I was just re-reading portions of Absolute Power by David Baldacci. In it, one of the important characters is the local medical examiner. As far as I could find, Baldacci never gave the medical examiner a name - using "the Medical Examiner said" or similar construction.
How important is it that important characters in your story have a name?
Really depends on the story, the writer and the plot.
A lot of books have doctors simply called 'Doc'. In USA military, there is "Gunny", police/fire chiefs often called "Chief"... etc etc...
Does the character need a name? Is it important to the plot? Would "red headed girl"/ "Blonde bimbo" suffice? etc etc.
How important is it that important characters in your story have a name?
It's not. "His mother" could be used throughout without ever knowing her name. Her role is more important than her name. In the case of the medical examiner, I guess his function/title is more important than his name.
I would say that important characters should either have a name or an identifier/nickname. In some cases the identifier might de facto replace the character's name.
For me, names are only important if the character is likely to be reintroduced and the earlier scenes will be important to new scenes.
For instance, a bus boy brings water to the main character's table. Normally, I would not give that character a name. If that bus boy plays an important role in future scenes, I name him in the future scenes. I may go back and refer to him by name in the earlier chapters or make reference to an earlier scene.
I don't post as I write, so changing earlier chapters has no impact on my readers.
For me, names are only important if the character is likely to be reintroduced and the earlier scenes will be important to new scenes.
... and the principle known as "Checkov's gun" reinforces this: naming a character implies he/she has an importance beyond that of the role currently being performed, and readers need to remember this bit for later.
Edited to add "light the blue touchpaper and retire (immediately)". I seem to recall mentioning Checkov can be inflammatory, unless also referring to Star Trek.
Chekhov's Gun does apply, but is often a bit overstated. It makes sense for a play in which there is limited time, limited prop budget, and viewing is in real time.
Writing a novel to fit Chekhov's Gun-style minimalism has issues. Part of verisimilitude comes from small 'extraneous' details; minor character names are part of that.
I pretty much agree about e.g. the busboy. Even if they were going to be important later, how likely is it that the character(s) learn their name? Ditto all sorts of minor characters: bus drivers, clerks, etc. REP has a point about name tags, and sometimes I'll have a character pick up on the name tag, but often I don't.
On the other hand, I just wrote a section in which there's a doctor. As far as I know right now, said doctor will never return to the story. But the odds are very low that my MC wouldn't have bothered to learn their name during the time they're in the story, so they have a name. Not giving them a name would stand out in a weird way.
Chekhov's Gun is also a way to subvert expectations. If 'the gun must be fired', then not firing it changes the reader's perception of the story, sometimes in a useful way.
Writing in order or out of order doesn't change that. If I only give a name to a character who will return, having a name picks up a second meaning: 'This character will be important later.'
REP 🚫
1/25/2025, 10:33:05 AM
For me, names are only important if the character is likely to be reintroduced and the earlier scenes will be important to new scenes.
For instance, a bus boy brings water to the main character's table. Normally, I would not give that character a name. If that bus boy plays an important role in future scenes, I name him in the future scenes. I may go back and refer to him by name in the earlier chapters or make reference to an earlier scene.
I can see where the MC could learn of the bus boy's identity only after and possibly because of, an important scene.
When I go out to eat, I look for the nametag of the people assisting me and try to use their name to address them. I often use this practice in my stories.
Rather than considering naming everyone, think in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary characters, then decide just how vital their names are.
For primary characters, the whole story revolves around the main protagonist and those helping him out, thus they're generally ALL named. For secondary characters, they aren't central to plot, though they still have major roles in the story, so they'll appear in a several chapters, then not pop up again until several chapters later.
Tertiary characters however, often have NO real role in the story, often only a couple of lines of dialogue, so even IF they have a name, no one is EVER going to remember it.
Generally, that's a better way of conceiving of characters, as then, you'll generally know just how vital a character is BEFORE you start writing.
That said, usually, after the full story is written, i'll double back, creating a list of ALL the characters for a comprehensive character list, though for most stories, most writing sources emphasize that most books SHOULDN'T include character lists, as readers should be able to keep track of the characters, and if they can't, the story is already too complex for most readers.
Then again, for many of my Sci-Fi epics, I'd go so far as creating Astromological names, listing each solar system, the different planets found there and the various major cities on those worlds. But that's overkill for most stories.
most writing sources emphasize that most books SHOULDN'T include character lists, as readers should be able to keep track of the characters, and if they can't, the story is already too complex for most readers.
That's an important consideration if you are trying to get published by one of the big commercial publishers or you are self publishing as a primary source of income.
However, in my opinion, if you are self-publishing as a side line, or posting stories on a site like SOL, it's okay to write stories for a niche audience. Making the story readable for the widest possible audience should not take priority over telling the story you want to tell.
And a lot of that is dependent on the latest writing trends (i.e. simplistic sentences, which have thrice decimated the mainstream publishers sales, as the most avid readers aren't interested in 'trends', if the latest publications aren't worth reading, they're more than happy to go back and the classics. As they want a decent story, not the latest buzzwords.
But you're right, on SOL, there are various niches or a wide variety of disparate interests. Not everyone wants detailed, complex tales, as many prefer simple escapism (porn, erotica or straightforward action stories), so there's room for everyone at the same table.
Again, I first got started writing to try to inspire other authors to 'up their game' by presenting a challenge by introducing more plot-centric stories. And generally, each time I do, more involved stories seem to start cropping up. Did I inspire each of them? Who knows, yet I'm not seeking attention for being 'right', as I'm more focused on the end result: more options for everyone, so we all have more to chose from.
As in the old days with ASSTR, the porn brings the readers in, yet it's the serious stories which keep them on the site. Again, one isn't any better than the other, it's the sheer variety that's most vital, just as having steady minority range of authors, so they can introduce their own writing styles, addressing their specific concerns, hopefully influencing others to also address those same concerns.
This concept has lost a lot of ground over the years, yet it's no less true now than it originally was during the 1960s: a rising tide lifts all boats, regardless of size, as more stories infers more readers, eager to read a variety of different material.
Those of us who are on the 'pantser' side of writing - for me, as much from sheer scope of ambition as anything else - there can be issues. Sometimes I'll toss in a tertiary character who has no planned future role in the story. Six months later, I'll realize that character fits perfectly with something I want to write, and a chance encounter (that was 'chance' for me as an author, not merely 'by definition') turns into a major character.
I still have a number of nameless tertiary (quaternary?) characters, of course. Some of them might turn up, but if so, they'll get referenced by description. So many people to bump into in the course of a story!
Which brings us to the topic of character lists. I think of character lists as an end-of-book thing, because they inevitably contain spoilers, some major. But, for anything on the scope of millions of words (or even many hundreds of thousands), character lists may be necessary. I can remember many characters in, say, the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, but all of them? Yet it's not really too complex for most readers - Tolkein is merely detailed, and that's a plus for his writing in terms of verisimilitude.
And, of course, that goes at least double for 'The Silmarillion'. I bogged down horribly and stopped on my first read, because it was on the edge of too complex in terms of the number and scope of named characters.
Six months later, picking it up afresh, I breezed right through it. The characters had stuck more than enough, and I could read for story, not get lost in the details.
But 'The Silmarillion' was hardly written as a cohesive work or originally intended to be read as one, so that's entirely forgivable, at least for me.
I've been aiming to add end-of-book character lists for years now. Still hasn't happened, and people seem to be managing, but it definitely feels like something that would be useful, especially since I do sometimes find that a very minor character from books back is suddenly front and center for some reason. Generally, the characters can reintroduce them, but that works sometimes and fails others.
Assigning new tasks to a tertiary character, while somewhat unusual, is perfectly legitimate. After so many volumes, it's better using an existing character rather than inventing even more.
And yes, with a large number of characters, then a character list is often essential. The advice that readers should remember ALL the characters presumes an extremely short list of characters. Again, here, many authors preach limiting a total cast of only five characters total, as it's part of the 'simplified' writing movement, which more advanced writers, who are comfortable with complex stories, need to continually push back against.
Simple stories are fine, as many readers just can't be bothered with more, and as long as they continue reading, they're still reading, yet they're simply uninterested in complex situations or complex writing—or they simply haven't enough time in their lives for reading, a not uncommon issue for readers.
Luckily, nowadays, there are stories for everyone, whatever your particular bend. I started writing because I could no longer find the types of stories I most enjoy, the most complex stories from before the 1960s, when the first of many 'simplified' writing movements occurred. So, unable to find anything to read, I instead started to write my own, and I've been writing ever since—even when I quit posting/publishing them.
But by separating characters into those three classes, it makes them easier to track, at least for me. You want readers to remember the primary characters, so you'll often have to remind them of who the secondary characters are. The tertiary characters, even if they temporarily take on a more active role, eventually fall back into the same territory role. They had their moment to shine, yet they're still tertiary characters. And I've always been one who thrives on complexity!
A related question concerns which name is used in the narrative when a character is known by multiple names. Not the dialogue, the narrative. The dialogue is how the character speaking refers to him.
But let's say a character is introduced to the reader as Matthew in the narrative but people call him Matt. When he's speaking, is the dialogue tag "Matthew said" or "Matt said"? Or in the narrative, is it "Matthew sneezed" or "Matt sneezed"?
Does the POV matter? 1st-person narrator vs an omniscient narrator, or 3rd-limited POV character..
I typically use the characters full name, for formal settings, and a pet name for slightly more intimate settings. However, occasionally, a protagonist may have a couple of pet names, say for a GF and sister, or slightly different ones for each girlfriend (that could get annoying quickly), but as long as it's within reason.
I also typically give my characters a first name and then a two or three character version of their first name (ex: "Ty" for "Tyler", "Al" for "Albert" or "Sugarbear Snookums" for his 'not-quite adult yet gf'). ;)
In short, I like to play around the names, yet I keep coming back to the same ones. I also like to have different characters with the same name, just because it happens so much in RL. I don't overdue it, so I may have one minor character with the same first name, but that's as far as I'll go with that.
As I keep telling people when I first meet them, "I'm the only non-Italian 'Vincent' I've ever met!" It generally gets a chuckle, which is the whole point, as it's intended to be disarming.
Sorry, answering your question, I generally use the same attribution name as the name they'd use in that context, so it would be "Matthew said" in more formal settings and "Matt said" in more relaxed, friendly settings.
Again, it's all about the context, as we're essentially slightly different people around certain people, so that's the attitude I like to convey.
I'm struggling greatly with this right now, so it's very much on my radar. One of my characters has two names, one of which may - it's unclear as of where the story is publishing-wise now, and will remain unclear - be an affectation (one is a shortening of the other - they are clearly related, not two completely different names). Which should be preferred is unclear. That's especially true since the character themself is unclear about which is the preferred name, with the occasional passive and not entirely helpful comment about which is better and why - even when asked.
I'm generally leaning into the shorter version because, as the character will say in material yet to be published, the other name is a lot of name. But it clearly matters to them, and might matter far more than they're willing to own up to at any given point.
That's maybe a different question, but it's an interesting problem to have created for myself. One I'm glad I have, though. Much better for this character than simply picking a simple name and sticking with it.
In your case, it depends on the character. If your character himself says something like 'Call me Matt', or seems to be fine with being 'Matt', the tags become Matt, I think. Maybe toss in a side observation 'Apparently, Matt was his common nickname' or the like, if it's first-person, so the narrator makes the name choice explicit. If the character says 'It's Matthew', but people keep calling him Matt, tags and non-dialogue would be 'Matthew'.
In other words: what does the character want to be called, and what will they be called going forward? That fits what the narrator should say most of the time.
That works if the narrator knows. In my case, the narrator is (openly, in side comments about the situation) unsure which to go with, so sometimes bounces back and forth (partly in an attempt to not pigeonhole the character as either name). But, in my case, the narrator themself makes the issue more explicit. That makes it plot, which is much more fun.
And I forgot one, which Vincent Berg reminded me of when I looked at a later comment before hitting post. Two of my major characters are 'Angie' and 'Jasmine'. Both of them are referred to fairly often by those close to them as 'Ang' (cutting the word off, not changing the G sound) and 'Jas' (Jazz, again just cutting the word off). They're not the only two, but they're front-and-center in the great majority of chapters; 'Jess/Jessica' (the next most common) is much less so. Those pingpong in non-dialog because it's so common for them to be referred to either way. On the other hand, I have a 'Mel' who is actually a 'Melanie', and 'Melanie' never appears unless it's a specific formal setting or someone is confused as to who 'Mel' might be.
In every case, it's mostly a sign of relationships. People who are close to Angie, Jasmine, or Jessica would feel free to use the short name and often would, but only people who are close to them would do that. Mel, on the other hand, would prefer to always be Mel, except perhaps in formal situations.
what does the character want to be called
See, I think it's what the POV character wants to call the character. A 3rd-person omniscient narrator would use a more formal name than a 1st-person narrator. So if the omni narrator introduces the character to the reader as Matthew, it would be Matthew in the narrative — Matthew said, Matthew walked up to the door.
But a first person narrator has a voice that is more informal. So the 1st-person narrator might switch between Matthew and Matt depending on how he's feeling at that moment.
Now in 3rd-limited multiple, I believe it's dictated by the POV character for that scene. So, for example, in my story "Wicked Mother," when it's in Peter's POV she's Miss Huxley, but when she's in a scene where she's the POV character or another adult character, it's Sandra.
But I'm never sure. That's why I brought it up.
That works, too. My POV character is going to call people by their preferred address (with rare exceptions), so I have a blind spot there. I haven't written any sizable works with 3rd (or anything else). I have one on the drawing board but it's been there for four years. It won't do much for a while yet.
To me, it's not 'a more formal name,' I think. If the 3rd is omni, he knows if the guy is 'Matthew' or 'Matt' to himself. If the guy thinks of himself as 'Matt', the narrator would use 'Matt', and vice versa, at least for me.
For multiple POVs, yes, the POV determines the name, I agree. That makes perfect sense.
Rather than considering naming everyone, think in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary characters, then decide just how vital their names are.
For primary characters, the whole story revolves around the main protagonist and those helping him out, thus they're generally ALL named. For secondary characters, they aren't central to plot, though they still have major roles in the story, so they'll appear in a several chapters, then not pop up again until several chapters later.
Tertiary characters however, often have NO real role in the story, often only a couple of lines of dialogue, so even IF they have a name, no one is EVER going to remember it.
Generally, that's a better way of conceiving of characters, as then, you'll generally know just how vital a character is BEFORE you start writing
Reasonable generalization.
Sometimes there is a reason(s) to have a name for a "one-time" character, such as a waitress, or a hotel clerk. So that the MC may "read the name tag" or whatever, then use the name of the "insignificant" person. This dynamic is true if the character is a millionaire, a princess, or a "starving college student" because some people treat others (or at least those "deserving" aka doing a good job) well, or with contempt.
I have heard it (more often from women) that they pay attention to how a person treats others, in particular those with "no power" such as a waitress. "If they are inconsiderate to a store clerk, that is how they are likely to treat, or at least feel about a woman behind closed doors (or in public once he has power over her).
There are other storytelling reasons to do this.
I have a story set during WWII, starting in 1939 before the USA joins the war. The MC joins the US Army, and travels to his first duty station by train. He comes from a rural ranch in Utah, and has never traveled by train before. Most of the people he encounters are the "ticket clerk" or the "well-fed man with a walrus mustache"...
When he boards the train, the Porter introduces himself as "George" from c.1880's until the 1950's "All" railroad Porters were called "George"... while the MC has never been a passenger on a train before, he has seen enough movies to be aware of the Trope. The MC is a "gentile" (a non-Mormon aka LDS member) in Utah; he has also worked with Black men who are ranch hands such as himself. So, he makes an effort to learn the Porter's actual name.
My story is patriotic, WWII pitted the USA and other Allies against the Axis powers. Very much a struggle of Good vs. Evil. Nonetheless, the USA had (and has) significant flaws. I try to show not tell some of these. In South Carolina and elsewhere in "Dixie" he encounters, "Southern Hospitality" but also discrimination, not just against Blacks, but against Catholics, and "Yankees" too.
I too maintain a "bible" of the names, and other details of All the characters, even if those names might not be used (or be edited out) of a story. In part so that "every hotel clerk" is not "Bob" or some other repetition of a name, and a reader might begin to think there is a "purpose" to every cab driver being Rupert. To be clear I don't give every "NPC" a name, but if I do, I almost always have it listed in my "bible" of the story.