it completely on you, as some authors have experienced.

Click to expand...

The thing is, while you haven't experienced any good from finding a title first, you have to look around and see whether a percentage of others have. It's much like the outline/no outline debate. It's easy to say "I have to use an outline" but not good to say this is the way to write. If you check out successful writers and find that many do not outline, you know it can be done well.

As for titles being changed, I've found this is much less likely if you start with a title. Like Ray Bradbury, my title generates the story, so it's going to fit that story very well. In more than thirty years, I've had only one title changed by a publisher. As it turned out, the publisher was wrong, and readers hated the title they stuck on the book.

I decent title that fits the story probably won't be changed.

All of my stories were written title first. Sometimes I carry the title around in my head for a few days before I start to write; once I thought about it for weeks and I was okay, what the heck is this? Go away, stupid thing, leave me alone. Then I saw a little girl walking on top of a stone wall (on my way to work) and it call came together.

The subconscious is a funny thing; it's even funnier when it's at work in a writer's head.

I can't seem to stop coming up with titles. I have an entire file of just titles, one of just names, etc.

And I'm with Susan Littlefield, the title can help decide what the story inside is. And the right title can be a great indicator of a book's tone, of what you're about to get in to: THE MOON LAMP doesn't readily conjure an image of a light-hearted buddy-cop thriller (not to me anyway), but it might put a reader in mind of maybe a ghost story (it is one), and THE WAR OF THE WORLDS doesn't really sound like a sweetheart romance (and it sure isn't).

But for the rest of it, title first, then plot -- plot first, then title -- characters first -- just go! Traven, the only unbreakable rule is: thou shalt not bore the reader.

I like Weaselfire's idea of the crow wanting in on the family picnic, but how about this: There is no plot. There is no bright shiny object, it's an abstract concept, the novel is experimental. Begin at the end. Include non-chapters, blank pages, upside-down words.

Jaksen: congrats!