Should I rename my book?

I've just about, but not quite, decided to rename my book from "Rolling Rocks Downhill" to "Fields of Gold".  I'm mostly inspired by the following lyrics from the Sting song

I never made promises lightly
And there have been some that I’ve broken
But I swear in the days still left
Well walk in the fields of gold
Sting, “Fields of Gold”

I've written about this before, but it's worth repeating: I originally thought this book was about building software but I've come to realise over the last couple of years that, more than anything, it's about building trust by making promises that matter,then keeping them.

It's also about turning IT from a cost centre into a money making machine - hence the Gold bit doesn't just refer to barley, but to actual real gold.  IT is an undiscovered goldmine.

I've even registered www.FieldsOfGold.cc - but don't click because there's nothing there yet.  The CC bit, of course, stands for Clarke Ching.

Any thoughts? I'd really like to know what you think.

Comments

[Reinhard Haberfellner]

Again Clarke you are absolutely at the point and right. Fields of Gold is in marketing terms much more teasing than the other suggestion.
Working now for a couple of years in the software quality environment I am still astonished every day how much "gold" is wasted in software development due to shortsighted decisions. As of today there is a conference in Germany where SQS shows a proof that static code review saves more than 30% of maintenance cost, but still we have to fight every day for implementing such a process costing a couple of 1000 Euros only.
Basically this is much more a question of basic engineering behaviour ( like avoiding defects instead of testing it out) and software development is still a very young discipline in its puberty rather than in a mature way of deciding. So gold rush is still a valid phenomena.

Your stomache tells you already to change the title, dont hesitate and go for it

Reinhard Haberfellner

[Ralph Miner]

I like the classical reference to Sisyphus which captures the frustration of software developers who are caught up with a broken process. Imagine software development that is not as frustrating as always pushing a boulder up a mountain only to discover that when you finally deliver the software nearly killing yourself in a death march that it isn't what the company needs. If you manage to keep your job the reward is the next boulder that needs to be pushed up the mountain. Since death march projects go beyond their deadlines it can feel like you will never get that boulder on top of the mountain. Wouldn't it be great if it was as simple as rolling rocks down hill? Fields of Gold is also good - but only captures the reward - not the initial frustration.

[Jim Bullock]

I think your realization is a sign that you have some good stuff there. The best books are about exactly what the title says, but not in the way you think they are. They change your POV.

Building software is about promises & trust. Duh. Obvious when you realize that we're always talking about changing what someone else does all day, and that most of the "material" is ephemeral or worse. We even know this tool. It is one way we try to deal with the boggling complexity of the software we build - hide the complexity over there behind abstract, trusted commitments. Design by contract, anyone?

So, I suspect your observation means a job well done. Not that I had any doubts.

[Steve Holt]

A few years back I talked to an author about publishers. He/She said that the most important thing about book titles is where they show up in Google and Amazon's search engines. A simple Amazon search on "Rolling Rocks" shows books on the Rolling Stones at the top, but no book by that name. A search on "Fields of Gold" shows up a number of other books by that name, mostly novels and books about the Gold Rush in Alaska.

That would seem to imply that Rolling Rocks is better, but neither of them gives you a gut feel of what the book is about. That may mean that you need a subtitle to really explain it.

David Anderson's book does that ("Agile Management: Applying the Theory of Constraints for Business Results") But if we only consider business novels, consider these examples, with their subtitles:
"The Deadline: A novel about project management" Tom DeMarco
"Product Development for the Lean Enterprise: Why Toyota's System is Four Times More Productive and How You Can Implement It" Michael Kennedy
"The Gold Mine: A novel of lean turnaround" Freddy & Michael Balle
"The Goal: A process of on-going improvement" Goldratt
"We All Fall Down: Goldratt's Theory of Constraints for Healthcare Systems" Julie Wright & Russ King
"Who's Counting? : A Lean Accounting Business Novel" Jerry Solomon

So, given that, what's more important, the title or the subtitle?

[matt m]

I think "rolling rocks downhill" is better, perhaps because it's action versus a noun phrase that might make one think it's the reflections of wheat farmer. Rolling rocks down hills does remind me of the myth of Sisyphus, but he wasn't so happy about those rocks going down. Of course, in the US, Rolling Rock is a beer, so it could call to mind a mythical ski team they sponsor. Maybe it could be "Rolling Gold Downhill"? "The Golden Promise"? "Gold for the Price of Trust"? I do like having gold in the title vs. rocks, I suppose. Haven't read the latest chapters you posted, but I did quite enjoy the beginning of the book and am looking forward to its completion!

[Frank Spychalski]

I like the song and I like the booktitle... +1 for "Fields of Gold"

[Chris Rimmer]

Nope. Rolling Rocks is much better. Fields of Gold sounds like a bad Hollywood movie. I'm not that keen on the song either...