« bits and pieces | Main | medical conversations »
the thing about names
A really good writer should be able to cope with a character's bad name. Because there are such things. I quote Harry:
Harry: Obviously you haven't had great sex yet.I repeat: in spite of the fact that Harry really can't be denied his point, a good writer should be able to make a character called Sheldon, Harold, Kaspar, Lennie or any other name into whatever that character needs to be. Sheldon the Wonder Slong, Lennie the Best Dressed Manhattanite, George the Navy SEAL. All these things are possible, or should be.
Sally: Yes I have.
Harry: No you haven't.
Sally (raised voice): It just so happens that I have had plenty of good sex.
(The whole restaurant looks at Sally.)
Harry: With whom?
Sally: What?
Harry: With whom did you have this great sex?
Sally: I'm not going to tell you that!
Harry: Fine, don't tell me.
Sally: Shel Gordon.
Harry: Shel? Sheldon? No, no, you didn't have great sex with ... Sheldon.
Sally: I did too.
Harry: No you didn't. A Sheldon can do your income taxes. If you need a root canal Sheldon's your man, but humping and pumping is not Sheldon's strong suit. It's the name. Do it to me 'Sheldon', you're an animal 'Sheldon', ride. me. big. 'Sheldon'. Doesn't work.
And the same is true, of course, of female characters. Millie the vascular Surgeon, Trudy the Prince's one true love, Shania the professor of comparative literature.
It's tough to overcome the associations attached to names, but it can, it must be done. Because I'm running out of names I like. Here's a question. What would you think of Author X who writes say, a novel ever one or two years, not a series, you understand, but each novel independent of the other. And in every one of those novels, the main character's name is John. Different last names, but first name: John.
Would that strike you as (a) weird (b) lazy (c) off-putting (d) pretentious (e) all of the above (f) none of the above.
John is a good, strong name. I like it. If my daughter had been a girl, most likely her name would be John. Morever, whenever I come up with a different name for a main character, the character objects. For example:
X: My name is John, but if you really won't acknowledge that, I want to be called George.Me: But I thought we settled this. Your father the constitutional scholar named you James Madison Trevor and your brother Thomas Jefferson Trevor. I can't call you George. I just can't. Not in this day and age.
X: Don't like the name James. That's just not me. And anyway, what are you going to call me for short? Jim? I'll quit. Jamie? You can't do that, or the masses will start howling that you're copying la belle D.G. And while we're on the subject, Trevor doesn't work for me either. Unless it's preceded by John. John Trevor, good strong name for a good strong character.
Me: You're nothing like John Grant from my last novel. I'll get you confused.
X: If we're nothing alike, why would you confuse us? Your logic is sliding.
Me: Maybe I won't confuse you, but the readers might.
X: Tell the story right, and they won't care.
So I'm here to ask: would you care?
September 17, 2005 02:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/534
Comments
I think I would find it a bit weird for the first few pages of the book, but as long as the writing and storylines were different enough I would get over it!
Posted by: Marg at September 17, 2005 03:26 PM
I think readers would be a bit confused, perhaps. But maybe I'm just saying that because I am besotted with the idea of a constitutional scholar naming his children Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Posted by: Rachel at September 17, 2005 04:46 PM
You like that, Rachel? I may have to keep it if it struck a good tone with you.
Posted by: sara at September 17, 2005 04:55 PM
I would expect some good dialogue, or simmering history between the constitutional scholar and his wife over his taking his work into their marriage so definitely. Unless she's a scholar of that ilk too. They might even have weird associations, from their constitutional research, that changes how they relate to each son.
Which is better: same/similar named protagonists, wildly different storylines or wildly different names for protagonists, same/similar character outline and potentially (or therefore?) story outcomes.
Posted by: Pam at September 17, 2005 07:04 PM
You may read three different books, by three different authors, who all happened to have a main character by the same first name and not think anything of it. So why should it matter if all of the books were written by the same author?
Posted by: Beth at September 17, 2005 07:50 PM
Beth: John George James Madison (last name still being debatted) likes the way you think.
Pam: it is an interesting conflict, you're right. But it's mostly in the back story this time.
Posted by: sara at September 17, 2005 09:21 PM
Part of what I like about the scholarly names is the backstory, described or otherwise. Were both parents tickled with the idea, or did the mother finally cave in? Was the whole concept a bit tongue-in-cheek, or was the father deadpan serious? How did the boys handle it as they grew, and how soon did they know the significance of their names, and what did their teachers think, and did the other kids tease them? There's so much to think about, both for the author and for the readers. The whole idea makes me smile.
This from a person who kept hoping for twin girls so that I could name them Elizabeth Emma and Elinor Anne. The only problem would have been convincing their father.
Posted by: Rachel at September 17, 2005 09:44 PM
Oops -- there is a bat story here: http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/storytelling/archives/000742.htm but it's about someone else; there's only a brief mention of your husband's rabies-shots incident.
Posted by: Rachel at September 19, 2005 09:16 PM
and I just put that comment in the wrong place. ack.
Posted by: Rachel at September 19, 2005 09:16 PM