Looking at the effectiveness of titles.
National Geographic Magazine
Ker Than, November 10, 2012
GOLD?! Ok, I gotta read this! This title
is immediately eye catching as it pulls readers in by the allure of treasure.
It appears that National Geographic feels the need to continuously perpetuate
the stereotype of archaeology as a treasure hunt, taking away from the
legitimacy of this scientific profession. Use of the words “gold and treasure,”
immediately pull readers in as many are fascinated with treasure and this title
appears to satisfy readers’ inherent need to treasure hunt. The title is written in plane black lettering, juxtaposed against a white background, making the words stand out. Additionally,
without reading the article, this title appears a bit vague as it could imply
to some readers that the article will discuss the multitude of treasure that
was found. Yet, upon reading the article, only a few gold pieces were
discussed. Therefore, while this is clearly a biased title and perhaps
misleading, it effectively pulls readers in.
Smithsonian Magazine
Jim Morrison, January
18, 2012
SECRETS, battles, adventure...oh my! This title
was initially interesting as it caught my attention without emphasizing any
archaeological stereotype like National Geographic did. Use of the word “secrets,”
was powerful and will likely pull readers in by the intrigue of mystery.
However, this title makes no assertions or assumptions, simply states what the
article will discuss in an interesting, non-biased way. Additionally, many
readers may not know what the “Battle of the Atlantic” means, adding to the
mystery of this article, making it likely that many will read it. This title is
therefore effective and very well crafted.
The Boston Globe
WHO done it?! This
article is captivating as it plays on the “excitement” of archaeology. Many who
read this title will most likely immediately imagine Indian Jones running
through Sierra Nevada retrieving the stolen artifacts. Ancient artifacts,
thievery and mystery are all perpetuated stereotypes of archaeology. There is
also a certain level of drama that this title creates, pulling readers in.
However, I have to give the author credit because this is certainly an
eye-catching title. It is hard to find the balance between objectivity and
intrigue in crafting a title. Additionally, the lettering is thicker than that of National Geographic, which made this title stand out.
The New York Times
HOW, what disease, I gotta read more! After reading the article, I found this title to be completely appropriate. A lung infection was diagnosed in a 500-year-old mummy using DNA analysis. This title therefore appears unbiased and also does not emphasize any archaeological stereotypes or use drama to pull readers in. The intrigue of this title is simply the surprise factor – who would have guessed we could diagnose a 500-year-old person?
No comments:
Post a Comment