Just thought tht this might be worthy of discussion. Choice is so often a difficult business, and at times I feel I get lazy over these. How important are they to catching the eye of readers? How often are they integral to the poem?

For my part I note that their importance varies in relation to the poem I've written. Sometimes they just contain information as a pointer. Another time they are the first line. In another they may almost come as an alternative end-line, because I've spotted something of which I was unaware in the writing. Many times they are a pain, very occasionally evoke  'eureka!'.

milner

Thank you for starting this off, Milner. Like you say, sometimes you find a great title that serves all purposes well. More ususally, I find a title is really appropriate to a poem, to its tone ususally, rather than as information--but these kinds of titles tend not to be eye-catching. Seems like a tough tradeoff sometimes: eye candy to bring in reader, or something more dignified that suits the poem itself. Or can we do both?!

Extreme Sex Poem!
or
The Young Man

-Tom

yes, Tom, there are obvious tricks to get attention, but I suspect they are soon spotted if eye-catching is their only rational. Anything purportedly shocking will always get an immediate audience, but won't do the writer much good if the poem is crap. I guess that titling is like the rest of writing - you must satisfy yourself first, and if it is eye-catching then that's a bonus. But its relevance to the rest, even as a counter-point, is vital.

milner

Titles are important to me. I want them to be an integral part of the poem. So, sometimes the title is also my first line, sometimes the title is actually the last line of the poem. Sometimes without the title, the reader does not know what I'm getting at.

For instance Simpatico is a title that describes my emotion at the time the incident happened, but the poem only describes the scene. For me, for now, the use of untitled (I may have used it in the past - I don't remember) never works for I feel it really means unfinished. But that's just for me, it doesn't bug me in the least in other people's work as it leaves me more avenues to contemplate!

I have to also admit--and have heard many other readers say the same thing--that I often don't really read the title of a poem, novel, or anything. Why is that? Perhaps a long life of not finding much in them, sort of like prefaces. Tom

I agree, Lavonne, that 'untitled' will generally mean a poem is unfinished. I suppose there can be cases where it's use is relevant to content, but they must be very rare. I mean, in other words, where 'untitled' is a title intrinsically related to the poem itself, and not to its incomplete nature.

milner

Not much to be done about that, Tom, though I'd like to think that if the poem is good enough, they'll get round to it in the end, if only to remember where to look for it for another read!

milner

I'm taking notes, yo. Some of the usages of titles:
-1. adding a thought, slant, or bit of information to the poem as a whole
2. repeating the first line, which seems not to add much limited value
3. using the title as a first line, which seems to me to be like not having a title, really
4. giving it something simple and fitting, if forgetable
5. catchiness to try to draw readers in
6. using numbers, "untitled" etc. to just bag it
7. the perfect title, which combines 1, 4, 5 to greater or lesser degrees
8....
9....

Usally, for me, the idea comes, or the image that works into an idea, then the idea/image works its way into lines meant to convey the idea, connect with a reader, connect with me, in some way . . . then the title.  But occasionally, as with Tensile Strength, the title came pretty much simultaneously with the idea.  I was working wire and wondering when it would break, what its tensile strength might actually be.  So the title, in this particular case, informed the poem, or informed me as to what task was at hand in writing the poem. 

How the title works in re: pointer #7 above in Tom's summary of discussion, I dunno. 

I do know that a title like Milner's The Sound of Honey is a sure draw for this reader.  I immediately want to know 'what' honey sounds like; I'm immediately, by title alone, drawn to something I believe is going to run in slow amber ways, something that takes a whole population to make happen . . . worlds within worlds in that title, for me. 

Maybe I should retitle Tensile Strength to The Sound of Wire Breaking . . . ?

good thread.  good discussion. 

lynn

Sometimes, I used to use the first line as a title out of laziness, because nothing much came to mind. Probably that meant the poem was unfinished, as Lavonne suggests, or unworthy of one. Now, I tend to use that first line as the title when it was from that that the whole poem sprung. That is rather different, and I like to think legitimate. I guess in this, I rely much on developed 'instinct' (logic derived from experience).

milner

Great thread. Most of my own thoughts on the subject have been covered already and Tom has done a fine job of summarising the main points.

Sometimes titles come first, sometimes they develop or evolve with the poem, during the write. Sometimes we need others to give us the title, which is why forums like this are so great. I agree that "untitled" rarely if ever works, for me at least. I also (as I mentioned elsewhere) don't really like to see titles repeated as first lines (or is that vice versa?), though sometimes the first line can be a very appropriate title.

Another thing that happens from time to time is giving a poem a title that's already been used. In fact, I've just posted a poem called Writer's Block which I know has been used by Milner before, and probably countless others. That happened to you recently Tom -- what was the poem again? Will have to look through your journal where I know you listed several fantastic poems all with the same title. I also remember once Silent Lotus using the same title twice. Should we avoid re-using titles, whether our own or others'?

B.

Re-using titles, to me, is a good way of participating in the tradition. Part of the internet age is that you can google a title and see who wrote what. I think maybe the poem of mine you remember was a cento using different poets' "Weather Vane"; maybe there was another one too, as I love these particular threads through time and different poets' hands.
I also google phrases that seem somehow sweet, because if they have a tradition too, I need to know it and proceed accordingly--part of owning the words you use. Used "pooled opals" today, gave it the Google, but don't see usage before; other times, it's like entering a room with some wonderful company, as with titles. In the same poem I'm using "divagations" (in title), which brought me straight back to Bishop's "The Moose." I just love all that.
--Tom

...and then there's MBC's "Lion." on our front page now. A title with sentence punctuation. Something to think about, experiment with, and one of the fine features of her poem. -Tom

Yes, that can be fun too Tom. But don't you think there are some titles you couldn't touch? Would you ever consider naming a poem "The Ancient Mariner" "Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening" "Howl" etc etc . . .

B.

Certainly would not touch them lightly! Have abandoned titles I was considering because the poem couldn't handle the previous poems with the same name, for one reason or another. But it is really just a way of calling up another complete poem or bunch of poems in shorthand epigraph or allusion. -T.