“Fast Food Nation” was revealing. “Kitchen Confidential” was juicy. But wow, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” is something else. The best book on food I’ve ever read.
In the book, Pollan shoots a pig, hunts for mushrooms, slaughters a chicken, works as a farmhand, examines industrial and local farms in person, explains how we’ve come to be dominated by corn, shows how grass is the key to life on a farm, explores the connection between oil and food, and much more (PDF of the introduction and first chapter).
But as I was reading it, something kept gnawing at me: how terrible the title of the book is. “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.” Yawn.
“The Omnivore’s Dilemma” part sounds like a math problem. Plus, omnivore is a word that most people won’t even get. And “A Natural History of Four Meals” isn’t any better. Sounds like a biology textbook.
The book is thrilling to read, intensely scary, and a real call to arms. So why is the title so lame? (Sure, it sold well, but that’s because the content is so strong. I’d argue those sales came despite the title, not because of it.)
Moving to simple and strong
Perhaps Pollan felt similarly, because the title of his latest book packs a lot more of a punch: “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.” Simple and strong.
He even comes up with a short, tight call to action: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” No way to miss the point there. He explains it in this article.
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy.
Great to see a title and call to action that are as clear and cogent as the rest of what Pollan writes.
There’s a lesson here for all writers: Spend as much time on your titles, subtitles, headlines, summaries, and calls to action as you do on the bulk of your content. If you don’t hook readers upfront, they may never dive in and get to the rest of your message.
Rick Mason
on 23 Jul 08Funny, I just started reading this last night. I actually quite like the title, but then I haven’t read the whole book yet so I can’t be sure that’s it’s appropriate.
Marcel Molina
on 23 Jul 08But then you suggest that the “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” has sold so well because of how good the content is. I don’t disagree with your point that titles, subtitles and headlines and etc are important but the example you’re giving demonstrates that nailing content is sufficient.
Btw, I think the cover of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” is great. I judge books by their cover and it often works. It’s cool that we live in a time where Chip Kidd (a book cover designer) is famous.
Evan
on 23 Jul 08This is pretty much unrelated, but as long as we’re touching on book titles…anyone else completely sick of Every Book: Having a Title Like This?
Vague Useless Contrivance: Then Something Kind of More Specific
Dave Tufts
on 23 Jul 08Great book, and I agree about the title.
Joel Salatin, the family-farmer featured in one of the chapters, is a pretty good writer in his own right. In terms of titles, Salatin’s, Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, is both a great read and a great title.
ML
on 23 Jul 08Hey Marcel. Just because something has sold well doesn’t mean everything about it is as good as can be. In this case, a better title could’ve resulted in even greater sales/impact. Of course, that’s all just conjecture at this point.
Damon Roth
on 23 Jul 08If someone isn’t going to get the word “omnivore”, this is definitely not the book for them in the first place.
What better title could there be for a book exploring the inherent complexity in answering the question “What’s for dinner?” It’s a problem that is unique to omnivore’s, as discussed at length in the book.
A problem for omnivores ... now, how could one possibly convey that concisely in a book's title?GAry
on 23 Jul 08While i’m a fan of your over all ‘simplicity’ message – let’s don’t take it to the extreme and expect people like Pollan dumb things down to the lowest common element. You think that most people “won’t get” the word omnivore??
Perhaps – but let’s expect a little more of people….
jenn.suz.hoy
on 23 Jul 08I see your point about the title not having a strong grab to it, but I don’t think the “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” part has anything to do with it. I was actually intrigued by that part. If anything the “A Natural History of Four Meals” would be the part to turn me off.
I honestly don’t think it will be an issue of people not getting what an omnivore is. That’s been a word in my vocabulary since grade school science class.
jamie
on 23 Jul 08I’m assuming there’s at least a vague reference to the prisoners dilemma in the title… And I sort of like the innate geekiness of the title.
Pollan’s a great writer, I also quite enjoyed his non-food-related “A Place of My Own”. And Joel Salatin’s farming is absolutely amazing; haven’t read any of his books, but saw him do a really sweet presentation a few months back.
Josh
on 23 Jul 08jamie – I agree; the title also reminded me of the Prisoner’s dilemma. And if it is a reference to the Prisoner’s dilemma, I really like the title.
JF
on 23 Jul 08“A Place of My Own” is a wonderful book. Highly recommended.
Grant
on 23 Jul 08I totally agree. And amazingly fair ideologically. He’s hesitant to say what we should be doing and better at simply showing where the food industry is at and how we got there. Really great read.
ML
on 23 Jul 08Maybe I overstated that most people don’t know what omnivore means. But still, it’s not used a lot. I mean, have you ever heard someone self-identify themselves as an omnivore?
And the title has nothing to do with the prisoner’s dilemma actually. The Omnivore’s Paradox (aka Dilemma) is where the title comes from. Kinda. Even the LA Times review of the book expresses some confusion:
Mark Sigal
on 23 Jul 08A tiny bit orthogonal to the post but ‘In Defense of Food,’ also by Pollan is a great book, and I think a very good title.
Basic premises of the book are that food processing has lead to a re-definition of what common food staples are (e.g., margarine is continually re-defined based on what is ‘healthy’ trend); that advent of soy and corn and primary food processing materials has lead to a lowering of nutritional value of our foods such that we eat more to get the same nutritional value (hence, more obesity);
Plus, on memorability scale, you can live by simple credos like, ‘Eat food not too much, mostly plants’ and ‘If your grandmother wouldn’t recognize the food item based on reading the ingredients, don’t eat the food item.’
Solid, readable book.
Cheers,
Mark
Matt
on 23 Jul 08‘Omnivore’ may not be used much, but it gets to the heart of the dilemma—how do humans strike a balance between being carnivore and herbivore. That is the crux of Pollan’s quest. I disagree that the title is bad; in three words, Pollan has summed up the questions he’ll be raising. It may not be ‘simple and strong’, but it is ‘short and tight’.
Then again, there are good reasons for it not to be simple and strong: the book is meant to be nuanced as it grapples with a problem. That’s a lot different to a manifesto which spells out a solution.
And I think that people might not self-identify is in some ways actually relevant. Pollan is attempting to make people think about issues they might not often not think about. People generally take for granted their status as omnivores - it’s generally only vegetarians whose identity is associated with their consumption; everyone else is just ‘normal’ - just as they take for granted that meat will be shrink-wrapped in the deli case and exotic produce from Dakar will be available in Des Moines.
‘The Trouble with Eating’ is about the only alternative that comes to my mind - I would be curious for ML to have proposed what he considers appealing alternatives - but that almost sounds like a treatise on chronic indigestion.
That is a dilemma for another day.
Peter
on 23 Jul 08Stay tuned for the sequel “The Carnivore’s Axiom: Four Breakfast Case Studies.”
Ayse
on 23 Jul 08Actually, as with book covers, writers have little to no control over the titles of their books. The publisher usually chooses that, because the title is part of the marketing strategy. Of course, a writer can suggest a title, but the publisher will change it when and if it suits them.
So while I agree that the title really fails to capture the essence of the book, it’s not because of Pollan.
Megan
on 23 Jul 08If youlike food books you should read What to Eat by Marion Nestle (also a good title). IMO that should be required reading for all North Americans. Sounds like her message is similar to Pollan’s (she talks a lot about how the lobby groups and marketers influence what we eat and what the FDA recommends).
I agree that many people don’t know what omnivore means. It’s annoying when the topic comes up in conversation and people refer to themselves as carnivores. Um, I’m sure you do eat some plants!
Don Schenck
on 23 Jul 08Stinkin’ rabbits got my bean plants!
THAT, my friends, is the omnivore’s dilemma!
Oh yeah … excellent book, too!
brad
on 23 Jul 08Hey Don, rabbits taste a lot better than woodchucks, believe me. No dilemma there, just eat ‘em.
Luke
on 23 Jul 08Reminds me of the supposed original title for another excellent food book (it’s really more a science history book), Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. It’s rumored to have been originally titled “A Big Fat Lie: What If Fat Doesn’t Make You Fat…?” (or something like that), and is a play off of Taube’s original article in the NYTimes Magazine on the topic.
Jonathan
on 23 Jul 08great book, great title that hasn’t been dumbed down.
don’t know the word ‘Omnivore’? don’t worry, be happy; go to Mac Donald’s.
Kedar Mhaswade
on 24 Jul 08Interesting conversation. You suggest better title, but that is after you have read and admired the book. You seem to be speaking on behalf of some other readers who get attracted to content looking at the title. That’s rather strange :).
Maybe Pollan should have run this by NameThis.
Anonymous Coward
on 25 Jul 08My husband shared your blog with me as he knows how interested I am in Pollan’s work (it’s changed the way that we think and act in the world today). Here’s my response to him (he suggested that I respond directly to your blog…so here you go).
“I found the title intriguing – it caught my attention, begging to question… what is the dilemma anyway – and Pollan offered much insight to the challenges that the human race faces when choosing their breakfast, lunch and/or dinner. You’ve probably noticed a substantial change in our diet which was due in part to the information conveyed in “The Omnivores Dilemma”.
Thanks for sharing this link – as I don’t venture out on the web very often (or at all) and found this guys’ note of interest. People – hum”
Justy
on 25 Jul 08Goes to show just how internet savvy I am NOT – AKA Anonymous Coward 25 Jul 08 “my husband…”
Ryan
on 25 Jul 08Reminds me of Little Dieter Needs to Fly – an awesome Herzog film with a truly awful title.
Juan Maiz Lulkin
on 26 Jul 08Philosophically the book sux. Try Animal Liberation or Mad Cowboy (also they have better titles).
http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217088837&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Mad-Cowboy-Plain-Cattle-Rancher/dp/0684845164
This discussion is closed.