Subtitles for Subpar Books

In contemporary publishing, the most reliable way to tell that an editor doubts the appeal of a new book is by its subtitle -- or subtitles. Books with a strong identity use no subtitle. Rudi Giuliani's Leadership wouldn't deign to explain itself. It's a book by a leader about leadership. Some subtitles are just fine, and help us understand quickly what a book is about, like The Perfect Storm: a True Story of Men Against the Sea. But that was an excellent book, so the editor probably wasn't pulling his hair out over its sales potential.

But how about the 2006 book on forensic investigation, Every Contact Leaves a Trace. Not the most compelling title to begin with; so they explained it at length with the subtitle: Crime Scene Experts Talk about Their Work from Discovery through Verdict. With a subtitle like that, the book hardly needs an introduction. But I guess the editor wanted to make sure to cash in on the public's fascination with crime scene investigation: and by helpfully pointing out that the book covered the process 'through Verdict,' people could comfortably assume it was close to the experience they were used to from watching Law and Order. Or how about the 2005 book Justice on the Grass: Three Rwandan Journalists, Their Trial for War Crimes, and a Nation's Quest for Redemption? Enough information? Does it make you want to read it? I can almost see an editor poring over the finished manuscript and thinking why on Earth did I hire this writer to write about this? How will I ever sell this?

I am thinking about this because I just finished reading a book whose title so epitomizes this trend that it's laughable. The title is The Sun Farmer: the Story of a Shocking Accident, a Medical Miracle, and a Family's Life and Death Decision. Do you want to read about a shocking accident? No? How about a medical miracle? Still no? Surely you'd like to read about a family's life and death decision. The fact is the book is not very good, and the publisher surely knows it, so there is this transparent attempt to interest readers by hook or crook. The problem is that the story, though compelling, can be told -- and was told, by the same author -- in the space of a newspaper article. But somebody decided to stretch it to book length, and it didn't work well.

Among the mysteries about how the book came to be the particular product it is, I'd like to know why they ordered the elements of the subtitle the way they did. Because the family had to make its 'life and death decision' before the 'medical miracle' could take place, but in the subtitle, this logical order is reversed. Is a medical miracle more compelling than a family's angst? Or did somebody think that putting the family last would emphasize this element? However they arrange it, any reader with the attentiveness and persistence to get through the book will surely realize that a good 25% to 30% of its length is pure padding.

So keep an eye out for long and silly subtitles, the most reliable warning that the product within needs some explaining. Have you ever encountered an exceptionally bad subtitle?