I participated in a thread recently that questioned whether or not characters should have names (and if they did have names, should they have last names, too). If you recognize the man in the picture, chances are, you've already recited his name along with the rest of his declaration. One cannot think of his name without thinking about his entire purpose. His character is tied to his name. His name is memorable because of his character. This was essentially the argument given in the thread. Another was which types of works can you get away with not giving a character names-- short stories. Ok, I can agree with this because, in my short story Pigeons, my POV character and her grandmother do not have names. Similarly, my POV character for another story (soon to be published) started off without a name... but the longer the story became, the more I realized that someone would have to say her name sooner or later. My thoughts shifted once again when I finished reading Wild Spaces, a novella by S.L. Coney. When is it acceptable to give a character a name? What are the prose and cons? Like a lot of things I daydream about, I fell down the rabbit hole of research. Names of characters in stories are like the names of acquaintances in real life – the better we get to know them, the more important it is we know their names. -- Michael Haughe Every detail is important, says TV Tropes. Even names. Like Inigo Montoya, names stick with you far longer than plots (I watched The Princess Bride in elementary school and remember next to nothing about it except for Inigo). Another would be Bartleby the Scrivener, the subject of Herman Melville's short story of the same name. When you think of his name, you automatically think of what he says: "I'd rather not..." (ironically, though Bartleby is the subject of the story, the POV character who takes issue with him is unnamed). Michael Haughe, an author, lecturer, writing and consultant, likens characters to acquaintances. If we want to get to know a person, we ask for their names. If we want a connection to someone, a name is a good way to start. In concurrence, "only people that are relevant to the plot or a sidequest will be blessed with names," (Nominal Importance, TV Tropes). Yet, there are a few acceptations.... Leaving a character unnamed is also a way to show that he or she is experiencing a personal crisis of identity. Instead of the person’s name, we focus on how he or she is affected by a drastically different world, a different culture, a new job or new relationship. -- Writers Relief
Spoilers Ahead! Wild Spaces is about a boy ("the boy") and his dog Teach (the only active character with a name). His parents are simply known as "his mother" and "his father." The story begins after the boy's grandfather (known as just that) arrives and begins living with them. Though the boy, Teach, and the boy's grandfather are very important characters to the plot, they are (with the exception of Teach) nameless. In fact, when the boy's father tries to call the grandfather by his surname, the grandfather vehemently rebels against the name ("That's not my name!"). This leads into the theme of control. The mother leaves the grandfather because she didn't want to be controlled by him. The grandfather rejects his human name because he doesn't want to be controlled by it. The boy fears losing control of himself and letting the nameless thing inside him take over. It's my assumption that this is why they don't have name. Teach, the dog, knows who and what he is. In fact, Teach is very special and knows a lot more than the boy what kind of monsters are out there. The novella is 120 pages long and a 2 hour listen on your audio apps. Similar to Wild Spaces is The Bear by Andrew Krivak. I listened to this audiobook during the height of COVID while required to work from home. It was very beautiful and deeply emotional (a book that had me calling my father and sobbing about how much I missed him). In it, none of the characters have names. It is simply "the girl" and "her father." Even the setting is nameless and the events prior leave nothing telling of the setting. The story follows the girl as she learns from her father about how to survive in the wild. The two share a cabin and only have each other. When the girl suddenly finds herself without her father, she uses everything he's taught her to live her life all alone. The animals know her; though her father taught her how to hunt, he also taught her how to respect nature and in turn, nature will respect her. The animals watch over her and she begins to think of them as her father watching over her. When she dies, the animals welcomes her back into nature. It didn't occur to me during the book that they had no names, but now, I wonder why that is. I wonder if the emotional journey would have been compromises had names been given to everything. Would the allegory have less of an impact if it was all spelled out for the reader? The Bear is also a short listen at 4 hours. Do you always name your characters? Have you read the stories mentioned above?
0 Comments
On a forum I love, I mentioned the "Gas Powered Stick" villain concept as something I learned from Bravest Warrior. Took me until recently to connect the dots that it was a parody of the "Artifact of Doom" trope: The Artifact of Doom is somewhat an unusual villain in that it is a (seemingly) inanimate object. Nevertheless, it's pure evil; and is a threat of corrupting all to The Dark Side. It may also cause Great Insanity, not to mention death, or worse. The Ring from the Lord of the Ring series immediately came to mind even before reading the article on it. One could argue the Force became Anakin's "Artifact." Even W. W. Jacobs' "The Monkey's Paw" deals with decent into insanity all from one object. In reflecting on my past works (and WIPS), I've noticed that my characters create their own hells without the help of an object/artifact. Their slips of sanity or lapse into the dark side are self inflicted and cannot be blamed on anyone or thing other than themselves. It originated to explain away why a person of good standing would suddenly rebel against the norm ("D&D/Rock Music/Rap/Grand Theft Auto are turning kids these days into punks!"). As Oscar Wilde once said, "We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell" ('The Duchess of Padua', 1891). This, I feel, creates a deeper connection and a conflict not so easily solved after the object is thrown away away. What are your thoughts on the Artifact of Doom (or, as I will hilariously refer to as "Gas Powered Stick" until the day I am sued) trope? *** Does your story feature a "Gas Powered Stick"? Check out EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ARTIFACTS OF DOOM by Britton Perelman. |
AuthorWriter, Reader, Author, Dabbler, Journeyer, List Maker Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|