in titles of vs in the titles of

[Alexey86]

1) How many little bits of Shakespeare are preserved in the titles of mystery novels?
(The New York Times)

2) Etermax uses "Crack" in the titles of many of its American game titles, including Bingo Crack.
(TechCrunch)

3) Remarkably, a recent search in the Cornell library catalog for the phrase "founding fathers" in titles of books on American history published since 2001 identified 37 volumes.
(The New York Times - Books)

4) Google Alerts only show keywords that are in the main text of articles or stories, and sometimes only catches keywords when they are included in titles of stories.
(TechCrunch)


Why are there no articles in (3-4)? Every book or story has only one title, so:

A book title can be very long = The title of a book can be very long.
Book titles can be very long = The titles of books can be very long.

What am I missing?

 

[Tdol]

The first pair discuss specific titles rather than titles in general.

 

[Alexey86]

The first pair discuss specific titles rather than titles in general.

In what sense are titles of books on American history published since 2001 less specific than the titles of mystery novels?

The notion of specificity is quite tricky because there are non-specific definite and specific indefinite noun phrases in English. Consider the following:

a) Ships are independent states in a sense. The captain has practically presidential power (non-specific definite).
b) When I boarded the ship the captain greeted me (specific definite).

c) Jane dreams to marry a pilot (non-specific indefinite).
d) Jane is married to a pilot (specific indefinite).

 

[Tdol]

The second does have a single source - Etermax.

 

[Alexey86]

The second does have a single source - Etermax.

My question was about the first and the third sentences.

 

[Tdol]

I do think that the first is more restrictive than the third.

 

[Tarheel]

Jane dreams of marrying a pilot.

 

[Alexey86]

Jane dreams of marrying a pilot.

Shame on me.

I do think that the first is more restrictive than the third.

I'll provide you with broader contexts:

1) "So many of the people we quote — Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, T.S. Eliot, Jorge Luis Borges, Susan Sontag — were themselves obsessive collectors of quotations. Emerson, whose journals are filled with quotations, was alert to the ways a text could change by being taken out of its context: “It is curious what new interest an old sentence or poem acquires in quotation.” Robert Burton’s classic “The Anatomy of Melancholy” is essentially a compendium of quotes with commentary. Our modern encyclopedist Borges can create new meanings and dizzying perspectives merely by juxtaposing citations drawn from an unprecedented breadth of eras and regions. To enter the worlds of classical Chinese and Japanese and Arabic poetry is to enter realms of ricocheting quotation and counter-quotation. The old joke about the first-time reader of “Hamlet” calling it “nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together” isn’t so far-off. All literary culture in a way is nothing but such a string, down to its most random corners. How many little bits of Shakespeare are preserved in the titles of mystery novels?"

3) Historians refer to the trend as Founders’ Chic: the recent flurry of interest in biographies of the “great white men” of our nation’s founding generation. Although George Washington has consistently attracted Americans’ attention since Parson Weems’s biography appeared in 1800, during the last decade published examinations of Washington’s contemporaries have multiplied dramatically. Take John Adams. By my rough count, he alone or in conjunction with other men has been the subject of 19 biographical studies and five documentary collections since 2001. Two more books have examined his marriage to Abigail Smith; she herself has warranted two separate biographies. Remarkably, a recent search in the Cornell library catalog for the phrase “founding fathers” in titles of books on American history published since 2001 identified 37 volumes.

I really don't see in what way (1) is more restrictive. Mystery novels are quite a broad and vague set of literary works. They can hardly be counted.

 

[Tarheel]

That's fascinating reading. So interesting, in fact, that I totally forgot what the question was.
:-D

 

[Alexey86]

Could anyone explain to me in what way the titles of mystery novels is more restrictive than titles of books on American history published since 2001 and why that matters at all?

I thought we should always use the in such cases (the x of y where x is a unique property of y) because each book/literary work has only one title regardless of whether we speak of a restrictive or broad set of items. So, even such a general statement as Book titles can be very long is transformable into The titles of books can be very long, not into Titles of books can be very long just like its singular analog: A book title can be very long -> The title of a book can be very long. A title of a book wouldn't make sense to me.