Books that declare themselves as novels within the title

[Dark Muse]

Does it come off as a bit pretentious when a book states that fact that it is a novel as part of the title?

I am sure everyone has come across this at least once (and probably more) in which a book will state that it is a novel within the title. I know many of the books I have come across and read are guilty of doing as such, for example I am reading a book right now called The Gargoyle: A Novel

Is it really necessary for a novel to declare itself to be such within the title of the work? I do not know why but I find at times that it can grow to be slightly annoying when books do this, as it is sort of an oxymoron. The fact that the book is a novel, is kind of a given and goes without saying.

The other thing which annoys me about this, while perhaps not always the case it seems often to me that kind of works that do this are contemporary books that are trying to appear to be more "classical" or prestigious.

Does it really serve any useful purpose at all for a book to be declared a novel within its title? Is there any legitimate me fear that the book might actually be mistaken for being something other than a work of fiction?

[billl]

Great question. I've always imagined there was some useful reason why an older book might've benefitted from such "clarification," but maybe not, I've never heard an explanation for it. In any case, I think it is pretty much pretentious for any book to have a title like that these days (and probably for at least the last hundred years or so).

I just searched ", a novel" on Google, and saw the title Memoirs of a Geisha: A Novel. I think that one might be justifiable, just to make clear it is a work of fiction. But I don't think Lord of the Flies needed it, nor Ian McEwan's Saturday...

[balehead]

Just putting it out there that, currently, i'm reading a book called "The Secret Agent, A Simple Tale" ... So, if putting 'a novel' in the tittle is somewhat pretentious, what does 'a simple tale' mean? That the author is deliberately under-stating their work?

[Dark Muse]

That is an interesting point of view, for some reason it does not bother me as much when works refer to themselves as being "a tale" I suppose because that is slightly different then stating that it is "a novel"

The word tale in a title I think adds a certain character to the story. While the use of a novel just seems to be redundant, except for in cases where perhaps it may be used a genuine clarification, as the example of Memoirs of a Geisha as well, I have a book called The Autobiography of Henry IV: A Novel.

There it does make a bit more sense to state such just to be clear it will be fictitious, but there are some books in which I do not think it is really needed to state as such.

[mayneverhave]

Obviously, taken to excessive levels it can be ridiculous, but I usually only see it in cases where a distinction between the novel and the standard prose work, or poetry, is more important and subtle.

The two examples that come to mind are Eugene Onegin, which is a "novel in verse", and Anna Karenina, which is a "novel in 8 parts", because apparently War and Peace was not a novel. The Russians have a more nuanced concept of what makes a novel, as Dead Souls is a poem and Eugene Onegin a novel.

[kelby_lake]

They often use it when they do a novelisation of a film.

[Annamariah]

At least here, in the time before cover art and summaries on back covers, it was customary to print the word "romaani" (a novel) under the title on the first page. It wasn't exactly a part of the title, but it was written there so that the reader could know what to expect. Nowadays it's never done anymore, as there's no need for that.

I can come up with one book that has the word "novel" in the title, though. Jane Eyre was translated into Finnish as "Kotiopettajattaren romaani", "The Novel of a Governess", and the name has never been changed.

[Scheherazade]

I have always thought it is an indicator that the book is a work of fiction so that the reader does not assume that it is a "true" story... Memoirs or first person narratives can give the idea that the story is based on true events.

[Annamariah]

I have always thought it is an indicator that the book is a work of fiction so that the reader does not assume that it is a "true" story... Memoirs or first person narratives can give the idea that the story is based on true events.

I think that's exactly the case with Jane Eyre, too, which might explain the Finnish title

[higley]

In some cases it's practical, yeah, but I agree with you that in others it's simply become a silly habit. For some reason it's never bothered me when a title has "....: A Story". But some authors/their editors might consider "a novel" to make the book sound more prestigious. It's a good question.

An especially funny one: "The Story of Edgar Sawtelle: A Novel."

[Dark Muse]

I have always thought it is an indicator that the book is a work of fiction so that the reader does not assume that it is a "true" story... Memoirs or first person narratives can give the idea that the story is based on true events.

Yes, I suppose that does make sense, though it seems books often say what genre they are on the spine of the book. A lot of the books I have will say, fic., Non-Fic., Mystery...etc.. but than people might not be inclined to pay attention to that.

[stlukesguild]

I really don't see the problem. Poets frequently title a given poem after the form used: sonnet, ballad, epithalamion, etc... Composers do the same: Nocturne no. 1, Piano Sonata no. 14, Prelude and Fugue in d-minor. This conceit strikes me as no more forced or artificial than the exact opposite... in which the novelist denies that what he or she presents is a fictional form but rather suggests that it is the truth or that it is a narrative that he or she found somewhere or had told to him/her (ala Borges, Swift, Eco, etc...)

[billl]

I really don't see the problem. Poets frequently title a given poem after the form used: sonnet, ballad, epithalamion, etc... Composers do the same: Nocturne no. 1, Piano Sonata no. 14, Prelude and Fugue in d-minor. This conceit strikes me as no more forced or artificial than the exact opposite... in which the novelist denies that what he or she presents is a fictional form but rather suggests that it is the truth or that it is a narrative that he or she found somewhere or had told to him/her (ala Borges, Swift, Eco, etc...)

I see your point. But it isn't as frequent with novels these days. It sort of sticks out like a sore thumb (for me anyhow) and in most cases causes me to think, perhaps for just a split-second, "duh..."

[Dark Muse]

I really don't see the problem. Poets frequently title a given poem after the form used: sonnet, ballad, epithalamion, etc... Composers do the same: Nocturne no. 1, Piano Sonata no. 14, Prelude and Fugue in d-minor

For me the poetry and music is a little different when they do it, as they use it in place of a title. Particuarly with music and poetry in which the author will likely make several pieces, it is more time saving to simply call them Sonet No. 26 etc.. than to think of an original title for each individual piece.

But the novels already have a given title with the "a novel" just tagged on at the end.

[kelby_lake]

They normally write 'A Novel' to dissuade us from thinking that it's a load of rubbish.