The background to my question:
I have always assumed that authors choose their titles, because I consider them an important part of the book, but then I read interviews with some authors who had a fight with their publishers on this subject.
Is a book's title generally the publisher's decision or the author's?
After the author writes the book, he submits it to the publisher, who then suggests edits all over the book, which the publisher believes will improve the book. Thus, it's really the author's choice, but the publisher can be insistent. Such suggested edits can be done to the title, or just parts of the entire work itself. It's still the author's decision, but the publisher can decide not to publish the work, if the publisher believes that the work won't sell and be profitable. Thus, it's a kind of compromise that the author and the publisher have to work out.
I think they actually have less say over the matter than that.
Richard Dawkins has written quite a bit about the lack of choice authors have over their titles. Dawkin's publisher actually refused to let him title his most recent book "The Only Game in Town"; he had to settle for his second choice: "The Greatest Show on Earth".
He's also bemoaned the practice of publishers renaming books when they're republished overseas (either England to America or vice versa). Gould's Full House is one example of this (I don't recall what the UK title was).
The more clout you have as a writer-- the more popular your books are-- the more control you have with future books. They renamed my first book and wouldn't take no for an answer. On the other hand, I was able to veto all but three of the content changes (which were good changes, in my opinion). A title can kill a book, but it shouldn't be the reason you wrote the book.
