I was on the pot thinking about yesterday’s post, and it hit me. “Damn Brett,” I thought, “you might have jumped the gun.” No, I didn’t start to wipe before the last fallen comrade was shot out to sea (isn’t that what they do in the navy, or StarTrek?). I made an assumption about Philip Roth’s novel, The Ghost Writer, based purely on the book’s title.
I guessed that the elder novelist in Roth’s book will get called out for plagiarizing his work. I deduced this solely from the title. Sitting there on my ivory thrown, I speculated how a prediction based solely on the title has a strong probability of turning out wrong.
A title can have everything, or nothing, to do with the book’s happenings. Take, for instance, Sophie’s Choice. This complex and dark National Book Award Winner has a plot so packed with interaction and story, one could hardly imagine being able to summarize the plot with two ‘choice’ words. But the title does just that. People who haven’t read the book (or seen the movie) are still able to pinpoint the pinnacle of the story. This is in part due to the iconic nature of the novel and film, but also because of the book’s title. Sophie has to make a choice. In fact, she has to make perhaps the ultimate choice: deciding which one of her kids lives. The tile has helped us remember the crux of the story, and vis-versa. The simple title goes even beyond her hard choice; it tells about the depressing, realistic, overpowering nature of the book as a whole. If Sophie’s Choice was named Krakow 1944, would the book be so memorable?
Then you have a book like Revolutionary Road. The book focuses on the dysfunctional Wheeler family, who unsuccessfully make their way through the anxious decade that was the 1950’s. Totally a ‘rip your heart out and feed it to the dogs after you watch me have sex with somebody else’ kind of story. But the title Revolutionary Road does little to hint at the heartbreak that lies within. In fact, Revolutionary Road is just the street that Frank and April Wheeler live on. Barely used, hardly mentioned. Thus, the title has a more ambiguous, metaphorical meaning. I, the reader, concluded that Richard Yates named the book Revolutionary Road because it represented the antithesis of what Frank and April where capable of. As much as they liked to envision themselves as revolutionaries, tossing away the shackles of the work-a-day world, they were nothing more than conformists. But if I was a betting man, I would have been wrong. In an interview with the author, Yates claimed he named the book Revolutionary Road because the Wheelers represented the end of revolution in America. 1950’s America, with its highballs and cul-de-sacs, meant the death of America’s progression to Yates. The title has little to do with the Wheelers or even the book, but this certainly doesn’t make the title any less meaningful.
Then you have titles that have nothing to do with a book on a literal level, and their metaphorical meaning is so convoluted, one wonders if the title has anything to do with the book at all. Take Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 and Gravity’s Rainbow. These titles are mentioned within each novel and ostensibly have something to do with the book; nothing more than a very simple plot advancement or character characteristic. As the book progresses and the title becomes less and less meaningful, you begin to wonder if the title really has anything substantial to do with the book at all. It feels like Thomas is pulling a fast one over you, trying to get you to read more into the title than you should. Then even later, as you start to grasp the ingenuity in Pynchon’s novels, you wonder if he hasn’t named the book to trick the reader on purpose. Getting them to read meaning in things devoid of meaning. This trick lends itself to his obscure and satirical writing and conversely has everything to do with the book. If Pynchon’s book cleverly manipulates the reader, doesn’t it only make sense that the title would too?
There may be a few book titles out there that have absolutely nothing to do with the book, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. The important fact that I forgot though is this: one isn’t able to predict plot advancements based on the title alone. For all I know, a ghost could come into Roth’s story at any moment, turning the title into a truthful, literal prediction of the plot. Or, the novel will never mention a “ghost writer”, and I will be left to hypothesis about the title’s meaning. I jumped the gun in guessing conclusions from Roth’s book yesterday, and for that, I am sorry.
See all the thinking I get done on the pot? I was so totally engrossed in my thoughts that I forgot to wipe and had to throw out a perfectly fine pair of underwear.
Just kidding.
I guessed that the elder novelist in Roth’s book will get called out for plagiarizing his work. I deduced this solely from the title. Sitting there on my ivory thrown, I speculated how a prediction based solely on the title has a strong probability of turning out wrong.
A title can have everything, or nothing, to do with the book’s happenings. Take, for instance, Sophie’s Choice. This complex and dark National Book Award Winner has a plot so packed with interaction and story, one could hardly imagine being able to summarize the plot with two ‘choice’ words. But the title does just that. People who haven’t read the book (or seen the movie) are still able to pinpoint the pinnacle of the story. This is in part due to the iconic nature of the novel and film, but also because of the book’s title. Sophie has to make a choice. In fact, she has to make perhaps the ultimate choice: deciding which one of her kids lives. The tile has helped us remember the crux of the story, and vis-versa. The simple title goes even beyond her hard choice; it tells about the depressing, realistic, overpowering nature of the book as a whole. If Sophie’s Choice was named Krakow 1944, would the book be so memorable?
Then you have a book like Revolutionary Road. The book focuses on the dysfunctional Wheeler family, who unsuccessfully make their way through the anxious decade that was the 1950’s. Totally a ‘rip your heart out and feed it to the dogs after you watch me have sex with somebody else’ kind of story. But the title Revolutionary Road does little to hint at the heartbreak that lies within. In fact, Revolutionary Road is just the street that Frank and April Wheeler live on. Barely used, hardly mentioned. Thus, the title has a more ambiguous, metaphorical meaning. I, the reader, concluded that Richard Yates named the book Revolutionary Road because it represented the antithesis of what Frank and April where capable of. As much as they liked to envision themselves as revolutionaries, tossing away the shackles of the work-a-day world, they were nothing more than conformists. But if I was a betting man, I would have been wrong. In an interview with the author, Yates claimed he named the book Revolutionary Road because the Wheelers represented the end of revolution in America. 1950’s America, with its highballs and cul-de-sacs, meant the death of America’s progression to Yates. The title has little to do with the Wheelers or even the book, but this certainly doesn’t make the title any less meaningful.
Then you have titles that have nothing to do with a book on a literal level, and their metaphorical meaning is so convoluted, one wonders if the title has anything to do with the book at all. Take Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 and Gravity’s Rainbow. These titles are mentioned within each novel and ostensibly have something to do with the book; nothing more than a very simple plot advancement or character characteristic. As the book progresses and the title becomes less and less meaningful, you begin to wonder if the title really has anything substantial to do with the book at all. It feels like Thomas is pulling a fast one over you, trying to get you to read more into the title than you should. Then even later, as you start to grasp the ingenuity in Pynchon’s novels, you wonder if he hasn’t named the book to trick the reader on purpose. Getting them to read meaning in things devoid of meaning. This trick lends itself to his obscure and satirical writing and conversely has everything to do with the book. If Pynchon’s book cleverly manipulates the reader, doesn’t it only make sense that the title would too?
There may be a few book titles out there that have absolutely nothing to do with the book, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. The important fact that I forgot though is this: one isn’t able to predict plot advancements based on the title alone. For all I know, a ghost could come into Roth’s story at any moment, turning the title into a truthful, literal prediction of the plot. Or, the novel will never mention a “ghost writer”, and I will be left to hypothesis about the title’s meaning. I jumped the gun in guessing conclusions from Roth’s book yesterday, and for that, I am sorry.
See all the thinking I get done on the pot? I was so totally engrossed in my thoughts that I forgot to wipe and had to throw out a perfectly fine pair of underwear.
Just kidding.
1 comment:
Could you add an "Other" option to your poll? I vote "Other".
Post a Comment