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.

Just remembered you once named a poem Da Raven, so touching them lightheartedly is obviously OK!
Epigraphs are becoming something of an obsession of mine lately.

B.

Sure, I could imagine using "Howl" ironically to title a poem about something insignificant, like a toe stub.
Let me go post my "Late Night Divagations" from journal, whose title I consider an allusion if not a homage to Bishop's "The Moose", in which she used "divagation" so unforgettably. -Tom

Yes using the same title seems to be a trend in publishing.....

They keep putting on American Dollars

 the same faces over and over again

and then always say something like " In God We Trust "

Makes you wonder which one of them is supposed to be God.

so much for creative writing.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lyn Lifshin has written a series of poems all using the same title - which escapes me now - it is a street address. There are other poets who do the same thing. It can be an effective technique.

...and all that's well and good, but who wants to jump into a pool with "divagation" in the title??
--p.s., that was some film, sl, as many of Keitel's. Where's he been, anyway? -Tom

Joking aside Chasan, I would love to hear your thoughts on titling. Yours are always interesting.

B.

Wonderful Chasan.
My instinct was right that you would have much to share on this topic, beyond badly mutilated dollar bills. I'm in my pyjamas now, but will return to this thread in the morn, hopefully finding many more responses as interesting and inspiring as yours.

B.

If I'm reading a book by an author I already like and know well, the titles matter, but are not a deciding factor in whether I read the poems or not.  I like to read a poem and then go back and think about the title and how it works, see if adds to the poem in some way (and to help me with my own title choices).

But in a place where there is a long list of poems by different authors (anthologies, magazines, Poetry Circle) the titles have much more significance.   Since I can't read them all, I scan the titles and go straight to the interesting, intriguing, funny,weird---whatever is just too good to pass up.  I don't think titles need to have a gimic, but uniqueness counts. 

I just looked through the front page of PC Editor's Picks.  If I had never been on the site, and was interested in reading a smattering of poetry to check out the place, I would have chosen (based solely on titles) :

"Gonsalvo and the necessary illusions" 
"Line Them Up, Mary"
"My Mother and Lefty Frizzel" 
"The Quiet God"
"Aren't There Mornings"

Each of these drew my interest, made me want to see what was behind that title, each for a different reason.  This is , of course, quite subjective.

Based solely on titles, I would have skipped over:

"The Road Not Taken"  (someone ripping off Frost---can't be as good as the original)
"War of the Worlds"  ( Orson already cornered that market)
"Baby With the Bathwater"  (cliche---not a geat sign of what's to come)

Actually, I did read all 3 of the above-mentioned, but that was because the authors are some of my favorites here, and I've learned to expect interesting poetry from them. 

I'm not so great at titles myself, so I appreciate this thread and the thoughts shared.  Good idea.
Lynne

Good exercise, the above, Lynne. Tom

Lynne [with an E] thank you for the above.  Of the two titles that are mine,  My Mother and Lefty Frizzel came as the title before the poem because that's what I wanted to write about, Mama and honky-tonk in our house; and the other title, Line Them Up, Mary, came after the response poem I'd written to a poem by Mary Oliver had sent me off down the page to find some amazement to write about . . . And, I am pleased those titles both worked for you, E!

lynn

Lynne,

(places a melodramatic hand on chest and half-closes eyes)

in my defence (alarm bells) I wasn't "ripping off Frost" but in fact was responding to this thread, where the point was raised about some titles being "untouchable". It was a bit of frivolity as much as anything else.

(I know your point is about 1st impressions and not necessarily the poems in question, but I am an argumentative shit and can't help but respond :P )

By the by, though I won't dare to compare my effort with Frost's, I do think it one of the most overrated poems ever written.

Sorry, back to topic.

B.

Hi, Brian---truly, my comment was not about your poem, just first impressions of a title.  Truly.  I'm just sayin'.

And if I had taken time to respond properly instead of using "quick reply" I would return the smiley.
(if you can be argumentative , I can be lazy, right?)

I think the thing that amazed me about Frost's Road is that the first several times I read it (high school,  or wherever) I didn't notice that it rhymed.   I'm still surprised that I missed it somehow, but that spoke to me of a natural subtle tone I wanted to figure out how to do.  Overrated---I agree that the little bells on the harness and all aren't world-stopping stuff. 

Lynne