Forum: Author Hangout

You are the author, you get to make these complex decisions. Just be relatively consistent and keep the same name for the same character, and named objects, like yachts or animals like race horses or pets.

I typically use first names, though I vary between first and last names, positions and relationships to avoid repeating the same name every couple sentences/paragraphs.

The chapter in question features the main character being grilled by his bosses, so keeping things formal would help the scene. But once he convinces them he's innocent, they help defend him, so it if I'm going to use their first names, I should establish those names in the reader's memory now.

So you missed Richard Stark's "Parker" series.

Correct, never heard of it.

I'd be interested to know your editor's justification for thinking otherwise. Is this the professional editor you hired?

No, it was actually one I stole from Ernest. He claims it's from a general reading of literature. According to him, primary characters get referred to by first name, but secondary characters get referred to by their last names. When I think of that, I immediately think of Grisham or Ludlam. In this story, he focused (in chapter 5) on the main character's two bosses, who are grilling him for a perceived government fraud, so they're immediately seen as outsiders (though they play a role in his defense, and work to defend him). So far, I've changed a couple, initial references, but have kept the use of first names.

Strangely, where I expected him to flag something was when the character testifies before Congress. In those chapters, the legislators are always referred to by their proper names in dialogue, but when the characters speak among themselves, they switch to their first names.

Hell, even in business circles on Wall Street, I always referred to people by their first name, as the point was to establish a personal connect so they'll trust you, rather than an 'inferior' position of fear and distrust.

To put this into perspective, it's a past tense 3rd person omni perspective, focusing on the central character and those around him. I'm guessing it's a formal vs. informal relationship kind of thing, like the James Bond analogy. I'm also a sucker for sibling characters, so there's that dynamic in many of my stories as well.

Changing the topic slightly, in another story I have two characters with formal first names and pet names. As Ernest suggests, I use very short (two character) names. The lead character is "Al", and I never explain what his full name is. It's simply accepted as his name. However, everyone but he refers to his sister as "Betty", including the 3rd person omni narrator, but the lead character refers to her as "Be". I'm a little conflicted about consistency, but was hoping to develop the close ties between the siblings.

it's a past tense 3rd person omni perspective

I assumed as much :)

I can see the editor's point but I'd rather he looked at the situation from the point of view of what's right for your story, rather than what others have done.

AJ

but the lead character refers to her as "Be"

CW, usually when a name gets shortened to the phonetic sound of be it's spelled out in writing as Bea to reduce confusion.

To Be or not to Be, that is the question.

Or in this case, To Bea or not to Be.

To Be or not to Be, that is the question.

In my days in high school they were called forms and went from 1 to 6 after 1 to 6 in primary school, thus the 2nd year in high school was 2nd from, the classes were A & B for advanced, C for credit, D for standard level, with E for just below standard, F for those about to flunk that subject. It was amazing how we sometimes didn't have enough advanced for a B class, but never enough extras for additional Credit or Standard level classes. Anyway, the first English class of the 2nd year I was in the B class and we walked to see 2B or not 2B, if not 2B find another room on the blackboard - yeah pre-whiteboard days by a decade or so. I went up to the board, picked up the chalk and wrote 2C if you belong there, try room 217 which was two doors down and where 2 C English was. I turned around and found the teacher watching me with a raised eyebrow, I smiled and chose a seat. She said nothing, and left it up there.

My understanding is Bea is a shortening of Beatrice

Bea can be used as short for Beatrice, it's also a name in its own right, and is the usual way to write it when it's the phonetic abbreviation of another female name shortened to sound like Bea.

Strangely, where I expected him to flag something was when the character testifies before Congress. In those chapters, the legislators are always referred to by their proper names in dialogue, but when the characters speak among themselves, they switch to their first names.

I totally misunderstood your question. I thought you were talking about the narrative, not dialogue. That is: "'Blah blah,' Bond said" or "Bond lifted his gun."

In dialogue, it depends on the character speaking.

I totally misunderstood your question. I thought you were talking about the narrative, not dialogue. That is: "'Blah blah,' Bond said" or "Bond lifted his gun."

Mostly the names appear in attribution and action attributions, so there's a bit of a crossover. If you refer to someone with a given name in dialogue, you usually use the same name in the narrative to avoid confusion (except where I noted I broke my own rules).

If you refer to someone with a given name in dialogue, you usually use the same name in the narrative to avoid confusion

Not necessarily. I introduced a character in my novel as Rocco Natoli. In the narrative, he's referred to as Rocco. But in the dialogue, it depends on who is speaking. Often it's "Rock" which is his nickname. Sometimes it's Officer Natoli. Sometimes it's plain Sergeant.

That's why I asked for clarification. Our discussions, which usually start with narrative, immediately switch to dialogue.

That's why I asked for clarification. Our discussions, which usually start with narrative, immediately switch to dialogue.

I suspect that's because we run into problems in narrative, which tends to be drier, but we spend more time working with dialogue, which is often the driving force in many stories.

but we spend more time working with dialogue

But almost anything goes in dialogue. People argue that something is wrong, but if that's the way the character speaks, it's right. In the narrative, however, it might be wrong.

Can't we, on this site at least, stick with Latin for six: sexalogue

Yes, if it's a stroke story.

now we have to find the words for four, five ....... people

Absolute confusion.

Monolog is one person speaking. Dialog is two people speaking with each other. Is there a word for three or more people speaking other than conferring or conferencing? Is Trialog a word?

Maybe "conversation"? In writing, "dialogue" means spoken text, between any number of speakers, though few include more than a couple at a time (it becomes more complicated the more you add).

one name is easier to remember. Again, if we take the Bond example it's pretty easy - you'd want him aloof, secretive, distanced, so he's Bond, not James. You might have a character call him James to invoke some intimacy, but that would be obvious who James is in context.

The key here, is if you have a larger cast, and several people are speaking in tern, then you're forced to tack on acknowledgments every time someone says something (as opposed to a two person conversation, where it's assumed who's speaking for much of it). If you keep repeating the same name every other line, even more if someone references someone, or you record their action, you'll be constantly repeating the name over and over again.

Instead, I tend to alternate the name (either first or last, depending on the relationships) with their role, title and position (wife, sibling, coworker, etc.), just to keep from repeating myself.

Alas, that's one reason why most authors avoid larger casts than four to six people!

Typically I would think of having two people conversing and others interrupting, named, or agreeing "the others agreed, except..."

That's typically what I do, but as I've grown and developed my storytelling (and dialogue skills), I now include several people in the same dialogue (with active roles). My latest book has a testimony before congress, and discussions afterwards where the defense team discussed how things went, so there are several points of view, each with a different agenda. However, generally, if you have short comments, you can't rely on voice or agenda to identify speakers.

This might be the normal way of talking in your area but I would always use "conversation" here in place of "dialogue" because it is not one.

I understand your objection, but no one speaks of the 'art of writing conversation'. The industry term for writing conversations is dialogue, however many speakers you have. I suppose the reason is because, the most powerful and frequent uses occur between two main characters at the end of a play/movie or book. But it's used so frequently, trying to change tens of thousands of writers to your way of thinking is a largely wasted effort. (And I was referring to "writing dialogue", not "speaking to people".)

Whatever seems best for the character is what should be used.

I agree with this. In a current work in progress the main character is David Light Arrow Jones - Navajo mother and Aussie father. Most of the time I refer to him as David, but in some areas when he's living in Window Rock I refer to him as Light Arrow because he's in his Navajo persona at that time. Horses for courses, use what's best.

A good rule of thumb is to use the shortest option you can, unless there's a special reason for something else. Thus Bond would be shorter than James, Joe shorter than Birch, Percy instead of Percival Lawrence etc.

I'd either use "James Bond" or "Bond," the latter what the author did.

That usage may well be a reflection of Fleming's upbringing and the social mores of the time. If written nowadays, when teachers routinely call pupils by their first names and sometimes the pupils are allowed to reciprocate, I think it's likely Fleming would have chosen a different option.

AJ

as I recall the only two people who called him James were M and Moneypenny.

Didn't M call him 007?

I have character addressed the way the person speaking to them would normally address them.

That's obvious in 1st-person and not applicable in omniscient. It makes sense for the POV character of the scene in 3rd-limited. The important thing is not to confuse the reader.