There was a trending hashtag today on Twitter for #NYTBooks. As someone who once wrote something that got published in the NYTimes, I found it especially hilarious.
My suggested title for my essay, "Winnie the Pooh and Baggage, Too," was clearly not right for that publication, but the title it was actually published under, "Fuzzy, Purple and Full of Thorns," didn't seem right for the essay (not that I'm complaining, considering I was ecstatic to have a piece in the newspaper at all. They could have called it "Not Worth Your Time to Read" and I still wouldn't have complained).
What's so interesting to me about the hashtag and its popularity is that, while the exercise poked fun at the obvious stylistic pattern of the headlines, it was at the same time a nod of appreciation. That the New York Times has a style so recognizable can only be a good thing. It calls to mind what they say about the media: there's no such thing as bad publicity. Writing style may be the same way.
I'm not suggesting some writing styles aren't subjectively (and even possibly objectively) better than others. I am, however, noticing that authors with a very distinct style tend to be more popular. Whether you want to praise a writing style or disparage it, you are still talking about it. It's an idea that these days, for better or for worse, seems to be even more crucial for writers to consider. I'm not necessarily alluding to a certain book with a neutral color in its title, but if I am, I'm still giving it extra attention, so its author must be doing something right.
