Titles of articles (and books too, but that's a different topic) have an outsized importance in a writer's life.
They (1) stimulate reader interest or not and (2) create an expectation of the contents. A good title provokes interest and conveys the argument; a bad one bores and misleads about the topic. An excellent title remains understandable and interesting years after publication. An ideal one also attracts search-engine hits.
Problem is, while authors theoretically enjoy full control of the content of their articles (even if that's not always entirely the case in practice), titles belong to editors. Proofs are returned to authors minus titles. The author typically discovers the title on reading the published article, right along with the public.
This can lead to authorial anguish. "No one will read it" and "That's not what I meant" are common and legitimate responses. A misguided title can make trouble for an author, as happened almost simultaneously in late 1990 to both Bernard Lewis and me.
For an example how a title can evolve to mean roughly the opposite of what the author intends, note my recent experience. I titled an article "A Conservative in the Age of Trump," hoping with this concisely to convey my unease at Trump's presidency and also to provoke interest in what I had to say. I submitted the article with this title and then used it on my website.
The Philadelphia Inquirer used this title in its print edition, to my delight.
The Inquirer's website went with the wordier and more obscure "A conservative on the eve of Trump's presidency."
Other publications reprinting this article used titles that bleached out my unease, such as "Trump's good qualities can carry the day" in WorldNews. At least "can" implied my equivocation.
But the Boston Herald's "Optimism prevails as Trump steps in right direction" portrayed me as an enthusiast for Trump, which obviously I am not.
Comments:
(1) Knowing how titles are chosen, the savvy reader should blame them on editors, not the author.
(2) I routinely re-title my articles when I post them at DanielPipes.org, so I am responsible for what appears there.
(3) For self-evident reasons, I am not sending this analysis out to an editor but am posting it only on my website.
(4) Writers and editors resemble lions and hyenas; they are permanent, deadly enemies. For some quotes to establish this mutual hostility, click here.
Feb. 3, 2017 update: Talk about title problems!
A gremlin infected the Washington Times newsroom, giving me an incomprehensible title complete with inaccuracy ("Muslim ban") and typo ("cast" should be "case").
The editors fixed the damage.
That's the paper version title.
Finally, they changed it to what I had requested.
Aug. 16, 2019 update: I wrote an article for the Washington Post blaming Donald Trump for creating a crisis over the proposed trip to Israel of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). In brief, I criticized him for demanding that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not let them in, quite contrary to Netanyahu's wishes. My own title avoided blame but made a general point: "Israel's Critics Should Visit Israel."
The Post's title contradicted my argument: "How Benjamin Netanyahu could have avoided showing a 'great weakness' in the Omar-Tlaib affair."
I yelled and pleaded, and the editors changed the title to the entirely acceptable "How Trump put Netanyahu in an untenable position."
Interestingly, the URL still retains the original title: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/16/how-benjamin-netanyahu-could-have-avoided-showing-great-weakness-omar-tlaib-affair/.
June 2, 2020 update: I titled my article on non-social media businesses excluding conservatives "De-platforming in Daily Life." Gremlins at the Washington Times turned this into "Liberals now get a taste of how conservatives have it with Trump probe of social media bias," which somehow managed all at once to be embarassingly irrelevant, inelegant, and inaccurate.
After I complained, it was changed to the improved "Important institutions are quietly forcing conservatives out."
Oct. 17, 2023 update: The Wall Street Journal's headline for my article read "Many Gazans Want Israeli Occupation."
But my first paragraph stated that "It's possible for a decent Gaza-led administration to emerge, which could make autonomy and even statehood possible" - or quite the opposite of the headline. Happily, the editors took my suggestion and changed it to "A Decent Outcome Is Possible in Gaza."
Oct. 25, 2023 update: I sent an article to the Washington Times with the headline, "Poll: Has Israel Really Changed?" Instead, the editors pulled a sentence from my text, made changes to it, and came up with the entirely inscrutable "Has there been a ferocity shift among Jewish and Arab Israelis, or just a surge in emotions?"
