Case in point, my particular friend, Penny, has been gently arguing that my choice of title for "The Wanted Way Of Things" is off course. She is my first reader (and sometimes only!) in much that I produce and I value her input, for good reason. But in this case I've resisted her with "That's what I want it to mean!".
Now that you show the contextual source of the title, I see that the quote you remember contains the phrase "the wonted way of things."
I urge you strongly to change the actual title of the story to The Wonted Way of Things. Or, if what you want is to leave your title as is, because you are playing against the other (Jack London) meaning, then I urge you to include the quote as a headnote to your story. [I should say that I don't get this sense of 'playing against' from your story, but that's your call.]
The differences in denotation between wanted and wonted are very large, enough that it will make a huge difference -- it's not just a spelling variation. (like flog and flag).
Of course, she's right. I've added the quote to the story, but I'm holding out on the title. My point in the story, which perhaps I have not achieved, is to build a strange fear that things might actually want something. Or more to the point, that things have an accustomed way - that of entropy - and by giving them a voice it may turn to actual want. But in not providing the quote, I don't allow that dissonance to fully emerge.
In my defence, I don't think that most people are familiar with "wont". The story must work on its own, regardless of the title. But a good title is more than just a hand way to remember which story we're talking about. A title can provide a frame, a context all its own. I hope that with the added quote and context I'll get a little closer to a successful and satisfying tale.
I've learned to listen to the wise old owl. You'd be wise to listen as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment