Names
Everyone knows the famous line: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But would it? Would you put your nose anywhere near a lush, pink flower called “stinkweed”? Plus, have you ever actually smelled a rose? Not just something that claims to be rose scented (some are, some aren’t), but actual rose petals? They aren’t really “sweet” by today’s standards. I’ve heard that in ye olden days, roses were considered a masculine scent, and I believe it.
Then, there’s this: https://www.antiqueroseemporium.com/g... Why bother to have so many names for roses if they’re all roses? Why even bother to distinguish “rose” from “daisy”? Why not just say “flower”?
Because an Alchymist looks nothing like a Dame de Coeur, and a daisy looks nothing like a dandelion. The words also have different emotional associations, especially when many consider dandelions a weed rather than a flower. (The Victorians had a fascinating viewpoint on the emotional language of flowers, and different kinds of roses said different things. http://thelanguageofflowers.com/)
The same principle applies to characters. Would Romeo and Juliet have been as memorable if they were named Bob and Sally? Or maybe John and Agnes (common names for that time).
Naming a character isn’t like naming a kid. Let’s face it, your name reflects more on your parents’ preferences and tastes than yours. If characters were named that way, there would be a whole lot more Heathers, Jacobs, Madisons, Tylers, Abigails, Joshuas, Ethans, Ashleys, and whatever other names that have been most popular over the years (especially Heathers).
Distinct characters deserve distinct names. Think about these: Ebenezer Scrooge, Katnis Everdeen, Legolas Greenleaf, Ciel Phantomhive, Scout, Sherlock Holmes, Cinderella. Each of these names evoke specific fictional people. Their names are tied to who they are in inescapable ways.
A sufficiently distinct character can put their own stamp on a common name, but in this case it needs to be paired with its surname to be identifiable. If I say “Elizabeth,” there are any number of characters you could think of off the top of your head. However, if I say “Elizabeth Bennet,” even people who have never read Pride and Prejudice can identify her as that famous book’s protagonist. The name Edward Cullen brings up images of sparkles and fangs, but Edward Elric recalls an entirely different person – short, blond, with a very different kind of sparkle.
That being said, a name like Gwafeldereferzshang might be distinctive, but it’s not pronounceable. I bet your eyes just skimmed past half those letters. I know I’ve put down books because the characters’ names were too awkward to read – and thus impossible to keep track of.
Ideally, a good name simply fits. A name is a character’s most basic identity. It becomes the character like nothing else. A reader will always have their own image of a character’s appearance, no matter how detailed the author’s description. The one thing that will be consistent is the name the character wears.
So, a character’s name should be as memorable as the person who wears it.
Then, there’s this: https://www.antiqueroseemporium.com/g... Why bother to have so many names for roses if they’re all roses? Why even bother to distinguish “rose” from “daisy”? Why not just say “flower”?
Because an Alchymist looks nothing like a Dame de Coeur, and a daisy looks nothing like a dandelion. The words also have different emotional associations, especially when many consider dandelions a weed rather than a flower. (The Victorians had a fascinating viewpoint on the emotional language of flowers, and different kinds of roses said different things. http://thelanguageofflowers.com/)
The same principle applies to characters. Would Romeo and Juliet have been as memorable if they were named Bob and Sally? Or maybe John and Agnes (common names for that time).
Naming a character isn’t like naming a kid. Let’s face it, your name reflects more on your parents’ preferences and tastes than yours. If characters were named that way, there would be a whole lot more Heathers, Jacobs, Madisons, Tylers, Abigails, Joshuas, Ethans, Ashleys, and whatever other names that have been most popular over the years (especially Heathers).
Distinct characters deserve distinct names. Think about these: Ebenezer Scrooge, Katnis Everdeen, Legolas Greenleaf, Ciel Phantomhive, Scout, Sherlock Holmes, Cinderella. Each of these names evoke specific fictional people. Their names are tied to who they are in inescapable ways.
A sufficiently distinct character can put their own stamp on a common name, but in this case it needs to be paired with its surname to be identifiable. If I say “Elizabeth,” there are any number of characters you could think of off the top of your head. However, if I say “Elizabeth Bennet,” even people who have never read Pride and Prejudice can identify her as that famous book’s protagonist. The name Edward Cullen brings up images of sparkles and fangs, but Edward Elric recalls an entirely different person – short, blond, with a very different kind of sparkle.
That being said, a name like Gwafeldereferzshang might be distinctive, but it’s not pronounceable. I bet your eyes just skimmed past half those letters. I know I’ve put down books because the characters’ names were too awkward to read – and thus impossible to keep track of.
Ideally, a good name simply fits. A name is a character’s most basic identity. It becomes the character like nothing else. A reader will always have their own image of a character’s appearance, no matter how detailed the author’s description. The one thing that will be consistent is the name the character wears.
So, a character’s name should be as memorable as the person who wears it.
No comments have been added yet.
