In this blog post, I will be discussing the title of the short story Roman Fever by Edith Wharton, and its many problems. Ultimately, I will prove how my title, "What Happens In Rome Stays In Rome" is vastly superior. First of all, "Roman Fever" is kind of a flat title to an otherwise interesting and complex story. It sounds like it'll be a sad story about somebody getting sick and dying of a fever romanly (which it kind of is but whatever). Roman Fever is not the only thing happening in the story, and it is in no way central to the plot (?). Also, when I first read the title "Roman Fever" I thought the story was going to be about people rushing to get to Rome for something important (tourism hooray!), but no it's a sickness. Therefore, I think that "What Happens In Rome Stays In Rome" is a much more interesting and fitting title for Roman Fever.
My new title begs lots of questions to get the reader interested in the story. What happened in Rome? Why is it staying there? What will happen if it gets out of Rome? These are answered in the story, connecting the title to the plot. "Roman Fever" is a misleading title (as I said before). It connects to one meager plot point that is kind of important (but not really). Also you don't feel good when you're sick so why would you want to read a story about being sick?? That's just asking for an unpleasant experience (stories about sickness are actually very interesting I'm just running out of good arguments). Sure, "Roman Fever" hooks the reader to read the story, but they're disappointed with the lack of Rome tourism. "What Happens In Rome Stays In Rome" hooks the reader, then follows through with the actual plot points in the story (something happened in Rome and it stayed there until it didn't and that was a problem).
Also, "What Happens In Rome Stays In Rome" is a cool reference to a famous saying (Vegas or something). "Roman Fever"? I don't even know her! I didn't know countries could have their own sicknesses (though there is the Spanish Flu??). Anyways, my title will be more well received by the public since it's a well known reference to a phrase, therefore bringing in more readers to read about the story and making a ton of money ($$$).
In conclusion, the new and improved title for Roman Fever should be "What Happens In Rome Stays In Rome", because it's more interesting, relevant, and cool. Next time I come across Roman Fever I will call it solely by this title and be better. Thank you for reading.
You sound very confident about your title! I think basically anything is a better title than Roman Fever, which is not only an outdated title but it's like calling a story about an attempted assasination with a sword in new york 'Sword of New York'. This title lends itself much better to a story about clandestine secrets held between two women exploring the battle they fought with eachother all those years ago, also in rome. Great title!
ReplyDeleteHi Evie, first thing I noticed about this blog was the way your sense of humor cut through, made me smile lol. Secondly, I definitely agree that "What Happens In Rome Stays In Rome" is a better title than "Roman Fever", as it gives it a more mysterious appeal and hooks the reader in, especially since the first part of the actual story is a bit . . . dry. Having the story have this title may convince the reader to read on to discover the twist of the story.
ReplyDeleteI love the title "What Happens in Rome Stays in Rome." Extremely clever! It definitely gives the reader a better clue of what to expect from the story before they dive into it than "Roman Fever," which I think is less involved and less eye catching. The comparison between Rome and Vegas is especially humorous to me, and I think to someone who hasn't read the story, your title will have them wondering what the implications are and be more likely to pick it up.
ReplyDelete